Desipio Message Board

General Category => Desipio Lounge => Topic started by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 01:53:07 PM

Title: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 01:53:07 PM
Picking up where we left off...

(http://airamerica.com/imagecache/uploads/scott_brown_naked_display.jpg)

SUCK IT, LIBS!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Kermit IV on January 20, 2010, 01:56:50 PM
I was wondering why I couldn't reply to Fork in the last one.  I wanted to point out that he completely missed the point.  I guess I'll just drop it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 20, 2010, 02:00:44 PM
Quote from: Kermit IV on January 20, 2010, 01:56:50 PM
I was wondering why I couldn't reply to Fork in the last one.  I wanted to point out that he completely missed the point.  I guess I'll just drop it.

I didn't, but I don't feel like arguing about it any more.

Thrill, you got nude-dudeFACED (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg202796#msg202796)...

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 20, 2010, 02:04:04 PM
2 (maybe 3, I don't remember what happened with the primary thread) politics threads have been locked now... Hmm... Wonder why?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 02:04:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 02:00:44 PM
Thrill, you got nude-dudeFACED (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg202796#msg202796)...

Nah... I just grabbed the image link from your post because it seemed like the proper way to end that thread (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg202806#msg202806).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Kermit IV on January 20, 2010, 02:04:56 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2010, 02:00:44 PM
Quote from: Kermit IV on January 20, 2010, 01:56:50 PM
I was wondering why I couldn't reply to Fork in the last one.  I wanted to point out that he completely missed the point.  I guess I'll just drop it.

I didn't, but I don't feel like arguing about it any more.

Thrill, you got nude-dudeFACED (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg202796#msg202796)...



You completely did, and now you're missing the fact that you missed the point.  How sad.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 20, 2010, 02:04:04 PM
2 (maybe 3, I don't remember what happened with the primary thread) politics threads have been locked now... Hmm... Wonder why?

Because if I'd waited the full 8 years to end the Caliphate, this place might have imploded.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 20, 2010, 02:07:16 PM
So here is the important question: whose pubes were I staring at quickly looking away from?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 20, 2010, 02:07:16 PM
So here is the important question: whose pubes was I staring at quickly looking away from?

The Junior Senator-elect from the great state Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on January 20, 2010, 02:15:06 PM
MikeC poke-sticked and got that thread locked.

Oh, how...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 20, 2010, 02:20:26 PM

At least if Brown ever runs for higher office, he has a running mate ready to go...

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_33w7ZrQXPBI/SQM7TZVr7PI/AAAAAAAAA6U/okMJC5MwHFA/s400/hasselhoff.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenFoe on January 20, 2010, 02:25:52 PM
This thread is on the fast track to become the new Worst Thread in the History of the Internet.

I hope you're proud of yourselves.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 20, 2010, 02:30:13 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 20, 2010, 02:25:52 PM
the new Worst Thread in the History of the Internet.

Have you forgotten about a little site called NSBB?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 02:30:34 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 20, 2010, 02:25:52 PM
This thread is on the fast track to become the new Worst Thread in the History of the Internet.

I hope you're proud of yourselves.

Yeah... This whole "a new thread will clear things up for a bit" idea was ill-conceived from the get-go.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même Desipio.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 20, 2010, 02:33:50 PM
(http://i47.tinypic.com/1zgq9vb.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on January 20, 2010, 02:38:49 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 20, 2010, 02:25:52 PM
This thread is on the fast track to become the new Worst Thread in the History of the Internet.

I hope you're proud of yourselves.

(http://www.threeriversonline.com/1202666100024xy5.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 02:44:35 PM
Can't we at least wait till the primaries?  Even I can't muster the energy...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 20, 2010, 02:46:28 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 20, 2010, 02:25:52 PM
This thread is on the fast track to become the new Worst Thread in the History of the Internet.

I hope you're proud of yourselves.

au contraire (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=88.0), mon frere[/i]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 20, 2010, 02:57:12 PM
In order to ensure that this indeed is the worst thread ever, I would like to enter the mix.

I am prepared to debate you on the following topics:

1) Canada rocks, bitches

2) Chicago is a hellhole that isn't good enough to sniff Toronto's taint

3) The existence of my Canadian special lady friend

4) Why you should stop making fun of me, not that it upsets me when you do anyways, so shut up already (and no, I'm not crying, I just yawned because I'm so bored with you)

Anybody game?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on January 20, 2010, 03:02:01 PM
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7022.0 (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7022.0)

Any thread purporting itself to be the worst requires this link.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 20, 2010, 03:03:57 PM
Is this where we go to talk about soccer?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 20, 2010, 03:04:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 20, 2010, 02:57:12 PM
In order to ensure that this indeed is the worst thread ever, I would like to enter the mix.

I am prepared to debate you on the following topics:

1) Canada rocks, bitches

2) Chicago is a hellhole that isn't good enough to sniff Toronto's taint

3) The existence of my Canadian special lady friend

4) Why you should stop making fun of me, not that it upsets me when you do anyways, so shut up already (and no, I'm not crying, I just yawned because I'm so bored with you)

Anybody game?

lol
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 03:06:02 PM
I suddenly find myself wishing for something political to derail this thread from its current awful course.

Talk about humiliating.

So... How about all those tuxedo- and diamond-clad "Hollywood" liberals asking IAN to cough up money for those stupid Haitians when HIS President already sent those lazy fucks 100 MILLION DOLLARS of HIS tax money? The nerve of some people!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 03:07:50 PM
I thought this would come up sooner or later in such a thread. 

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 20, 2010, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?
I aged 70 years in a single night.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 20, 2010, 03:27:35 PM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 03:13:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?
I aged 70 years in a single night.
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 20, 2010, 03:29:09 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?

Eaten his ice cream?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 20, 2010, 03:37:50 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?

I read your post
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 20, 2010, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?
I brought you that danish.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?

I kissed a girl and I liked it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 20, 2010, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?

I kissed a girl and I liked it?

You referring to the young buck in the pictures from last Friday?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 03:54:03 PM
Quote from: BH on January 20, 2010, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?

I kissed a girl and I liked it?

You referring to the young buck in the pictures from last Friday?

Fuck no.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 03:59:02 PM
DPD...back on track (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/scott-brown-daughter-biki_n_430291.html).

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-01-20-scottbrown1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 04:00:28 PM
So, how about those Republicans, eh?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 20, 2010, 04:21:49 PM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?
I brought you that danish.

And I'll never forget it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 05:29:55 PM
Ok, to restore peace, I offer this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/cindy-mccain-noh8-photo-m_n_430004.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 20, 2010, 05:45:25 PM
Leave Scotty alone.  Who among us can say that we never posed nude in Cosmopolitan?  Or with our unmanicured weiners sticking out at Shitty Okeas?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 20, 2010, 06:02:13 PM
This (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32879) and this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/do_republicans_freak_out_like.html).

QuoteThe Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?

QuoteAs a long-time Republican -- because that's the best party from which to vote against Democrats from -- I am much more excited by the Democrats reaction to the Brown victory than the Brown victory itself.

QuoteI'm loving the Democrats right now. If they torpedo healthcare because of Scott Brown (and, to be fair, punditry and polling data), then that will kill two birds with one stone. It'll help demotivate the base, which ends with a political sea change in November, and cripples healthcare reform.

Policy aside, as a taxolib it's infuriating to see the Democrats yet again shit their pants. If health care reform was a good idea with 60 senators, it's still a good idea with 59 senators, you cowardly buttwipes. This is only a disaster if you make it one. As the decadent pinko Village Voice put it today in a headline:

QuoteScott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 20, 2010, 06:16:58 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 20, 2010, 06:02:13 PM
This (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32879) and this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/do_republicans_freak_out_like.html).

QuoteThe Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?

QuoteAs a long-time Republican -- because that's the best party from which to vote against Democrats from -- I am much more excited by the Democrats reaction to the Brown victory than the Brown victory itself.

QuoteI'm loving the Democrats right now. If they torpedo healthcare because of Scott Brown (and, to be fair, punditry and polling data), then that will kill two birds with one stone. It'll help demotivate the base, which ends with a political sea change in November, and cripples healthcare reform.

Policy aside, as a taxolib it's infuriating to see the Democrats yet again shit their pants. If health care reform was a good idea with 60 senators, it's still a good idea with 59 senators, you cowardly buttwipes. This is only a disaster if you make it one. As the decadent pinko Village Voice put it today in a headline:

QuoteScott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

It's impossible to support these pussies.

Pirate Party in 2012!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 20, 2010, 06:36:44 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 20, 2010, 05:45:25 PM
Who among us can say that we never posed nude in Cosmopolitan?

(http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/236/060214014547173burtreyn.jpg)

I take my hat off for one thing, one thing only.

(More pleasing, albeit NSFW, angle on Burt's pic here (http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/5606/august1972centerfold709.jpg).)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 20, 2010, 06:38:25 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 20, 2010, 06:02:13 PM
This (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=32879) and this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/do_republicans_freak_out_like.html).

QuoteThe Democrats have a simple message on health care that has still not really gotten through: If our bill passes, you never have to worry about getting, or losing, health insurance for the rest of your life. How is it that so few people have heard that message?

QuoteAs a long-time Republican -- because that's the best party from which to vote against Democrats from -- I am much more excited by the Democrats reaction to the Brown victory than the Brown victory itself.

QuoteI'm loving the Democrats right now. If they torpedo healthcare because of Scott Brown (and, to be fair, punditry and polling data), then that will kill two birds with one stone. It'll help demotivate the base, which ends with a political sea change in November, and cripples healthcare reform.

Policy aside, as a taxolib it's infuriating to see the Democrats yet again shit their pants. If health care reform was a good idea with 60 senators, it's still a good idea with 59 senators, you cowardly buttwipes. This is only a disaster if you make it one. As the decadent pinko Village Voice put it today in a headline:

QuoteScott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

I think Obama should try to court Brown.  The early tea leaves are that he is to the left of Snowe and to the right of Nelson.  You can win that.  Obama, call Brown over for dinner, STAT!

RIGHT THAT WRONG!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CubFaninHydePark on January 20, 2010, 08:58:00 PM
Quote from: Jon on January 20, 2010, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 20, 2010, 03:12:40 PM
In the past year, I've driven Jim Oberweis out of politics.

What have the rest of you done lately?
I brought you that danish.

Hey Homer, I'll trade you this tasty doorstop for your danish.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 20, 2010, 11:00:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 20, 2010, 03:07:50 PM
I thought this would come up sooner or later in such a thread. 

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773

I'm going to be an old senile man someday. And at such time as I've completely lost my shit, I bet you I'll still be able to recite the following line by line and lol...

QuoteAs I once told the people at the Chud.com forums when I singlehandedly beat their entire politics forum in a debate (by sophistry, natch), I am operating at a very high level. The best trolls are usually better for having trolled.

It's absolutely perfect in its... its... Christ, I don't know.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on January 21, 2010, 03:13:35 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 03:59:02 PM
DPD...back on track (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/scott-brown-daughter-biki_n_430291.html).

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-01-20-scottbrown1.jpg)

(http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/6587/tonkweekend.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 06:21:21 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 03:59:02 PM
DPD...back on track (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/scott-brown-daughter-biki_n_430291.html).

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-01-20-scottbrown1.jpg)

I want to fuck his daughters.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 08:05:41 AM
Quote from: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 06:21:21 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 20, 2010, 03:59:02 PM
DPD...back on track (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/scott-brown-daughter-biki_n_430291.html).

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-01-20-scottbrown1.jpg)

I want to fuck his daughters.

I have no idea who these two lasses are, but I wouldn't mind railing their hind quarters.  Daddy can watch, I don't give a fuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 21, 2010, 09:34:05 AM
QuoteFine, the GOP has proposed ideas...ideas that will immensely benefit their friends in high places.

Gil had a few quotes including the one above that needs addressing. First its kinda hard to get the Republicans ideas into the mix on health care reform when Nancy Pelosi and her minions do it behind closed doors with zero input from Republicans. I think the last count was the Republicans had 3 or so different drafts of bills for ideas on addressing health care.

QuoteThe three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page "Patients Choice Act of 2009."

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the "Health Care Freedom Plan," a 41-page proposal.
                                   
And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the "Empowering Patients First Act," a 130-page plan.

Don't worry i know you have been told over and over by Obama and the Democrats that the Republicans have not introduced any alternatives but you can chalk that up to your politicians not telling you the truth again. It's also not a couple thousand pages, an actual functioning retard like Pelosi could read it over her lunch hour. The Democrats idea of health care reform is to write a bill so long and so confusing that people will just not even bother to read whats in it and pass it. Its the best way to hide a bunch of shit you don't want people to know about it. I say good job to the Democrats in their attempt to be as sneaky and dis-honest as they can be when it comes to health care.

Now onto the above quote.....have you seen whats been going on over the last year? Special Interest groups that help the administration are making out like fat cats. Which is odd because Obama was supposed to be all against special interest groups. You know that hope and change bullshit he promised right? That promise died with the C-Span promise, and GITMO, and the Gays, .....well fuck you get the picture.

The unions werent going to get on board with Health-Care reform unless they were excluded from the taxes on it. They seemed to have gotten their wish and are suddenly on the Obama side. Thanks Obama and the Unions, if health care is passed we get shafted with the taxes while the Unions get a free ride for god knows how long into the future.

And as Democrats try and craft a bill that can pass they have shifted into massively supporting the insurance and health care industry. Hence why Coakley had big time lobbyists from the health care industry at her fund raising event. When the government opens up the coffers to what could be trillions of dollars for the industry those companies are going to line up for their cut of the loot. Whether they need the money or not. The money will be used much like the stimulus dollars to keep the status quo. It won't go to the people who need it. So again its a common liberal belief that Republicans just want the insurance companies to get rich, but who is lining up to suck off the government teet and which party are they courting? Its not the Republicans.

If your looking for the moment the Coakley ship veered off the tracks. It started with the a number of things beyond her control. The Christmas Eve vote was a big mistake, it just looked like a blatant attempt to vote on anything while people were most distracted. The C-Span promise exposed the administration as a bunch of scum bag liars. Obama is big on cap and trade and the exposure of Climate Research is now considered a fraud at best. The Democrats got their wagon hitched to climate stuff so whether its fake or true they don't care. The rest of the population is like whoaaa hold on a second. Scott Brown is another vote to shut down Cap and Trade or anything else related to climate change policy.

To finish up the Republicans are not all fuck the climate lets dump radioactive waste on kiddie play grounds and infect the water supply people. They are just a little more rational in the way they see things need to be done. We can limit the damage on the enviroment without damaging our economy. And if it damages our economy too much its a no go. Because if the enviromentalists had their way we would be dragged back to the 14th century and reduced to a 3rd world country. But my guess they would still be pissed about people who used fire to cook their food and cow farts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 21, 2010, 09:41:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 21, 2010, 09:34:05 AMBut my guess they would still be pissed about people who used fire to cook their food and cow farts.

What do you currently use to cook your cow farts?

And zero input from Republicans, eh? I guess Enzi, Snowe, and Grassley were bound and gagged during those Gang of Six meetings that took place all summer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 09:44:04 AM
When I was 10 or so, I used to pick the books I'd want to read based on number of pages.  I'm glad we can discuss bills in the same way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 21, 2010, 10:07:17 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 21, 2010, 09:34:05 AM
when Nancy Pelosi and her minions do it behind closed doors

That's where I'd prefer Nancy Pelosi and her minions do it.  No one wants to see that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 21, 2010, 10:08:31 AM
Why are we no longer talking about those Acorn videos?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 21, 2010, 10:09:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2010, 10:07:17 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 21, 2010, 09:34:05 AM
when Nancy Pelosi and her minions do it behind closed doors

That's where I'd prefer Nancy Pelosi and her minions do it.  No one wants to see that.

They've got these matching outfits now. It's cute. They should come out of there once in awhile and show the rest of you guys.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 21, 2010, 10:16:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 09:44:04 AM
When I was 10 or so, I used to pick the books I'd want to read based on number of pages.  I'm glad we can discuss bills in the same way.

The more pages, the higher you sit?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenFoe on January 21, 2010, 10:17:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2010, 10:16:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 09:44:04 AM
When I was 10 or so, I used to pick the books I'd want to read based on number of pages.  I'm glad we can discuss bills in the same way.

The more pages, the higher you sit?

Damnit.
I laughed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 21, 2010, 10:19:18 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 21, 2010, 10:17:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 21, 2010, 10:16:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 09:44:04 AM
When I was 10 or so, I used to pick the books I'd want to read based on number of pages.  I'm glad we can discuss bills in the same way.

The more pages, the higher you sit?

Damnit.
I laughed.

Aiding and abetting, eh?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 21, 2010, 10:41:37 AM
That goddamn activist liberal Supreme Court is at it again. Hooray for more corporate influence in politics!

QuoteIn a significant reversal of court precedent, the Supreme Court today invalidated decades-old federal legislation restricting corporate spending in political campaigns.

In a 5-4 decision, the court called into question the constitutionality of all federal and state regulation of independent corporate political advocacy, including a federal law dating back to 1947 and the laws of dozens of states.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 21, 2010, 11:01:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 09:44:04 AM
When I was 10 or so, I used to pick the books I'd want to read based on number of pages.  I'm glad we can discuss bills in the same way.

The longer a bill is, the more difficult it is to understand.

The more difficult it is to understand, the fewer informed people there are forming opinions on the issue.

Fewer informed people = good for discourse?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 21, 2010, 10:41:37 AM
That goddamn activist liberal Supreme Court is at it again. Hooray for more corporate influence in politics!

QuoteIn a significant reversal of court precedent, the Supreme Court today invalidated decades-old federal legislation restricting corporate spending in political campaigns.

In a 5-4 decision, the court called into question the constitutionality of all federal and state regulation of independent corporate political advocacy, including a federal law dating back to 1947 and the laws of dozens of states.

This could be one of the most monumental decisions in the past twenty years.  I'm shocked Kennedy went along with it.

Congress is already working on legislation to circumvent the decision, so I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't last long.  McCain will be on board.  Probably Snowe too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 21, 2010, 11:13:46 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 21, 2010, 09:34:05 AM

The unions werent going to get on board with Health-Care reform unless they were excluded from the taxes on it. They seemed to have gotten their wish and are suddenly on the Obama side. Thanks Obama and the Unions, if health care is passed we get shafted with the taxes while the Unions get a free ride for god knows how long into the future.


It would be nice if you could get your facts straight.  The unions weren't being taxed.  The issue was whether taxpayers (like you and me) would have to declare our employers' contributions into a health care plan as taxable income for you and me.  The plan was that plans costing over a certain amount would be taxed to the recipient.  Since some unions have been fortunate enough to negotiate fairly decent plans what they are doing is trying to save ALL middle class taxpayers some money, not just their  members.  You have already told us that you don't have health insurance, so I can understand why you don't care if other people get taxed.  However, what you should understand is that these health plans weren't merely given to working people.  Typically they agree to get health insurance instead of taking pay raises.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 11:27:26 AM
Pictures of a man's hot daughters are posted in this thread and all you commie fuckwads can do is argue over pages in a shitkicking document?  Cripes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 11:57:57 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 21, 2010, 11:01:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 09:44:04 AM
When I was 10 or so, I used to pick the books I'd want to read based on number of pages.  I'm glad we can discuss bills in the same way.

The longer a bill is, the more difficult it is to understand.

The more difficult it is to understand, the fewer informed people there are forming opinions on the issue.

Fewer informed people = good for discourse?

Really?  I'm not sure I accept your premise, especially when conmes to something as complex as health care.  Besides, are you saying that informed people are going to read a 310 page bill?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

7 and an 8.. No lower. Sorry they don't measure up to your CA standards.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 12:05:20 PM
Hey, Gil.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2010-01-20-goat-attacks-strip-club_N.htm
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 21, 2010, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

7 and an 8.. No lower. Sorry they don't measure up to your CA standards.

I like the one on the right, but the left one definitely ain't a 7.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 12:52:12 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2010, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

7 and an 8.. No lower. Sorry they don't measure up to your CA standards.

I like the one on the right, but the left one definitely ain't a 7.

The lowest I'll go is 6.. But the right one definitely is an 8. They seem to have small tits though..
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 12:53:57 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 21, 2010, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

7 and an 8.. No lower. Sorry they don't measure up to your CA standards.

I like the one on the right, but the left one definitely ain't a 7.

Yeti grades on a downstate scale.

That's like High-A Ball or something. You need to translate them into their Major League Equivalents.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 21, 2010, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 12:53:57 PM
Yeti grades on a downstate scale.

I grew up downstate, went to college in NW Indiana and then moved to Kansas.

Yeti has no excuse.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 21, 2010, 01:16:27 PM
I'm sensing a bit of Arthur Kade Scale here from certain participants.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 01:17:57 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 20, 2010, 06:02:13 PM
As the decadent pinko Village Voice put it today in a headline:

QuoteScott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

Life imitates Edroso...

(http://i45.tinypic.com/io1d9s.jpg)

BTW, that appears to be Yeti's 8 at the left.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 21, 2010, 01:26:07 PM
And here's the good Dr. Falk's 10...

(http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/Agent%20Provocateur%20Maggie%20Gyllenhaal%20credit%20Alice%20Dawkins.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 01:27:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 21, 2010, 01:26:07 PM
And here's the good Dr. Falk's 10...

More like 15, amiright?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 01:28:46 PM
Also: Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking Dems (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/pelosi-there-arent-enough-votes-to-pass-the-senate-bill.php?ref=fpa).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 21, 2010, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 01:28:46 PM
Also: Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking DemsGood. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/pelosi-there-arent-enough-votes-to-pass-the-senate-bill.php?ref=fpa).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 01:33:06 PM
Krugman puts it in the language of the internet...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/the-underpants-gnomes-theory-of-reform/

Quote1. Reject the only bill that can be enacted any time soon.
2. ?????
3. Universal coverage!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 01:33:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 01:33:06 PM
Krugman puts it in the language of the internet...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/the-underpants-gnomes-theory-of-reform/

Quote1. Reject the only bill that can be enacted any time soon.
2. ?????
3. Universal coverage!

I think something's missing...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 21, 2010, 01:34:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 01:33:06 PM
Krugman puts it in the language of the internet...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/the-underpants-gnomes-theory-of-reform/

Quote1. Reject the only bill that can be enacted any time soon.
2. ?????
3. Universal coverage!

4. Profit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 21, 2010, 01:45:53 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging virgin bukkake and ass play?

Internet story'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 01:47:39 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

You're moving those goalposts faster than Chuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot. 

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 01:56:36 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot. 

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

I think it's become clear I have low standards.  I'd do 'em.  Even better if it was at the same time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 21, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 01:56:36 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot. 

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

I think it's become clear I have low standards.  I'd do 'em.  Even better if it was at the same time.

So you're saying you don't set the bar high?  That it's easy to measure up to your standard?  That they only have to be a little attractive? 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2010, 02:10:24 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot. 

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

I just hope these girls don't end up interning for Glenn Beck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 21, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 01:56:36 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot. 

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

I think it's become clear I have low standards.  I'd do 'em.  Even better if it was at the same time.

So you're saying you don't set the bar high?  That it's easy to measure up to your standard?  That they only have to be a little attractive? 

You complete me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 21, 2010, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 21, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2010, 01:56:36 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot. 

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

I think it's become clear I have low standards.  I'd do 'em.  Even better if it was at the same time.

So you're saying you don't set the bar high?  That it's easy to measure up to your standard?  That they only have to be a little attractive? 

You complete me.

Every time you fall short, Morph is there to give you a boost.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on January 21, 2010, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot. 

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Gilly?  Giiiiiilly?  Gilly?

Girl on left:  Maybe a 7.5 b/c she's tall
Girl on right:  6, tops.  Look at the weird schnoz.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot. 

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Can't I just have a boner for a couple good looking daughters of a REPUBLICAN RINO in peace? If either one of them came to my desk right now and said "Bone me, Yeti." I'd have my pants off faster than when Thrill answers phonecalls from heavy-breathing men.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 21, 2010, 03:49:05 PM
They're both 7.5s for the time being. They may at some point get their chests enhanced or begin speaking which would likely result in a +/- 1.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 21, 2010, 03:49:24 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 21, 2010, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Can't I just have a boner for a couple good looking daughters of a REPUBLICAN RINO in peace? If either one of them came to my desk right now and said "Bone me, Yeti." I'd have my pants off faster than when Thrill answers phonecalls from heavy-breathing men.

Scott Brown is most certainly not a FAKE REPUBLICAN RINO. As GEORGE HUTCHINS would have you know:
Quote
This was TED KENNEDY'S U.S. Senate office, which has NOT been held by a Republican in several decades.

SCOTT BROWN stood up against OBAMA-NATION, not only facing the full rath of OBAMA-NATION Supporters, but also attacks from FAKE Republican RINOS, and still won.

The GEORGE HUTCHINS For U.S. Congress 2010 Campaign, has already faced the full rath of the FAKE Republican RINOS in North Carolina, even before the 2010 North Carolina Republican Primary has begun.

We are still here, and are now on a legal RINO HUNTING ADVENTURE.

JOIN US !!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 21, 2010, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on January 22, 2010, 08:16:22 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 21, 2010, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.

Of course, sans penis.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 22, 2010, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 22, 2010, 08:16:22 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 21, 2010, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.

Of course, sans penis.

coarse sand on your penis?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 22, 2010, 09:07:06 AM
QuoteIt would be nice if you could get your facts straight.  The unions weren't being taxed.  The issue was whether taxpayers (like you and me) would have to declare our employers' contributions into a health care plan as taxable income for you and me.  The plan was that plans costing over a certain amount would be taxed to the recipient.  Since some unions have been fortunate enough to negotiate fairly decent plans what they are doing is trying to save ALL middle class taxpayers some money, not just their  members.  You have already told us that you don't have health insurance, so I can understand why you don't care if other people get taxed.  However, what you should understand is that these health plans weren't merely given to working people.  Typically they agree to get health insurance instead of taking pay raises.

I may have over simplified the situation but this is what I am talking about with the Unions and Health Care Reform....

QuoteDemocrats have agreed to extend a special exemption from the Cadillac tax to any health plan that is part of a collective-bargaining agreement, plus state and local workers, many of whom are unionized. Everyone else with a higher-end plan will start to be taxed in 2013, but union members will get a free pass until 2018.
"Ponder that one for a moment. Two workers who are identical in every respect -- wages, job, health plan -- will be treated differently by the tax system, based solely on union membership.

Now if your a union member and and you could find yourself with the rest of the poor schmucks being slapped with a 40% increase in taxes who do you think your going to support? Its a blatant pay-off to buy support for Obama Care.

Quote"Meanwhile, the extra five-year dispensation gives labor lobbyists plenty of time to negotiate a permanent extension for the Democratic union base, even as labor is being armed with an important new organizational tool: Eliminating the secret ballot in union elections might be unnecessary when unions have an exclusive tax privilege at their political disposal. Right-to-work states will also be punished because they are less unionized."

Health Care reform is not good enough for Unions, Government Employees and Congress itself. But its just fine for the rest of us to get slammed with the taxes to pay for it. Ohhh and that saving money part.....

QuoteThe train is on the tracks in Washington to give a big tax break to union members whose health care plans are worth more than $24,000 a year. Under the deal worked out recently between congressional and union leaders, union health care plans would not be subject to the same excise tax as nonunion plans. Eighty-seven percent of Americans do not belong to a labor union.

Not only would the deal be a sellout to unions, who will tell members to support it (including factory workers, teachers, government employees, cops, firefighters and so on) but the exemption would cost the government an estimated $60 billion it was counting on to pay for the health care plan in the first place.

Where does that 60 billion come from? Ohhh right the non-union people get to pick up the tab so the Union and Government people get a sweet ride. And of course these people will need to vote Democrat because those nasty evil Republicans will want to take away their free ride in health care. Noooo how about they pay the same fair share as everyone else. Is that so hard to ask? And you wonder why unions suddenly went from opposition to full support of Health Care reform.

I fully understand that they have negotiated for better health benefits in exchange for a freeze on wages or whatever. The common complaint with Union people is that if they are taxed like the rest of us, they wont be able to afford it. I got a news flash for the Union people, there is going to be a shitload of Americans who wont be able to afford the taxes on Health Care reform. Unions make up about 12% of the workforce and if Union employees can't afford to be lumped in with the average American how the hell can the average American afford it and take on the $60 billion the union employees wont be paying?

And just because your union doesn't mean your the only group of people who took less pay for more benefits. Many people do research on companies and get hired with them based off their benefits in exchange for a lower wage than they would normally recieve. Is it fair for them to get shafted with higher taxes based on nothing more than whether your union or non-union? It's unfair and you know it.

If your union, and you support Health Care reform....then you should be taxed like the other 88% of the population will be. You ain't special, you aren't more important than anyone else. Thats why a guy like Scott Brown needed to be elected to try and stop this bullshit from happening.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 22, 2010, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: Yeti on January 22, 2010, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 22, 2010, 08:16:22 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 21, 2010, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.

Of course, sans penis.

coarse sand on your penis?

Corsendonk dunkel on your penis?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 09:21:47 AM
To break it down even simpler than MikeC did, no one is "given" health insurance by his or her employer. It is part of his or her compensation. If one guy, bargaining individually, accepts better benefits in lieu of a pay raise, why is that any different from those bargaining collectively?

Regardless, I don't see this bill passing. They're going to have to start the process over, and I think this should be a good thing for everyone. Make it simpler.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 22, 2010, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 09:21:47 AM
To break it down even simpler than MikeC did, no one is "given" health insurance by his or her employer. It is part of his or her compensation. If one guy, bargaining individually, accepts better benefits in lieu of a pay raise, why is that any different from those bargaining collectively?

Regardless, I don't see this bill passing. They're going to have to start the process over, and I think this should be a good thing for everyone. Make it simpler.

Because as we all know, complex problems require simple solutions.

Also, what makes you think the process would by any simpler this time around? One seat out of 535 has changed. The minority party is now more emboldened to oppose the majority. How does this make things easier?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 22, 2010, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 09:21:47 AM
To break it down even simpler than MikeC did, no one is "given" health insurance by his or her employer. It is part of his or her compensation. If one guy, bargaining individually, accepts better benefits in lieu of a pay raise, why is that any different from those bargaining collectively?

Regardless, I don't see this bill passing. They're going to have to start the process over, and I think this should be a good thing for everyone. Make it simpler.

Because as we all know, complex problems require simple solutions.

The simpler a solution is, the more likely it is to be executed correctly. That's been my experience with just about anything. A simple solution is not necessarily simplistic.

Part of the problem with health care IS its complexity. And I'm sorry, it's incredibly disingenuous to insist that a 1,000-plus page bill intended to affect the lives of every American with amendments being poured on left and right is good, transparent government. Our tax code is so difficult that the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY can't figure out how to do his taxes correctly.

We have a military procurement process so byzantine we routinely hear stories about a $500 screwdriver.

Medicare is so simple that those over 65 routinely see claims approved the previous year denied the next and approved the year after that for no particular reason.

Health care is already regulated by the government in a manner in which there is no advantage to buying your own goddamn insurance (actually it's quite onerous for one to buy his or her own insurance rather than letting his or her employer "give" it to him or her). Health care is already regulated in that one cannot buy health insurance across state lines (ironically, one of the reasons for adopting a strong, federalist constitution was to be sure Americans could buy and sell services freely across state lines). Health care is already regulated so much that you cannot get a clear answer just how much a particular procedure actually costs. But, no, let's make it more complicated. That's really serving your constituency!

We keep adding layers of federal regulations over federal laws over state laws over county and municipal ordinances that maybe a little simplification just might improve the quality of life for all.

We should be a nation with a government, not a government with a nation.

Quote from: R-V on January 22, 2010, 09:31:23 AM
Also, what makes you think the process would by any simpler this time around? One seat out of 535 has changed. The minority party is now more emboldened to oppose the majority. How does this make things easier?

What do a majority of House Members and Senators agree on? Draft a bill that reflects that. Maybe the GOP will filibuster the bill in the Senate, maybe not. (When was the last time a true filibuster, and not the mere threat of one, actually happened?)  But when the Dems have an overwhelming majority in both houses and an Oval Office with several ball point pens in the desk and a President eager to sign most of what Congress sends him at the desk, what are you waiting for?

Or are you shocked that some people don't like the current Congress' and the president's agenda?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 22, 2010, 10:41:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 10:19:19 AM

Our tax code is so difficult that the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY can't figure out how to do his taxes correctly.

That's my jorb security right there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 22, 2010, 01:11:34 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?

It doesn't appear to be so. I'm not sure if the late entries are incorporated in what I looked at, though.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Shooter on January 22, 2010, 01:12:17 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 22, 2010, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 22, 2010, 08:16:22 AM
Quote from: Jon on January 21, 2010, 03:49:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 21, 2010, 02:48:51 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on January 21, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 21, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Let's not go nuts here, IAN.  They're good looking, I'll grant you that.  But if you're putting them any higher than a 5 for the left one and maybe an 7 for the right one, then you're off your rocker.

Go back to railing interweb asses.  Kidding.

You look me in the eface and tell me those two chicks wouldn't some fine drunk rage banging?

Oh I'm not saying that they wouldn't be doable, moreso if they/I were drunk.  But on any objective standard, they're not exceptionally hot.  

It pains me to admit this, but I need TDubbs' take on this.

Hey, I never said they were ultra hot.  They just look like fun for a couple of 6-7s.

You were just shocked we didn't drop everything so we could collectively imagine how fun it would be to get drunk enough that they'd be ultra hot and rage-bangable.

Sans penis, of course.

Of course, sans penis.

coarse sand on your penis?

Corso's hand on your penis?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 22, 2010, 01:24:44 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 22, 2010, 01:11:34 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?

It doesn't appear to be so. I'm not sure if the late entries are incorporated in what I looked at, though.

All entries are accounted for.

The only Supreme picked appears to be Ginsberg, selected by both Fork and RV.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 22, 2010, 02:19:53 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.

Can you lie under oath?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 22, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
DPD, but after being scolded in the SBox, I think my answer needs some more nuance than my pithy attempt.

I think you are asking this question because of Citizens United, correct?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 02:41:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.

That is nothing new.  The courts, including the US Supreme Court, have always agreed that notwithstanding the First Amendment, lawmakers could regulate time, place and manner and other aspects of allegedly free speech.  You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  You have to get a permit to run a parade down Main Street.  You can't play loud music after 10:00pm.  Unions have to picket where no one will see them.  Unions can't ask you to not shop at a certain store if their real beef is against the manufacturer of a product sold at that store.  Unions can't shut down an entire construction project when they have a beef only against one subcontractor.  But now, because they are similarly situated with WalMart, unions can contribute as much as they want to reelect Harry Reid.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Armchair_QB on January 22, 2010, 02:49:40 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 22, 2010, 02:19:53 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.

Can you lie under oath?

Sure.

But don't get caught doing it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 22, 2010, 02:50:01 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 02:41:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.

That is nothing new.  The courts, including the US Supreme Court, have always agreed that notwithstanding the First Amendment, lawmakers could regulate time, place and manner and other aspects of allegedly free speech.  You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  You have to get a permit to run a parade down Main Street.  You can't play loud music after 10:00pm.  Unions have to picket where no one will see them.  Unions can't ask you to not shop at a certain store if their real beef is against the manufacturer of a product sold at that store.  Unions can't shut down an entire construction project when they have a beef only against one subcontractor.  But now, because they are similarly situated with WalMart, unions can contribute as much as they want to reelect Harry Reid.

Precisely.  It's always contentviewpoint-based restrictions that rarely survive strict scrutiny.

Read: RAV v. St. Paul.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 03:01:55 PM
If  corporations are persons, is it legal for gay corporations to merge?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenFoe on January 22, 2010, 03:17:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 03:01:55 PM
If  corporations are persons, is it legal for gay corporations to merge?

The "preview" feature is your friend.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 03:01:55 PM
If  corporations are persons, is it legal for gay corporations to merge?

First the corporations will demand the right to vote.  Then the right to marry other corporations.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 22, 2010, 06:41:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlPE1lV_5Y
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 22, 2010, 07:16:16 PM
For the Cook County Dems around here...

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/poll-preckwinkle-leads-cook-county-board-president-race.html

QuoteChicago Ald. Toni Preckwinkle has surged to a significant lead in the Democratic primary for Cook County Board president as she has become better known and liked among suburban voters, a Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows.

Board President Todd Stroger fell to last place among the four candidates, his support dropping to 11 percent from 14 percent six weeks ago.

During that time, Preckwinkle supplanted Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown as the front-runner with the support of 36 percent of likely Democratic voters, up from 20 percent, the poll found. Brown, who held a lead last month built upon her name recognition, fell from 29 percent to 24 percent.

She's Ben Joravsky's (tepid) choice...

http://www.chicagoreader.com/gyrobase/cook-county-board-president-race-todd-stroger-toni-preckwinkle/Content?oid=1336966&showFullText=true

QuoteBefore I reveal my choice, let me say this: my standards might be a little different from those of the average voter, who seems content electing and reelecting the same old crowd.

I love the fighters in Chicago politics—I want someone who will stick it to the Man. And by the Man I don't mean Todd Stroger. I mean the big guy himself, Mayor Richard Daley. And that other big guy, state house speaker Michael Madigan.

For county board president, I want a candidate who will cut the fat—including the patronage workers larding the payroll—and rework the budget so taxpayer money is spent on the people who need it the most. And I'd also like someone who's willing to rage against Daley's tax increment financing machine.

Yes, I've been known to rail against the abuses of the TIF program a time or two before. But there's a real connection to this office. The program collects about $500 million in taxpayer money each year, and roughly 10 percent of that would otherwise have gone to Cook County. Proposed TIF districts must be approved by the Joint Board of Review, which consists of representatives of the schools, parks, county, and other taxing bodies affected by TIFs. The board president could easily show up and raise a stink about the program's abuses. But none ever has.

But my hopes aren't terribly high for any of the board president candidates...

...

That leaves me with Alderman Preckwinkle. I've known her since 1982, when she was gearing up to run against incumbent alderman Tim Evans (now the chief judge of Cook County Circuit Court). I don't think she's changed much in those 27 years. She's still terse, humorless—though I do think I heard a story about her cracking a joke once—and supersmart.

Preckwinkle's got more spine than any of the other candidates in this race. She was voting against Daley's budgets long before it was fashionable. She also voted against last year's parking meter deal. Neither Brown, Stroger, nor O'Brien had a word to say about that—as county officials they generally get to avoid taking stands on any issues involving the mayor. It's a lot easier to claim boldness and independence when you never actually have to demonstrate either.

Preckwinkle's only drawback is that in the last year or so she's started sucking up to Daley, supporting his Olympic dream and even voting for his 2010 budget—you know, the one where the mayor raided the parking meter legacy fund that was set up to last for at least 75 years.

...

Still, did I mention that back in 2006 Preckwinkle voted against the creation of the LaSalle Central TIF district? Well, she did—and was one of only three aldermen to do so (the others were Rick Munoz and Joe Moore). That's the TIF that declared much of the downtown business district a blighted area. Before it expires in 2030, it will have collected more than $1 billion in property taxes that otherwise would have gone to fund county government (making Stroger's sales-tax hike even less necessary), the schools, the parks, and other cash-strapped public bodies. Instead, if recent history is any indication, much of it is likely to be showered on well-connected downtown developers.

O'Brien could have opposed it at the Joint Review Board but he didn't. Stroger could have voted against it in the City Council—he was still Eighth Ward alderman back then—but he didn't. Brown could have come out against it too, since she claims to be eminently qualified to look out for taxpayer interests. But she didn't.

In this bunch, Preckwinkle looks like Patrick Henry.

She also has the Dem primary endorsements of Trib (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/chi-100112countyboardpres-endorse-story,0,5270989.story), Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/endorsements/1987275,CST-EDT-edit13.article) and Daily Herald (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=352189).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on January 22, 2010, 07:20:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.

The day I can pick up a chainsaw and stand amid a pool of Halliburton's still-warm blood is the day I will respect it's right to "free speech."  Besides, doesn't a corporation have, by definition, an entire contingency of actual human beings with their own right to free speech?

I must admit to experiencing much loldenfreude when I recalled the last decade's worth of decrying "judicial activism."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 23, 2010, 01:55:58 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 22, 2010, 07:16:16 PM
She's Ben Joravsky's (tepid) choice...

I love Toni. She always wears the same orthopedic sneakers, and I once saw her whip one of her kids in the old Mr. G's grocery. Her failure to do much of anything to prevent the ongoing decay of the 4th Ward is no doubt the result of having been on too small a stage lo these many years.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CubFaninHydePark on January 23, 2010, 04:08:02 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?

Does being Grandpa Simpson factor into your issue?

My real intellectual problem with the rulings of Scalia and Thomas--especially the originalist Thomas--is that corporate entities shouldn't have any rights as artificial constructions per an originalist framework--the First Amendment right to free speech at the time of the founding had to only apply to natural persons.

One thing that I think could be interesting is if courts will finally use corporate political speech to push back on the 'business judgment rule.'  Right now, boards of directors can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as there is no conflict of interest.  This ruling presents massive problems for questions of agency.  Boards, under the business judgment rule, may be tempted to authorize corporate political speech that is to their short-term benefit, but not to the short or long-term shareholder benefit.  But, if the board can get to the business judgment rule, its corporate political speech will, presumably, be beyond scrutiny.

The silver lining is that courts might get squeamish about the political-business judgment of directors, and I think there could be some pushback against the business judgment rule, of which I am decidedly not a fan.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 23, 2010, 06:01:24 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on January 23, 2010, 04:08:02 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?

Does being Grandpa Simpson factor into your issue?

My real intellectual problem with the rulings of Scalia and Thomas--especially the originalist Thomas--is that corporate entities shouldn't have any rights as artificial constructions per an originalist framework--the First Amendment right to free speech at the time of the founding had to only apply to natural persons.

One thing that I think could be interesting is if courts will finally use corporate political speech to push back on the 'business judgment rule.'  Right now, boards of directors can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as there is no conflict of interest.  This ruling presents massive problems for questions of agency.  Boards, under the business judgment rule, may be tempted to authorize corporate political speech that is to their short-term benefit, but not to the short or long-term shareholder benefit.  But, if the board can get to the business judgment rule, its corporate political speech will, presumably, be beyond scrutiny.

The silver lining is that courts might get squeamish about the political-business judgment of directors, and I think there could be some pushback against the business judgment rule, of which I am decidedly not a fan.

You're making it too easy for us.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 23, 2010, 09:36:08 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on January 23, 2010, 04:08:02 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?

Does being Grandpa Simpson factor into your issue?

My real intellectual problem with the rulings of Scalia and Thomas the entire court--especially the originalist Thomas--is that corporate entities shouldn't have any rights as artificial constructions per an originalist framework--the First Amendment right to free speech at the time of the founding had to only apply to natural persons.

One thing that I think could be interesting is if courts will finally use corporate political speech to push back on the 'business judgment rule.'  Right now, boards of directors can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as there is no conflict of interest.  This ruling presents massive problems for questions of agency.  Boards, under the business judgment rule, may be tempted to authorize corporate political speech that is to their short-term benefit, but not to the short or long-term shareholder benefit.  But, if the board can get to the business judgment rule, its corporate political speech will, presumably, be beyond scrutiny.

The silver lining is that courts might get squeamish about the political-business judgment of directors, and I think there could be some pushback against the business judgment rule, of which I am decidedly not a fan.

Actually'd. I thought the same thing until I read this (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/23/citizens_united/index.html):

QuoteAs Justice Stevens says:  "of course . . . speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation," and "no one suggests the contrary."  The fact that all nine Justices reject a certain proposition does not, of course, prove that it's wrong.  But those who argue that (1) corporations have no First Amendment rights and/or (2) restrictions on money cannot violate the free speech clause should stop pretending that the 4 dissenting Justices agreed with you.  They didn't.  None of the 9 Justices made those arguments.

To the contrary, the entire dissent -- while arguing that corporations have fewer First Amendment protections than individuals -- is grounded in the premise that corporations do have First Amendment free speech rights and that restrictions on the expenditure of money do burden those rights, but those free speech rights can be restricted when there's a "compelling state interest."  In this case, the dissenters argued, such restrictions are justified by the "compelling state interest" the Government has in preventing the corrupting influence of corporate money.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 23, 2010, 10:59:29 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on January 23, 2010, 04:08:02 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 22, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
Clarence Thomas with this concurring opinion on yesterday's campaign finance ruling:

"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection'."

So, he's worried that public disclosure of who gave money to candidates for public office will be subject to retribution for their donations.

That would mean that Thomas thinks that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

Fucking liberal.

I have a personal issue about visiting the "Dead Pool".  So can someone tell me if Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito made anyone's list?

Does being Grandpa Simpson factor into your issue?

My real intellectual problem with the rulings of Scalia and Thomas--especially the originalist Thomas--is that corporate entities shouldn't have any rights as artificial constructions per an originalist framework--the First Amendment right to free speech at the time of the founding had to only apply to natural persons.

One thing that I think could be interesting is if courts will finally use corporate political speech to push back on the 'business judgment rule.'  Right now, boards of directors can pretty much do whatever they want, as long as there is no conflict of interest.  This ruling presents massive problems for questions of agency.  Boards, under the business judgment rule, may be tempted to authorize corporate political speech that is to their short-term benefit, but not to the short or long-term shareholder benefit.  But, if the board can get to the business judgment rule, its corporate political speech will, presumably, be beyond scrutiny.

The silver lining is that courts might get squeamish about the political-business judgment of directors, and I think there could be some pushback against the business judgment rule, of which I am decidedly not a fan.


I hear what you're saying but not applying the business judgement rule to these items would be a ''Dusty running your young pitching staff' level bad idea.  The whole purpose of the business judgement rule is a pragmatic decision that judges should not be second guessing the day to day business decisions of directors or officers.  If you subjected businesses to a fact based court suit any time they wanted to make a payment that could have a political speech component, the only business that would be in business is mine (especially when you think of the indirect political component of ordinary business actions-- such as membership in a trade association or placing commercials on MSNBC/FoxNews).

While I think the decision of the Court is real dumb (does it mean that I am violating the 13th Amendment by owning shares of stock in a Company?), having judges decide what political speech is ok would be a nightmare.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 23, 2010, 03:18:43 PM
(http://i50.tinypic.com/2uqm1ya.jpg)
WHAT JOO LOOKEEN AT, HOMES? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad)

(http://i45.tinypic.com/51sg1e.gif)
Not my problem, brah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancroft_Davis)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 23, 2010, 08:33:54 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 22, 2010, 07:20:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.

The day I can pick up a chainsaw and stand amid a pool of Halliburton's still-warm blood is the day I will respect it's right to "free speech."  Besides, doesn't a corporation have, by definition, an entire contingency of actual human beings with their own right to free speech?

I must admit to experiencing much loldenfreude when I recalled the last decade's worth of decrying "judicial activism."

So does the Chicago Tribune not have First Amendment Freedoms? Do any media organizations have first amendment rights? Please explain further.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 23, 2010, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 23, 2010, 08:33:54 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 22, 2010, 07:20:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.

The day I can pick up a chainsaw and stand amid a pool of Halliburton's still-warm blood is the day I will respect it's right to "free speech."  Besides, doesn't a corporation have, by definition, an entire contingency of actual human beings with their own right to free speech?

I must admit to experiencing much loldenfreude when I recalled the last decade's worth of decrying "judicial activism."

So does the Chicago Tribune not have First Amendment Freedoms? Do any media organizations have first amendment rights? Please explain further.

Under the freedom of the press, yes they do. As explicitly stated in the Amendment.

That's a separate clause, though. (Perhaps for a reason?)

More than that, it's an entirely different thing than extending the rights and protections of natural persons, full stop, to merely legal persons such as corporations.

The latter, no matter where you stand on its merits, appears to be an innovation of the Gilded Age and 20th century (and now the 21st), particularly as it concerns the application of the 14th and 1st Amendments.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 23, 2010, 10:52:24 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 23, 2010, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 23, 2010, 08:33:54 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 22, 2010, 07:20:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
So the prevailing opinion from the lawyers here is that the press and speech can be regulated by law by Congress?

Explain.

The day I can pick up a chainsaw and stand amid a pool of Halliburton's still-warm blood is the day I will respect it's right to "free speech."  Besides, doesn't a corporation have, by definition, an entire contingency of actual human beings with their own right to free speech?

I must admit to experiencing much loldenfreude when I recalled the last decade's worth of decrying "judicial activism."

So does the Chicago Tribune not have First Amendment Freedoms? Do any media organizations have first amendment rights? Please explain further.

Under the freedom of the press, yes they do. As explicitly stated in the Amendment.

That's a separate clause, though. (Perhaps for a reason?)

More than that, it's an entirely different thing than extending the rights and protections of natural persons, full stop, to merely legal persons such as corporations.

The latter, no matter where you stand on its merits, appears to be an innovation of the Gilded Age and 20th century (and now the 21st), particularly as it concerns the application of the 14th and 1st Amendments.

Whatever.  As long as two gay corporations can't marry each other, I'm cool.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CubFaninHydePark on January 24, 2010, 07:26:02 AM
Quote from: thehawk on January 23, 2010, 10:59:29 AM

I hear what you're saying but not applying the business judgement rule to these items would be a ''Dusty running your young pitching staff' level bad idea.  The whole purpose of the business judgement rule is a pragmatic decision that judges should not be second guessing the day to day business decisions of directors or officers.  If you subjected businesses to a fact based court suit any time they wanted to make a payment that could have a political speech component, the only business that would be in business is mine (especially when you think of the indirect political component of ordinary business actions-- such as membership in a trade association or placing commercials on MSNBC/FoxNews).

While I think the decision of the Court is real dumb (does it mean that I am violating the 13th Amendment by owning shares of stock in a Company?), having judges decide what political speech is ok would be a nightmare.

I don't think it's a question of a "political speech component," since that's not what the case or the ruling deals with, but rather of outright political speech (e.g. giving money to candidates, and speech within a certain time before an election).  Sure, any sort of corporate philanthropy or giving could have a "political component," but giving to a PAC or a candidate is purely political.  It's going to be very dangerous for courts to conflate the political judgments of directors with proper business judgments and give them the same presumption.  Common sense tells us that the two aren't the same.  

Congress should legislate that the BJR doesn't apply to questions of outright political speech by corporations and then use its powers to limit appellate jurisdiction to enforce it.  The BJR itself isn't a matter of Constitutional Law, so I'd have no problem with such a workaround.  The likely outcome would be the status quo--anytime a corporation exercised unpopular political speech, it'd be subject to a valid shareholder lawsuit, which has costs, which would almost likely chill all political speech by corporations, but in a perfectly legal way.

But the real reason I hate the BJR is that it was invoked to prevent shareholders from forcing Wrigley into putting up lights in the 60's.  Had the judge been willing to tell Wrigley he was an old loon and to put up lights already, I think this franchise would've won at least a World Series between then and now.  And I'm perfectly willing to sanction the adoption of a legal rule that threatens basic assumptions of our economic order if it means the Cubs will have a better chance of winning the World Series.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on January 24, 2010, 10:14:59 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on January 24, 2010, 07:26:02 AM
But the real reason I hate the BJR is that it was invoked to prevent shareholders from forcing Wrigley into putting up lights in the 60's.  Had the judge been willing to tell Wrigley he was an old loon and to put up lights already, I think this franchise would've won at least a World Series between then and now.  And I'm perfectly willing to sanction the adoption of a legal rule that threatens basic assumptions of our economic order if it means the Cubs will have a better chance of winning the World Series.

Retarded.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 24, 2010, 02:11:25 PM
South Carolina CLASS...

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1123844.html

QuoteGREENVILLE - Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has compared giving people government assistance to "feeding stray animals."

Bauer, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor, made his remarks during a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn that included state lawmakers and about 115 residents.

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better," Bauer said.

In South Carolina, 58 percent of students participate in the free and reduced-price lunch program.

...

Bauer later Friday told The Greenville News he wasn't saying people on government assistance "were animals or anything else."

QuoteLater in his speech, Bauer said, "I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina," adding, "You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I'll show you the worst test scores, folks. It's there, period.

Correlation = causation!

Free lunches make kids poor, dumb and lazy!

Period.

QuoteAnd, Bauer said, it is time to confront "babies having babies. Somebody's got to talk about. Politicians don't want to talk about it anymore because it's politically incorrect."

The third rail of SC politics: infant pregnancy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 24, 2010, 05:33:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 10:19:19 AMHealth care is already regulated by the government in a manner in which there is no advantage to buying your own goddamn insurance (actually it's quite onerous for one to buy his or her own insurance rather than letting his or her employer "give" it to him or her). Health care is already regulated in that one cannot buy health insurance across state lines (ironically, one of the reasons for adopting a strong, federalist constitution was to be sure Americans could buy and sell services freely across state lines). Health care is already regulated so much that you cannot get a clear answer just how much a particular procedure actually costs. But, no, let's make it more complicated. That's really serving your constituency!

I agree that the employer-based model sucks. Already brought up how I like the Wyden-Bennett bill (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg181967#msg181967) that destroys that model. Unfortunately it doesn't have the votes. I'm trying to deal with what's realistic given the system we have, not the system we want.

Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 10:19:19 AMWhat do a majority of House Members and Senators agree on? Draft a bill that reflects that.

They agree on quite a bit, actually. The bills passed in each chamber have a lot in common. Their are some significant differences to iron out (funding mechanisms, national vs. state exchanges, subsidy levels, and an employer mandate, among other things). But the fundamentals - guaranteed issue, & banning lifetime limits and recission in exchange for an individual mandate; subsidies and Medicaid expansion to assist those falling under the mandate; and various Medicare pilot programs to experiment with moving away from the fee-for-service model - are the same.

Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 10:19:19 AMMaybe the GOP will filibuster the bill in the Senate, maybe not. (When was the last time a true filibuster, and not the mere threat of one, actually happened?)  But when the Dems have an overwhelming majority in both houses and an Oval Office with several ball point pens in the desk and a President eager to sign most of what Congress sends him at the desk, what are you waiting for?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html)

QuoteAs both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture."

Quote from: Brownie on January 22, 2010, 10:19:19 AMOr are you shocked that some people don't like the current Congress' and the president's agenda?
Uh, no. Not sure how that's relevant.

In closing, THIS (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/1/21/4434465.html).

QuoteNone of these ideas are new and most used to sit comfortably in the GOP mainstream. The Senate bill mimics the framework of the 2006 Massachusetts health reform, an idea that was pushed by Republican then-Governor Mitt Romney and, as we know by now, was supported by new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. This is what Romney said about the bill after it passed: "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced." Sound familiar?

QuoteThe bottom line is that much of the battle over health reform is not about substance at all. If it were, Democrats and Republicans could have gotten together last year and reached a workable consensus reform that, indeed, would look a lot like the Massachusetts—or the Breaux-Chafee—design. But that, it seems, was never in the cards. It was politically much more productive to caricature the plan as a government take-over of health reform or a big new tax on working people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 11:35:14 AM
THIS (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0124-chapman-20100122,0,1729158.column)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 11:50:32 AM
Careful, Morph.  Chapman also once wrote that taxes are a regrettable necessity. When we have a deficit, we have to raise taxes to make up the loss. Or we have to borrow more money—which means raising taxes in the future.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:22:01 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 11:50:32 AM
Careful, Morph.  Chapman also once wrote that taxes are a regrettable necessity. When we have a deficit, we have to raise taxes to make up the loss. Or we have to borrow more money—which means raising taxes in the future.

I didn't realize that agreeing with something Chapman said meant that I was endorsing his entire belief structure.  If that's the case, I'll just say that I agree with Chapman's points in that article and since I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of other articles he's written I'll just say that I can't say anything substantive about his other work.  Fair enough?

Anyway, simple arithmetic says that there's a third way out of the "regrettable necessity"... but I hope that was your point in bringing it up..
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:23:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 11:35:14 AM
THIS (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0124-chapman-20100122,0,1729158.column)

I love how the basic premise of Chapman's article is that American citizens are rational and will respond to unrestrained spending by corporations rationally, when in reality, Americans are dumb mouthbreathers who will believe whatever the cute guy with the British accent says on the teevee.

My simple opinion, money =/= speech.  Simple as that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I've been reading about some of the Congressional response to this decision.  Since it is a constitutional interpretation, rather than a statutory construction, legislation is going to be pretty weak compared to the force of "simply" amending the constitution.  However, I've read something to the effect of altering shareholder power, or giving shareholders more authority over corporate spending.  I'll defer to morph for his thoughts on this, but I thought that corporate governance in the US was pretty ineffective to begin with.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 01:24:00 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I've been reading about some of the Congressional response to this decision.  Since it is a constitutional interpretation, rather than a statutory construction, legislation is going to be pretty weak compared to the force of "simply" amending the constitution.  However, I've read something to the effect of altering shareholder power, or giving shareholders more authority over corporate spending.  I'll defer to morph for his thoughts on this, but I thought that corporate governance in the US was pretty ineffective to begin with.

Corporate governance...  as it is now, in general terms, the shareholders elect the board of directors, who then hire the CEOs and other top-level execs and so on.  The only power shareholders really have is in who they elect to the board.  Now, institutional investor shareholders tend to be much more engaged in the process, but that's only relative to individual investors, who generally tend to vote "yes" or "present" on their proxy ballots.  I also don't know how the government could come in and change the rules, though, from a legal standpoint.  You'd be talking about rewriting corporate bylaws on a massive scale.  Stuff I've seen to date all is worded "corporate bylaws would be allowed to require [shareholder director nominees, proxy election cost reimbursement, etc.]" but then the corporations would still have to actually re-write the bylaws to include these provisions. 

I'm also not sure, from a practical standpoint, how shareholders could have a meaningful impact on corporate spending; normally if your company is spending its cash on stuff you don't think it should be, you would just sell the shares and buy those of a competitor who is more aligned with your interests.  "Socially Responsible Investing" is somewhat related to this concept - they won't hold shares of a company that engages in certain business practices (different depending on the focus of the fund).  See http://www.socialinvest.org/ .  Check out the "screening & advocacy" page - there are funds that only invest in companies which are deemed to have a positive impact on "Board Issues" or "Executive Pay" as examples.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 25, 2010, 01:49:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 01:24:00 PM

Corporate governance...  as it is now, in general terms, the shareholders elect the board of directors, who then hire the CEOs and other top-level execs and so on.  The only power shareholders really have is in who they elect to the board.  Now, institutional investor shareholders tend to be much more engaged in the process, but that's only relative to individual investors, who generally tend to vote "yes" or "present" on their proxy ballots.  I also don't know how the government could come in and change the rules, though, from a legal standpoint.  You'd be talking about rewriting corporate bylaws on a massive scale.  Stuff I've seen to date all is worded "corporate bylaws would be allowed to require [shareholder director nominees, proxy election cost reimbursement, etc.]" but then the corporations would still have to actually re-write the bylaws to include these provisions. 

I'm also not sure, from a practical standpoint, how shareholders could have a meaningful impact on corporate spending; normally if your company is spending its cash on stuff you don't think it should be, you would just sell the shares and buy those of a competitor who is more aligned with your interests.  "Socially Responsible Investing" is somewhat related to this concept - they won't hold shares of a company that engages in certain business practices (different depending on the focus of the fund).  See http://www.socialinvest.org/ .  Check out the "screening & advocacy" page - there are funds that only invest in companies which are deemed to have a positive impact on "Board Issues" or "Executive Pay" as examples.

Not to mention, proxy ballots are breathtaking examples of double-and-triplespeak.

But, yeah, this is an area the Gubment needs to stay the fuck out of. Divestment is the most profound "no" vote one can have.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 25, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.

Because he's black?  You racist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.

Because he's black?  You racist.

No.  Because he drinks Coca Cola with pubic hair in it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 25, 2010, 03:38:33 PM
At least we don't have to worry about that damned health care bill (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrats-dropping-ban-preexisting-conditions/) anymore.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 25, 2010, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.

Because he's black?  You racist.

No.  Because he drinks Coca Cola with pubic hair in it.

Oh.  Well, pubic hairs are black, too.  You're still racist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 04:08:43 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.

Because he's black?  You racist.

No.  Because he drinks Coca Cola with pubic hair in it.

Oh.  Well, pubic hairs are black, too.  You're still racist.

They are?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 25, 2010, 04:10:17 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 04:08:43 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.

Because he's black?  You racist.

No.  Because he drinks Coca Cola with pubic hair in it.

Oh.  Well, pubic hairs are black, too.  You're still racist.

They are?

Yes.  All of 'em.  If you've seen some of a different color, then you're not really looking at pubic hairs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 25, 2010, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 24, 2010, 02:11:25 PM
South Carolina CLASS...

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1123844.html

QuoteGREENVILLE - Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has compared giving people government assistance to "feeding stray animals."

Bauer, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor, made his remarks during a town hall meeting in Fountain Inn that included state lawmakers and about 115 residents.

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better," Bauer said.

In South Carolina, 58 percent of students participate in the free and reduced-price lunch program.

...

Bauer later Friday told The Greenville News he wasn't saying people on government assistance "were animals or anything else."

QuoteLater in his speech, Bauer said, "I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina," adding, "You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I'll show you the worst test scores, folks. It's there, period.

Correlation = causation!

Free lunches make kids poor, dumb and lazy!

Period.

QuoteAnd, Bauer said, it is time to confront "babies having babies. Somebody's got to talk about. Politicians don't want to talk about it anymore because it's politically incorrect."

The third rail of SC politics: infant pregnancy.

Don't make me fetch my debatin' stick...

(http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/graphic/xlarge/sumner_caning_xl.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 04:18:06 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 04:10:17 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 04:08:43 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.

Because he's black?  You racist.

No.  Because he drinks Coca Cola with pubic hair in it.

Oh.  Well, pubic hairs are black, too.  You're still racist.

They are?

Yes.  All of 'em.  If you've seen some of a different color, then you're not really looking at pubic hairs.

Sonofabitch.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 04:22:44 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 04:10:17 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 04:08:43 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.

Because he's black?  You racist.

No.  Because he drinks Coca Cola with pubic hair in it.

Oh.  Well, pubic hairs are black, too.  You're still racist.

They are?

Yes.  All of 'em.  If you've seen some of a different color, then you're not really looking at pubic hairs.

What about the gray ones?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 25, 2010, 05:30:05 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 04:22:44 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 04:10:17 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 04:08:43 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 02:12:59 PM
Quote from: JD on January 25, 2010, 02:07:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2010, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2010, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 25, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
DPD, this is not to say that all the DOOM is justified over CU.  If Congress responds by making CEO's or other high-level executives "own" their ads by using the "I'm Steve Jobs and I approve this message" language from McCain-Feingold, I don't think companies will go nuts for fear of alienating their customers.

Also, corporations previously funneled money to vague and amorphous PACs, so having a company do its dirty work for itself might be a bit better.  Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I was just preparing a response to the effect of "they don't want to antagonize customers."  You're absolutely right that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Not according to Clarence Thomas.

Because he's black?  You racist.

No.  Because he drinks Coca Cola with pubic hair in it.

Oh.  Well, pubic hairs are black, too.  You're still racist.

They are?

Yes.  All of 'em.  If you've seen some of a different color, then you're not really looking at pubic hairs.

What about the gray ones?

I told you, already.  If they ain't black, they ain't pubes.  If you have trouble telling the difference, then just remember this rhyme:

If that hair is short, curly, and black, then a pube it must be. 
If that hair is short, curly, and any color OTHER than black, then a pube it must NOT be.


It rhymes and is truer than thou falling star's path may it be-ith. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 25, 2010, 09:33:15 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 25, 2010, 03:38:33 PM
At least we don't have to worry about that damned health care bill (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrats-dropping-ban-preexisting-conditions/) anymore.

What a bunch of pieces of shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 25, 2010, 11:08:48 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 25, 2010, 09:33:15 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 25, 2010, 03:38:33 PM
At least we don't have to worry about that damned health care bill (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrats-dropping-ban-preexisting-conditions/) anymore.

What a bunch of pieces of shit.

You are being judgmental.  You must understand that now that the Dems are a minority in the Senate and the House, and no longer have the Presidency  they can't pass any legislation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 26, 2010, 09:01:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 25, 2010, 09:33:15 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 25, 2010, 03:38:33 PM
At least we don't have to worry about that damned health care bill (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrats-dropping-ban-preexisting-conditions/) anymore.

What a bunch of pieces of shit.

More good times.  (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/obama-budget-to-call-for-freeze-in-non-security-discretionary-spending.php)

QuoteOn an exciting phone call with progressive internet writers earlier this evening, a senior administration official outlined the Obama administration's plan to call for a freeze in non-security discretionary spending spending starting with the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.

QuoteThe freeze would not apply to the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, or to the foreign operations budget of the State Department.

QuoteSo is this an across-the-board freeze like we've heard Republicans call for? No, it's "not a blunt across the board freeze." Rather, some agencies will see their budgets go up and others will go down, producing an overall freeze effect.

QuoteScenario one is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks like Kent Conrad turn out to like farm subsidies, decline to implement those cuts, and pass a budget that doesn't actually freeze spending. Then Obama gets to chide them, and say it's not his fault congress is so spendy.

Scenario two is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks turn out to like farm subsidies, and Obama launches a big political crusade on behalf of his cuts, threatening to veto anything that doesn't come close to the spirit of what he's proposing. That would be . . . interesting.

Scenario three, the really troubling one, is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks turn out to like farm subsidies, and Obama draws a line in the sand over the concept of a freeze, while being flexible about the details. Under that scenario, the weak claims don't get cut and instead the politically powerless need to bear the brunt of the burden of a tactical political gambit.

I find it's always useful to ignore the biggest chunk of federal spending (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld) when you're trying to cut deficits.

(http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-taxes-2009.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 26, 2010, 10:07:33 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 26, 2010, 09:01:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 25, 2010, 09:33:15 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 25, 2010, 03:38:33 PM
At least we don't have to worry about that damned health care bill (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrats-dropping-ban-preexisting-conditions/) anymore.

What a bunch of pieces of shit.

More good times.  (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/obama-budget-to-call-for-freeze-in-non-security-discretionary-spending.php)

QuoteOn an exciting phone call with progressive internet writers earlier this evening, a senior administration official outlined the Obama administration's plan to call for a freeze in non-security discretionary spending spending starting with the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.

QuoteThe freeze would not apply to the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, or to the foreign operations budget of the State Department.

QuoteSo is this an across-the-board freeze like we've heard Republicans call for? No, it's "not a blunt across the board freeze." Rather, some agencies will see their budgets go up and others will go down, producing an overall freeze effect.

QuoteScenario one is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks like Kent Conrad turn out to like farm subsidies, decline to implement those cuts, and pass a budget that doesn't actually freeze spending. Then Obama gets to chide them, and say it's not his fault congress is so spendy.

Scenario two is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks turn out to like farm subsidies, and Obama launches a big political crusade on behalf of his cuts, threatening to veto anything that doesn't come close to the spirit of what he's proposing. That would be . . . interesting.

Scenario three, the really troubling one, is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks turn out to like farm subsidies, and Obama draws a line in the sand over the concept of a freeze, while being flexible about the details. Under that scenario, the weak claims don't get cut and instead the politically powerless need to bear the brunt of the burden of a tactical political gambit.

I find it's always useful to ignore the biggest chunk of federal spending (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld) when you're trying to cut deficits.

(http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-taxes-2009.png)

I don't trust this "study". Who pays globalissues.org? I'm sure it's those damn libby butt pirates
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 26, 2010, 10:12:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on January 26, 2010, 10:07:33 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 26, 2010, 09:01:29 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 25, 2010, 09:33:15 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 25, 2010, 03:38:33 PM
At least we don't have to worry about that damned health care bill (http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrats-dropping-ban-preexisting-conditions/) anymore.

What a bunch of pieces of shit.

More good times.  (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/obama-budget-to-call-for-freeze-in-non-security-discretionary-spending.php)

QuoteOn an exciting phone call with progressive internet writers earlier this evening, a senior administration official outlined the Obama administration's plan to call for a freeze in non-security discretionary spending spending starting with the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.

QuoteThe freeze would not apply to the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, or to the foreign operations budget of the State Department.

QuoteSo is this an across-the-board freeze like we've heard Republicans call for? No, it's "not a blunt across the board freeze." Rather, some agencies will see their budgets go up and others will go down, producing an overall freeze effect.

QuoteScenario one is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks like Kent Conrad turn out to like farm subsidies, decline to implement those cuts, and pass a budget that doesn't actually freeze spending. Then Obama gets to chide them, and say it's not his fault congress is so spendy.

Scenario two is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks turn out to like farm subsidies, and Obama launches a big political crusade on behalf of his cuts, threatening to veto anything that doesn't come close to the spirit of what he's proposing. That would be . . . interesting.

Scenario three, the really troubling one, is that self-proclaimed deficit hawks turn out to like farm subsidies, and Obama draws a line in the sand over the concept of a freeze, while being flexible about the details. Under that scenario, the weak claims don't get cut and instead the politically powerless need to bear the brunt of the burden of a tactical political gambit.

I find it's always useful to ignore the biggest chunk of federal spending (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld) when you're trying to cut deficits.

(http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/us-taxes-2009.png)

I don't trust this "study". Who pays globalissues.org? I'm sure it's those damn libby butt pirates

They probably didn't take their pills.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 11:15:24 AM
Suck on this, Kentucky!! (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0126-ford-plant--20100125,0,2483354.story)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 26, 2010, 11:19:56 AM
Regarding Haiti... (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/travolta-flies-more-scientologists-to-haiti/)

The Good:
QuoteThe Associated Press reported that Mr. Travolta flew his own Boeing 707 to Haiti from Florida on Monday, and brought four tons of ready-to-eat military rations and medical supplies along with "a team including doctors and..."

The Bad:
Quote"...Scientology ministers."

Huh?:
QuoteOn Saturday, the French news agency Agence France-Presse reported that one Scientologist from Paris who gave her name as Sylvie claimed that the controversial church's techniques were working:

"We're trained as volunteer ministers; we use a process called 'assist' to follow the nervous system to reconnect the main points, to bring back communication," she said. "When you get a sudden shock to a part of your body the energy gets stuck, so we re-establish communication within the body by touching people through their clothes, and asking people to feel the touch."

Next to her lay 22-year-old student Oscar Elweels, whose father rescued him from the basement of his school where he lay with a pillar on his leg for a day after the deadly Jan. 12 quake. His right leg was amputated below the knee and his left leg was severely bruised and swollen. [...]

"One hour ago he had no sensation in his left leg, so I explained the method to him, I touched him and after a while he said 'now I feel everything'," said Sylvie. "Otherwise they might have had to amputate his other leg."

BURNFACE:
QuoteThe news agency said that an American doctor at the hospital who asked not to be identified commented sarcastically, "I didn't know touching could heal gangrene."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 26, 2010, 11:31:27 AM
Quote from: Day Man on January 26, 2010, 11:19:56 AM
QuoteThe news agency said that an American doctor at the hospital who asked not to be identified commented sarcastically, "I didn't know touching could heal gangrene."

Oh, it gets worse (http://insidesurgery.com/2010/01/battlefield-acupuncture-niemtzow-technique-needle-battlefield-acupressure-marcucci-technique-pain-control-acute-traumatic-injury-haiti/):

Quote1. All pain signals in the body reflex through one or both of the earlobes on its way to the brain.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 26, 2010, 11:36:26 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 11:15:24 AM
Suck on this, Kentucky!! (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0126-ford-plant--20100125,0,2483354.story)

Looks like Powen needs to get to knifin', y'all!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 26, 2010, 04:16:13 PM
Tee hee. (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html)

QuoteAlleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.

Fuck its silent on MikeC's keyboard.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 26, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
DPD. It'll never hai (http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/), but the map is interesting.

QuoteThe electoral college is a time-honored system that, has only broken down three times in over 200 years. However, it's obvious that reforms are needed. The organization of the states should be altered. This Electoral Reform Map redivides the territory of the United States into 50 bodies of equal size.

(http://fakeisthenewreal.org/img/reform/electoralreform_800.jpg)

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 26, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
DPD. It'll never hai (http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/), but the map is interesting.

QuoteThe electoral college is a time-honored system that, has only broken down three times in over 200 years. However, it's obvious that reforms are needed. The organization of the states should be altered. This Electoral Reform Map redivides the territory of the United States into 50 bodies of equal size.

(http://fakeisthenewreal.org/img/reform/electoralreform_800.jpg)

I like that I'll no longer have to share a home state with the likes of Yeti.

I'm not so keen on the states formerly known as Indiana and Michigan tagteaming and creeping to our south like that.

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 05:05:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 26, 2010, 04:16:13 PM
Tee hee. (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html)

QuoteAlleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.

Fuck its silent on MikeC's keyboard.

RV, how dare you?  This man bravely stood up to an international criminal organization, violated Maryland law, and eventually proved that wrongdoing nothing was going on.  Now here he was trying to undercover the TAXOLIB HOMOCRAT conspiracy by going directly to the source, and he gets busted by the feds.  What kind of country do we have when you can't wiretap federal officials?  I ask you that, WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY?

This man is a MARTYR to the cause of LIBERTY AND FREEDOM.  FREE THE NEW ORLEANS FOUR!!!

Can we get a HUTCHINS comment on this shocking development?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 26, 2010, 05:32:02 PM
Savannah? Instead of Charleston? Where's my debatin' cane?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

The West Virginians or the North Dakotans (North Dakotites?), obviously.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 05:51:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

The West Virginians or the North Dakotans (North Dakotites?), obviously.

Why does the enlarged Missouri get to keep its name?

CONSPIRACY!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 06:01:49 PM
DPD, but go figure:
QuoteI agree frame up.


FREE THE NEW ORLEANS 4

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2437829/posts#18
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

The Mississippi River Delta (the Swamp, I presume) is relegated to Sabine, while half, if not more, of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta country (the Motherlovin' Delta) appears to be in Tombigbee.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 06:27:59 PM
I think I have a boner.

QuoteAccording to his new campaign website, Chris Cox, grandson of former president Richard Nixon and son of current New York State GOP Chairman Ed Cox, is running for Congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/chris-cox-richard-nixons_n_437774.html

Let teh ratfucking begin, anew!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
Quote from: Jon on January 26, 2010, 05:32:02 PM
Savannah? Instead of Charleston? Where's my debatin' cane?

They wanted to make it easier for Sherman to find his way around.

Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 05:51:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

The West Virginians or the North Dakotans (North Dakotites?), obviously.

Why does the enlarged Missouri get to keep its name?

CONSPIRACY!!!

I don't care what its borders are.  I'll still be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 26, 2010, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

Are you moving west or south? Otherwise, you'll be in the fine state of Chicago, William Daley, Governor. (At least a step above Pat Quinn.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 26, 2010, 07:09:45 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

The Mississippi River Delta (the Swamp, I presume) is relegated to Sabine, while half, if not more, of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta country (the Motherlovin' Delta) appears to be in Tombigbee.

I disagree.  You used a lot of words there and I stopped reading when I got to too many unfamiliars.  All I know is this:  the Delta is right where it needs to be.  And, in the spirit of all of these political-type threads, you ain't NEVER changin' my mind, you commie stinko.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 26, 2010, 07:23:50 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 06:01:49 PM
DPD, but go figure:
QuoteI agree frame up.


FREE THE NEW ORLEANS 4

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2437829/posts#18

Jebus, the guy confesses to a Federal agent and you all immediately want to assume he's guilty.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/012610_affidavit.pdf (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/012610_affidavit.pdf)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 07:54:56 PM
Nixon, plumbers, everything old is new again today.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 26, 2010, 09:09:35 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2010, 06:59:33 PM
Quote from: Jon on January 26, 2010, 05:32:02 PM
Savannah? Instead of Charleston? Where's my debatin' cane?

They wanted to make it easier for Sherman to find his way around.

Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 26, 2010, 05:51:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

The West Virginians or the North Dakotans (North Dakotites?), obviously.

Why does the enlarged Missouri get to keep its name?

CONSPIRACY!!!

I don't care what its borders are.  I'll still be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize it.

I just want to know in which state the Antarctican Humanoid Lizards are going to build their subterranean lair. My cheese is on the Everglades.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 26, 2010, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 26, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
DPD. It'll never hai (http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/), but the map is interesting.

QuoteThe electoral college is a time-honored system that, has only broken down three times in over 200 years. However, it's obvious that reforms are needed. The organization of the states should be altered. This Electoral Reform Map redivides the territory of the United States into 50 bodies of equal size.

(http://fakeisthenewreal.org/img/reform/electoralreform_800.jpg)



Thank goodness.  We will no longer let the Alaskans and the Hawaiians vote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 27, 2010, 06:34:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2010, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

Are you moving west or south? Otherwise, you'll be in the fine state of Chicago, William Daley, Governor. (At least a step above Pat Quinn.)

Why aren't you moving to Brownia?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on January 27, 2010, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2010, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

Are you moving west or south? Otherwise, you'll be in the fine state of Chicago, William Daley, Governor. (At least a step above Pat Quinn.)


Talk about setting the bar low here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 27, 2010, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 27, 2010, 06:34:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2010, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

Are you moving west or south? Otherwise, you'll be in the fine state of Chicago, William Daley, Governor. (At least a step above Pat Quinn.)

Why aren't you moving to Brownia?

If you move to High Plains, we could be neighbors!

Quote from: CBStew on January 26, 2010, 11:41:43 PM

Thank goodness.  We will no longer let the Alaskans and the Hawaiians vote.

No, that's not true. On the linked page, the author explains that Alaska will be part of Olympia and that Hawaii would be part of Coronado (talk about an expensive state to run!)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 27, 2010, 09:18:43 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 27, 2010, 09:16:49 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 27, 2010, 06:34:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2010, 07:06:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 26, 2010, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 26, 2010, 05:38:20 PM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2010, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 26, 2010, 04:58:38 PM

And why is The Delta north of the Delta?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, chooch?  The mother-lovin' Delta is right where it needs to be.  You must be confusin' us with the Swamp.

I support this, but only if they get rid of the lame state names.  50 states ... 44 Presidents, mix in a few Norths and Souths (North Washington, South Washington, etc.) and suddenly we've got something America can get behind.

I assume that I will live in Lincoln, which is ok, but who's going to live in Hoover (or Pierce)?

Are you moving west or south? Otherwise, you'll be in the fine state of Chicago, William Daley, Governor. (At least a step above Pat Quinn.)

Why aren't you moving to Brownia?

If you move to High Plains, we could be neighbors!

Quote from: CBStew on January 26, 2010, 11:41:43 PM

Thank goodness.  We will no longer let the Alaskans and the Hawaiians vote.

No, that's not true. On the linked page, the author explains that Alaska will be part of Olympia and that Hawaii would be part of Coronado (talk about an expensive state to run!)

Personally, I think Alaska and Hawaii should be forced to move to a little box off the coast of Mexico, so they match our existing maps.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on January 27, 2010, 09:06:58 AM
Talk about setting the bar low here.

We are talking about Illinois Governor here.  To wit:

Pat Quinn - consumer gadfly and the Accidental Governor
Dan Hynes - Another scion of the family business: Political hackery Public service.
Andy McKenna - Businessman who built what his father gave him.  Running as the former state chair of the GOP an outsider.
Jim Ryan - Hasn't he already run and lost?

Dillard, Proft and Schillerstrom are probably not worth the mention.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on January 27, 2010, 09:28:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on January 27, 2010, 09:06:58 AM
Talk about setting the bar low here.

We are talking about Illinois Governor here.  To wit:

Pat Quinn - consumer gadfly and the Accidental Governor
Dan Hynes - Another scion of the family business: Political hackery Public service.
Andy McKenna - Businessman who built what his father gave him.  Running as the former state chair of the GOP an outsider.
Jim Ryan - Hasn't he already run and lost?

Dillard, Proft and Schillerstrom are probably not worth the mention.

The bad part of this is that Ryan, Hynes, & McKenna are better options, at least in my mind, than the once fired employee of Harold Washington.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 27, 2010, 09:34:17 AM

Even with the new map, Detroit will still suck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on January 27, 2010, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 27, 2010, 09:34:17 AM

Even with the new map, Detroit will still suck.

What about Dallas?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 27, 2010, 09:50:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on January 27, 2010, 09:06:58 AM
Talk about setting the bar low here.

We are talking about Illinois Governor here.  To wit:

Pat Quinn - consumer gadfly and the Accidental Governor
Dan Hynes - Another scion of the family business: Political hackery Public service.
Andy McKenna - Businessman who built what his father gave him.  Running as the former state chair of the GOP an outsider.
Jim Ryan - Hasn't he already run and lost?

Dillard, Proft and Schillerstrom are probably not worth the mention.

Since Shitstorm dropped out, he's definitely not worth the mention.  Great campaign ad, but poor fundraising.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 27, 2010, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 27, 2010, 09:16:49 AM
No, that's not true. On the linked page, the author explains that Alaska will be part of Olympia and that Hawaii would be part of Coronado (talk about an expensive state to run!)

Can you grow kava in Temecula?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on January 27, 2010, 10:01:55 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

Stop calling him "employed"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on January 27, 2010, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/massive_earthquake_reveals_entire (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/massive_earthquake_reveals_entire)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 27, 2010, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

I'm going to miss reading his reviews of music where he lists both good and bad things about what he's just listened to and sums it up by telling us he's undecided on his overall opinion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 27, 2010, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 27, 2010, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

I'm going to miss reading his reviews of music where he lists both good and bad things about what he's just listened to and sums it up by telling us he's undecided on his overall opinion.

Except for the one time he wrote that Oasis is WAY better than the Beatles ever were.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 27, 2010, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 27, 2010, 10:31:28 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 27, 2010, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

I'm going to miss reading his reviews of music where he lists both good and bad things about what he's just listened to and sums it up by telling us he's undecided on his overall opinion.

Except for the one time he wrote that Oasis is WAY better than the Beatles ever were.

He should leave the Oasis/Beatles shit to the experts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

You can't be serious?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 27, 2010, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

You can't be serious?


I am serious.  And don't call me...wait I guess you can.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 27, 2010, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 27, 2010, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

You can't be serious?


I am serious.  And don't call me...wait I guess you can.

Huey's gonna be furious. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203639#msg203639)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 27, 2010, 11:02:49 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 27, 2010, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 27, 2010, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

You can't be serious?


I am serious.  And don't call me...wait I guess you can.

Huey's gonna be furious. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203639#msg203639)

All the better.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on January 27, 2010, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 27, 2010, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 27, 2010, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

You can't be serious?


I am serious.  And don't call me...wait I guess you can.

Huey's gonna be furious. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203639#msg203639)

Is there any other Huey emotion?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 27, 2010, 12:02:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on January 27, 2010, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 27, 2010, 10:59:07 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 27, 2010, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: BH on January 27, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Paul Shirley (http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2010/01/paul-shirley-is-not-giving-haiti-a-dime.html), fired from ESPN.

You can't be serious?


I am serious.  And don't call me...wait I guess you can.

Huey's gonna be furious. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203639#msg203639)

Is there any other Huey emotion?

Most murderer's can show remorse.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 27, 2010, 12:05:00 PM
Not generally a huge fan of The Big Lead, but I did think this response to Shirley's article was well done.

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/01/27/paul-shirleys-modest-proposal-for-haiti-gets-him-fired-from-espn/ (http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/01/27/paul-shirleys-modest-proposal-for-haiti-gets-him-fired-from-espn/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 27, 2010, 12:25:33 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 27, 2010, 12:05:00 PM
Not generally a huge fan of The Big Lead, but I did think this response to Shirley's article was well done.

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/01/27/paul-shirleys-modest-proposal-for-haiti-gets-him-fired-from-espn/ (http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/01/27/paul-shirleys-modest-proposal-for-haiti-gets-him-fired-from-espn/)

I read Shirley's NBA book and it gave no indication that he's this much of a smug penis. Also good:

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2010/01/ksk-celebrity-pickakke-paul-shirley.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2010, 01:43:31 PM
Poor Alexi.  And by poor, I mean what kind of shape his family is going to be in once their bank fails (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=36887&seenIt=1).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on January 28, 2010, 07:52:42 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

Where'd he go?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 28, 2010, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: MAD on January 28, 2010, 07:52:42 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

Where'd he go?

Somewhere warm, I hope. I have to agree it was one of the best SOTU's I've never seen in a long time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on January 28, 2010, 08:57:47 AM
I don't know that I've watched an entire once since Reagan, to tell you the truth.  No wait, Bush 1991.  His "War" address.  Or something.

It started really well, but ummm, yeah...this is a heavy bird to get up in the air.  It's not Obama's fault.  It's hard to sell hope when there's such a shitload to be done.  I mean, it's nice to hear about "putting aside differences" early on and then later seeing Joe and Nance gloating like the puds-that-people-who-hate-them-see when he ticked off some "Democratic victories" (quotes mine, not attribution to Barry O).  Right now, nobody should be smiling about legislative "victories".   I did like that he gave more than just lip service to alternate energy development.  But yeah, I need more.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 28, 2010, 09:07:02 AM

Good delivery.

But giving a gigantic Honeydo list to a gridlocked Congress? That stuff's not gonna hai.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 28, 2010, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: MAD on January 28, 2010, 07:52:42 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

Where'd he go?

When I read this the first time, I thought Gil forgot the "l".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 28, 2010, 09:13:48 AM
Quote from: BH on January 28, 2010, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: MAD on January 28, 2010, 07:52:42 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is near.

Where'd he go?

When I read this the first time, I thought Gil forgot the "l".

Me too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on January 28, 2010, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 28, 2010, 09:13:48 AM
Quote from: BH on January 28, 2010, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: MAD on January 28, 2010, 07:52:42 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is anear a halfape.

Where'd he go?

When I read this the first time, I thought Gil forgot the "l".

Me too.

TDubbs'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

As Fork said, great delivery.  When Obama's on-teleprompter he's one of the best speakers around.  But, was Alito right to say "not true?"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/

QuoteThe law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

The Times doesn't include Obama's blatant mischaracterization of the decision when he said "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." (from CNN's transcript,emphasis mine).  I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 28, 2010, 09:29:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

As Fork said, great delivery.  When Obama's on-teleprompter he's one of the best speakers around.  But, was Alito right to say "not true?"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/

QuoteThe law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

The Times doesn't include Obama's blatant mischaracterization of the decision when he said "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." (from CNN's transcript,emphasis mine).  I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

He said he believes it will, not that it did.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 28, 2010, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2010, 09:29:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 12:12:30 AM
Goddamn, that was one of the best SOTU's I've seen in a long time.

The coup de grâce for me was the smackdown of SCOTUS; Alito took it really personally.

I think the President is back.

As Fork said, great delivery.  When Obama's on-teleprompter he's one of the best speakers around.  But, was Alito right to say "not true?"

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/

QuoteThe law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

The Times doesn't include Obama's blatant mischaracterization of the decision when he said "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." (from CNN's transcript,emphasis mine).  I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

He said he believes it will, not that it did.

Nuance. Ask BC, he'll tell you all about it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 09:41:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:47:11 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 09:41:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.

Even in non-baseball, 10.17(c) applies.

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877

Quote(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -... (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title)

In other words... no.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
The AP might have something to say about the most awesome State of the Union ever....

http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/fact-check-obama-and-a-toothless-commission-198652.html

When the AP is smelling bullshit in the room, you have problems.

My Favorite was this....

QuoteOBAMA: He called for action by the White House and Congress "to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve."

THE FACTS: Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN "so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it's acted upon.

Say one thing, do a completly different thing. Wash, rinse, repeat. And you wonder why everywhere Obama steps in to help out political friends ends up losing their job. If a serial liar comes out to talk you up, you know your being played for a sucker.

And ofcourse he had to blame Bush for all his problems. You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems. Thats the difference between a real President and a total hack as one.

You got some serious balls, and some fucking stupid blind political support, to talk about trillion dollar deficiets under Bush and then not talk about what your doing....

•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
•President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Obama hates everthing Bush did to him before he got in office and his idea is to accelerate everything Bush did? Why the fuck was Obama elected again? I am sure it wasn't based off the belief he was going to continue the Bush spending spree.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 09:53:25 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:47:11 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 09:41:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.

Even in non-baseball, 10.17(c) applies.

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877

Quote(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -... (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title)

In other words... no.

That would seem to be unconstitutional now.  Given the scope of the ruling, someone could certainly challenge it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 10:02:40 AM
Morph it should be noted that when Obama was complaing about the Supreme Court opening up the flood gates to foriegn corporations or donors it was his campaign that removed many of the donation safe guards to prevent people from overseas from donating to his campaign.

I will have to search the internet for the work some bloggers did, but they compared the donation process of McCain and Obama and McCain had all the normal restrictions that would prevent someone from overseas donating while the Obama campaign stripped those out. Plus the Obama campaign accepted nearly anything as payment like gift cards which would be totally untraceable.

And Obama wants to bitch about the flood of forieng money into campaigns to the Supreme Court of the United States. Obama is flush with millions he recieved from over-seas in nothing more than a slick bypass of election law.

Another one of those bullshit moments from the State of the Union.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 09:53:25 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:47:11 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 09:41:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.

Even in non-baseball, 10.17(c) applies.

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877

Quote(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -... (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title)

In other words... no.

That would seem to be unconstitutional now.  Given the scope of the ruling, someone could certainly challenge it.

No.  The Court held that a portion of 2 USC 441a was unconstitutional.  Didn't say a thing about 441e.  The law makes the distinction between foreign entities and domestic ones for a reason, and it's a big leap to say that will be affected in any way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 10:05:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:03:10 AM
No.  The Court held that a portion of 2 USC 441a was unconstitutional.  Didn't say a thing about 441e.  The law makes the distinction between foreign entities and domestic ones for a reason, and it's a big leap to say that will be affected in any way.

Agreed.  But it certainly opened the door to someone who wants to challenge 441e who didn't think there was a chance in hell of a favorable ruling before.

Please note that I'm not arguing for or against the ruling.  Frankly, I don't care who spends money on politicians or how much they spend.  I'm just for sunlight.

Places me against Coke Can Thomas, I guess.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 10:02:40 AM
Morph it should be noted that when Obama was complaing about the Supreme Court opening up the flood gates to foriegn corporations or donors it was his campaign that removed many of the donation safe guards to prevent people from overseas from donating to his campaign.

I will have to search the internet for the work some bloggers did, but they compared the donation process of McCain and Obama and McCain had all the normal restrictions that would prevent someone from overseas donating while the Obama campaign stripped those out. Plus the Obama campaign accepted nearly anything as payment like gift cards which would be totally untraceable.

And Obama wants to bitch about the flood of forieng money into campaigns to the Supreme Court of the United States. Obama is flush with millions he recieved from over-seas in nothing more than a slick bypass of election law.

Another one of those bullshit moments from the State of the Union.

I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:22:21 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 09:53:25 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:47:11 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 09:41:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 09:20:58 AM
I wasn't aware of the applicability of the Court's decision to the expressly prohibited act of foreign entities making donations in connection with U.S. elections.

You don't need to make a donation to make your own commercial:

"Senator Grassley is costing America farmers millions of dollars in his protectionist farm bill.  Vote against Senator Grassley.  This message paid for by Uniliever."

Hard to see how the SCOTUS ruling wouldn't allow that.

Even in non-baseball, 10.17(c) applies.

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877

Quote(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -... (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title)

In other words... no.

That would seem to be unconstitutional now.  Given the scope of the ruling, someone could certainly challenge it.

No.  The Court held that a portion of 2 USC 441a was unconstitutional.  Didn't say a thing about 441e.  The law makes the distinction between foreign entities and domestic ones for a reason, and it's a big leap to say that will be affected in any way.

DPD.  The Court specifically affirmed 441e in their opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

QuoteWe need not reach the question whether the Govern-ment has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation'spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to "foreign national").
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 10:43:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:22:21 AM
QuoteWe need not reach the question whether the Govern-ment has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation'spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to "foreign national").

That doesn't sound like an affirmation.  That sounds like they simply aren't going there with this case.  The whole paragraph includes more tying 441b to 441e.  I can't figure out what they are saying.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Saul Goodman on January 28, 2010, 10:51:11 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 10:43:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:22:21 AM
QuoteWe need not reach the question whether the Govern-ment has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation'spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to "foreign national").

That doesn't sound like an affirmation.  That sounds like they simply aren't going there with this case.  The whole paragraph includes more tying 441b to 441e.  I can't figure out what they are saying.

Courtspeak can be confusing?  Get out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 28, 2010, 11:26:38 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 10:02:40 AM
Morph it should be noted that when Obama was complaing about the Supreme Court opening up the flood gates to foriegn corporations or donors it was his campaign that removed many of the donation safe guards to prevent people from overseas from donating to his campaign.

I will have to search the internet for the work some bloggers did, but they compared the donation process of McCain and Obama and McCain had all the normal restrictions that would prevent someone from overseas donating while the Obama campaign stripped those out. Plus the Obama campaign accepted nearly anything as payment like gift cards which would be totally untraceable.

And Obama wants to bitch about the flood of forieng money into campaigns to the Supreme Court of the United States. Obama is flush with millions he recieved from over-seas in nothing more than a slick bypass of election law.

Another one of those bullshit moments from the State of the Union.

I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Responding seriously to MikeC is like feeding stray animals. My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 28, 2010, 11:27:25 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems.

What?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bush+blames+clinton%22
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 28, 2010, 11:38:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 28, 2010, 11:27:25 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems.

What?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bush+blames+clinton%22

Psh, you could only find 24,500 hits?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 28, 2010, 11:40:51 AM
Ta-Nehisi Coates (http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/i_remembered_chris_matthews_was_white_tonight.php) with a good takedown of Chris Matthews' latest dipshittery:

QuoteThe "I forgot Obama was black" sentiment allows the speaker the comfort of accepting, even lauding, a black person without interrogating their invented truth. It allows the speaker a luxurious ignorance--you get to name people (this is what black is) even when you don't know people. In fact, Chris Matthews didn't forget Barack Obama was black. Chris Matthews forgot that Chris Matthews was white.

I'm put back in the mind of the The Wire, when Slim Charles tells Avon that it really doesn't matter that our wars are based on a lie. Once we're fighting, we fight on that lie until the end. I would submit that a significant number of white people in this country, can not stop fighting on the lie. They can't cop to the fact that they really have no standing to speak on Obama's relationship to blackness, because they know so little about black people. It's always hard to say, "I don't know." But no one else can say it for you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 28, 2010, 12:04:10 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 10:43:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:22:21 AM
QuoteWe need not reach the question whether the Govern-ment has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation'spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to "foreign national").

That doesn't sound like an affirmation.  That sounds like they simply aren't going there with this case.  The whole paragraph includes more tying 441b to 441e.  I can't figure out what they are saying.

I ain't learn-ed enough to follow this argument, but FWIW

QuoteA senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: "There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: "t would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

Stevens continued: "The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at "preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process. ... Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers."

And on page 75, Stevens wrote: "Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems.

What? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html)

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment," - Ronald Reagan
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 28, 2010, 02:16:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems.

What? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html)

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment," - Ronald Reagan

Yeah, well that was Reagan, and he's dead, so there.

Riposte!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems.

What? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html)

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment," - Ronald Reagan

Of course, Reagan was right, so there's that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 28, 2010, 02:22:40 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems.

What? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html)

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment," - Ronald Reagan

Of course, Reagan was right, so there's that.

As was Obama.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 02:25:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2010, 02:22:40 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems.

What? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html)

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment," - Ronald Reagan

Of course, Reagan was right, so there's that.

As was Obama.

Sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 28, 2010, 02:26:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 02:25:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2010, 02:22:40 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2010, 02:09:08 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 28, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
You know what Bush inherited alot of crap from Clinton too but he never blamed him for his problems.

What? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganStateofUnion82.html)

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment," - Ronald Reagan

Of course, Reagan was right, so there's that.

As was Obama.

Sure.

Obama reminds Morph of his night with Dennis Rodman.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 12:39:55 AM
QuoteI read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

This is opening up an old can of worms and all but why exactly would a campaign turn off restrictions that allow you to track donations?

McCain put his entire donar list on-line for everyone to see. Obama put roughly half and kept hidden the rest. True he wasn't required to for donations less than $200, but Obama was running on Mr. Transparency and change. If your talking about being transparent but hiding who and where people are donating from it means your lieing through your teeth. And his first year in office has been a history lesson on how you lie to people.

What is interesting to note when you compare donations of McCain to Obama is McCains come out looking clean, as in dollar amounts. 5.00, 10.00, 100.00 and so on. When you look at Obamas they are in dollars and cents, like 7.16, 45.62, etc. Why are people who are donating not doing it in clean sums? One explanation is foriegn exchange rates. This alone doesn't explain everything its simply a red flag. Newsmax did a story about the ones they did find....

QuoteMajor media have jumped on the story, with Newsweek noting that FEC auditors ordered Obama's campaign to return large amounts from sources with fake names. One phony was "Good Will," who listed "Loving" as his employer and "You" as his job. The address given was found to be that of the Austin-based nonprofit Goodwill Industries, which informed the Obama campaign last month that its name was apparently being used fraudulently.

Another made-up name: "Doodad Pro." His listed address is a Nunda, N.Y., liquor store next to the now-closed Doodad Boutique.

More disturbing was $33,000 paid for Obama campaign T-shirts by two Palestinian brothers from Gaza who listed "Ga." as their address, which the campaign took to be the state of Georgia. The purchase is considered a campaign donation.

This week, CBS News discovered two Obama contributors who gave $7,722 using fake identities, "Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii," employed by "CZXVC/ZXVZXV" and "Uadhshgu Hduadh of Dhff, Fla.," who works for "DASADA/SAFASE."

The Newsmax report noted a separate FEC database of more than 11,500 overseas contributions to Obama totaling $33.8 million, with more than 520 listing their locations as "IR," a possible abbreviation for Iran. (The Associated Press noted that "In FEC reports, the designation 'IR' typically stands for 'information requested' because the donor did not supply it.")

Sixty-three listings had "UK" as the donor's location. Other locales apparently providing money for Obama included Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing and Fallujah, as well as France and Italy.

With over 220 million dollars in donations that Obama refuses to open to review it puts into question whether he was not heavily subsidized with foriegn money or simply illegal donations. His campaign also allowed donations through untracebale pre-paid credit cards.

QuoteIn recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

"They have opened the floodgates to all this money coming in," said Sean Cairncross, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. "I think they've made the determination that whatever money they have to refund on the back end doesn't outweigh the benefit of taking all this money upfront."

I think calling out the Supreme Court when his campaign was the prime example he was railing against is laughable. Its two-faced and pathetic. I am not sure the Supreme Court made the right decision and I am inclinded to believe Obama's arguement that it could lead to that, but when you have been engaged in circumventing election law in your own campaign you really have no business lecturing the Supreme Court of the United States.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 29, 2010, 08:38:51 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 12:39:55 AM
If your talking about being transparent but hiding who and where people are donating from it means your lieing through your teeth.

I can appreciate you're philosophy of sticking with won version of this word, because it insures that your gonna be write at least maybe halve the thyme.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 29, 2010, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203874#msg203874), man.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your OWN FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203874#msg203874), man.

Pedant'd (http://www.handjobexchange.com/sbox/dlog.php?date=2010-01-27&highlight=p102928308#p102928308) for accurate quoting purposes.

And the fact that AVS doesn't check the name (which is my mistake in stating that it does) doesn't change the fact that turning off AVS is still not a good idea unless you're trying to enable bad behavior.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 29, 2010, 09:40:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

Quote from: The ConstitutionHe shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

Quote from: Ronald ReaganThe Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
...but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President... derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional?

Isn't that just part and parcel to separation of powers?

QuoteI don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

There's still room to work around the edges of it. And, if they overstep the bounds of Constitutionality, there's the court to slap them down again.

The more pertinent question is how anyone could expect Congress to actually do anything to turn off the huge campaign fund spigot that just got opened, full-bore.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 29, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 29, 2010, 09:51:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 29, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.

Are you typing from PPE's PUMA alterna-verse?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 09:51:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 29, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.

Are you typing from PPE's PUMA alterna-verse?

Okay. Since my request that this not turn partisan was answered with "well Reagan did it, as did the Republicans in every..." We all know the prayer in school thing is legislation that would never pass and it's lip service to the base of the Republican Party. Like I said before, isn't the very precedent  of legislating around the decisions of the Supereme Court concerning in and of itself, be it a retarded school prayer amendment or the current issue of campaign donations? Anyways, Tank makes a good point about the Court just slapping down any further legislation, so I thank him.  And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 29, 2010, 10:02:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

So, you are against all abortion restriction legislation?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 10:03:29 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 29, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.

I agree with Obama's right to urge passage of legislation.  If the Congress can come up with a way to legislate this that is also Constitutional, then surely Obama is within his rights to call for it.  And I agree with SKO that Congress (and the President, for that matter) is not exactly great at judging what a "problem" is, but that's not the point.  The point is that our system is set up such that there is a give-and-take between the three branches, and each is expected to keep the others in check, which is what Obama's jawboning of the Supremes and Congress is all about.

I don't think that the "spigot turned on full-bore" will turn out to be as high-volume as others on this forum seem to think.  Corporations still have to 1) keep their clients and 2) keep people interested in owning their stock.  Spending tons of cash on campaign messages is a good way to eliminate 1/3 to 1/2 of the electorate from being in these categories.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 10:04:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 29, 2010, 10:02:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

So, you are against all abortion restriction legislation?

Did the Supreme Court find it all unconstitutional?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

But that's their job.

QuoteTo make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 29, 2010, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

But that's their job.

QuoteTo make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Yes, I understand that Congress passes legislation. I just don't think Congress passing legistlation that's basically designed to overturn a Supreme Court decision is a great idea. Frankly, though, the answer I wanted has been given, because I didn't really think about the Court just turning over said legislation. The system works, I guess. Thank you, Desipio roundtable.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 29, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

But that's their job.

QuoteTo make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Yes, I understand that Congress passes legislation. I just don't think Congress passing legistlation that's basically designed to overturn a Supreme Court decision is a great idea. Frankly, though, the answer I wanted has been given, because I didn't really think about the Court just turning over said legislation. The system works, I guess. Thank you, Desipio roundtable.

Another point is that, if people think the Constitution requires somthing that people really really do not want, the Constitution is amendable [which would of course have the effect of overturning any Surpreme Court decision), and the amendment process starts in the Congress.  While I do not think Obama was going there with campaign finance yet, other presidents have recommended amendments (Reagan recommended a balanced budget amendment, I think the Equal Rights Amendment was pushed by a few democrats as well).  I don't see a problem with Obama complaining about a Surpreme Court decision as he did in the speech.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 29, 2010, 10:25:05 AM
Quote from: thehawk on January 29, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

But that's their job.

QuoteTo make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Yes, I understand that Congress passes legislation. I just don't think Congress passing legistlation that's basically designed to overturn a Supreme Court decision is a great idea. Frankly, though, the answer I wanted has been given, because I didn't really think about the Court just turning over said legislation. The system works, I guess. Thank you, Desipio roundtable.

Another point is that, if people think the Constitution requires somthing that people really really do not want, the Constitution is amendable [which would of course have the effect of overturning any Surpreme Court decision), and the amendment process starts in the Congress.  While I do not think Obama was going there with campaign finance yet, other presidents have recommended amendments (Reagan recommended a balanced budget amendment, I think the Equal Rights Amendment was pushed by a few democrats as well).  I don't see a problem with Obama complaining about a Surpreme Court decision as he did in the speech.

I don't have a problem with asking for an amendment to fix anything, if that's what Obama was trying to do. Obviously an amendment would be constitutional and the process is so long and arduous that it would have to be a worthy proposal in order to get that far. But just passing a bunch of hokey legislation to work around the Constitution bothers me, but, like I said, given that I forgot that the Supreme Court can just take that down as well (which was a big FAIL on my part), it's not really an issue for me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 29, 2010, 10:49:54 AM
Quote from: thehawk on January 29, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
the amendment process starts in the Congress or the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments

Article V'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 10:59:40 AM
I have been looking more into the Supreme Court decision in the last few days and its turning out to be less of a shit storm than what its made out to be.

QuoteThe high court's 5-4 ruling in a First Amendment case, Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), lifted restrictions for companies, unions, and other organizations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

The court decision, however does not allow corporations to contribute directly to a campaign or coordinate expenditures with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.

In his speech, Obama also claimed the court reversed 100 years of law when, in fact, it overturned a 1990 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Also, parts of the McCain-Feingold reform bill from 2002 that restricted independent political advertising in the closing days of an election were struck down.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities," the president said. "They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): "A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee."

Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations.

I don't have layers of fact checkers, speech writers, and a Harvard degree, much less an open mic to the entire country. It wouldn't hurt the Administration to actually invest in some level of fact checkers before saying something he looks to be so clearly wrong on.

I believe Dennis Miller had a nice quote on the subject...

Quote"Obama chose to call out the only 9 guys in the room that did their homework in law school. And the rest who ended up settling for politics stood and and cheer[ed] it. That's the embarrassment."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 29, 2010, 11:00:26 AM
State of the Union Addresses are hokey political theater no matter if it's being staged by Rove, Mike Deaver, James Carville, Mary Matalin, or David Axelrod. Why are we wasting time on this? Shouldn't we be discussing something more important like the bipartisan agreement that the Bears are run by a bunch of dumbasses? Or maybe a thread of "examples of how Patrick Kane and John Madden could have done better in Vancouver, complete with photos."

I come to unite, not divide. We can argue politics later. We're arguing over another SOTU address which shocked everyone by having these never-before seen elements:

1) The political hacks from both parties staking out spots near the aisle so they could shake hands/hug/kiss/grope/make a snarky comment at the president;
2) The facial expressions of the veep and speaker throughout the speech, no doubt assuring the physical safety of the President since at least 1989;
3) The introduction of the "common American" that the President brings into the speech at some point;
4) The well-designed applause lines that become a cause for the President's side of the aisle to make noise as if their team just won the World Series (do you make noise when this happens? I wouldn't know) These applause breaks make the speech approximately 4 times longer than it should be.
5) The shots of some lawmaker/cabinet member snoozing or misbehaving;
6) Red meat proposals for the President's party base;
7) An opposition response that's as silly and staged (if not more staged; come on, did Gov. McDonnell have to act like he was doing a SOTU too?) as the actual SOTU;
8) A couple good lines that we will later learn were written by one of the President's speechwriters who later goes on to greater glory as a newspaper columnist, author, cable TV talking head, or candidate for office him(her)self.
9) A lot of us bickering when we could be doing something more productive (like discuss Vancouver's ladies or Xavier Nady's physical or why Chuck is wrong or why Mike Tice and Rob Marinelli = BONERTIME in the fall).

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 29, 2010, 11:01:11 AM

All politics aside, Dennis Miller can eat a bag of dicks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gil Gunderson on January 29, 2010, 11:02:12 AM
Quote from: thehawk on January 29, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

But that's their job.

QuoteTo make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Yes, I understand that Congress passes legislation. I just don't think Congress passing legistlation that's basically designed to overturn a Supreme Court decision is a great idea. Frankly, though, the answer I wanted has been given, because I didn't really think about the Court just turning over said legislation. The system works, I guess. Thank you, Desipio roundtable.

Another point is that, if people think the Constitution requires somthing that people really really do not want, the Constitution is amendable [which would of course have the effect of overturning any Surpreme Court decision), and the amendment process starts in the Congress.  While I do not think Obama was going there with campaign finance yet, other presidents have recommended amendments (Reagan recommended a balanced budget amendment, I think the Equal Rights Amendment was pushed by a few democrats as well).  I don't see a problem with Obama complaining about a Surpreme Court decision as he did in the speech.

Overturning statutory interpretations of SCOTUS decisions is often done.  In 1982 Congress amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to overrule a narrow Supreme Court holding in Mobile v. Bolden, a 1980 decision that addressed whether intentional discrimination must be shown before the act could be invoked. In 1988, Congress overruled another Supreme Court decision (in  Grove City College v. Bell) by passing the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which broadened the coverage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legislative history of that law specifically recited that "certain aspects of recent decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly narrowed or cast doubt upon" a number of federal civil rights statutes and that "legislative action is necessary to restore the prior consistent and long-standing executive branch interpretations" of those laws.

And in 1991, Congress passed a broad, new Civil Rights Act that specifically reversed no fewer than five Supreme Court cases decided in 1989--decisions that severely restricted and limited workers' rights under federal antidiscrimination laws.  The new law recited in its preamble that its purpose was "to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination."

The trickiest issue is whether or not Congress can overturn CU with remedial legislation.  This decision was rendered under first amendment grounds, aka constitutional interpretation, and I doubt the further legislation would satisfy the compelling state interest test that SCOTUS would impose on the new law.  Unless one of the Five Horsemen kicks the bucket soon, this is the law of the land.

Also, SKO, remember this.  Article 1 is number one for a reason.  The founders may have envisioned separate and equal branches, but Congress comes first.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 29, 2010, 11:15:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:59:38 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 09:51:13 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 29, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 29, 2010, 09:32:07 AM
I realize it's been done before, and I realize that probably both sides have done it, and I'm not trying to turn this into any kind of partisan slugfest, but is it wrong that I still find it unsettling that the President (and I don't mean it as an attack on This president, it could have been any other and I'd still be bothered) derided a Supreme Court decision and is urging Congress to find a way to legislate around something that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional? I'm not really sure how I feel about the donations, and this is obviously an unpopular decision, but where do you draw the line? It just bothers me that we can legislate our way around the constitution (outside of passing an amendment, of course).

There is ample precedent from every Republican president condemning Roe v Wade in their State of the Union addresses and calling for its overturn.   If a decision creates a problem that can be cured by legislation a president would be remiss if she did not address it.

Are you typing from PPE's PUMA alterna-verse?

Okay. Since my request that this not turn partisan was answered with "well Reagan did it, as did the Republicans in every..." We all know the prayer in school thing is legislation that would never pass and it's lip service to the base of the Republican Party. Like I said before, isn't the very precedent  of legislating around the decisions of the Supereme Court concerning in and of itself, be it a retarded school prayer amendment or the current issue of campaign donations? Anyways, Tank makes a good point about the Court just slapping down any further legislation, so I thank him.  And as for the bolded part, I find that notion unsettling. I'm not sure I trust Congress to judge whether a problem (meaning something the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional being reinstated) needs to be "cured" by leglislation.

I should've added some of my own wordage to clarify - Reagan was just the most recent example I found of a President talkin' jive to Congress about the Supreme Court in the SOTU. FDR spent about 1/4 of his 1937 talkin' mess to those robed weirdos. Just as the Constitution intended.

Also, what everyone else said about separation of powers. The Supreme Court declaring whether or not something is constitutional isn't the last word. That's why we've got the Execulative and Legisdicial branches.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 29, 2010, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 10:59:40 AM
I don't have layers of fact checkers, speech writers, and a Harvard degree, much less an open mic to the entire country.

No shit, no shit, no fucking kidding, and this board is what you use as a substitute.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:28:29 AM
Also a James O'Keefe update.

QuoteThe government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu's office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu's explanation was that, "Our lines have been jammed for weeks."  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for "weeks" because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu's district office – the people's office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I'm eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent "gag order."  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I "broke in" to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can't get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Retractions are being printed and he has video of the entire thing, which the Government has its hands. So he is awfully confident about the outcome of the entire matter. Much like with the ACORN matter, liberal media came rushing to defense of ACORN only to watch more and more videos drop exposing the sheer hypocrisy of ACORNS leaders but also their cheerleaders in the media.

I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt, because the main stream media is already backing down on their wild claims against O'Keefe. A dumb stunt that probably could have been thought out better, but not a wire tapping case of some criminal mastermind bent on evil.

As with the ACORN videos.....let's watch the video footage when it comes out.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 29, 2010, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:28:29 AM
Also a James O'Keefe update.

QuoteThe government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu's office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu's explanation was that, "Our lines have been jammed for weeks."  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for "weeks" because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu's district office – the people's office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I'm eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent "gag order."  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I "broke in" to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can't get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Retractions are being printed and he has video of the entire thing, which the Government has its hands. So he is awfully confident about the outcome of the entire matter. Much like with the ACORN matter, liberal media came rushing to defense of ACORN only to watch more and more videos drop exposing the sheer hypocrisy of ACORNS leaders but also their cheerleaders in the media.

I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt, because the main stream media is already backing down on their wild claims against O'Keefe. A dumb stunt that probably could have been thought out better, but not a wire tapping case of some criminal mastermind bent on evil.

As with the ACORN videos.....let's watch the video footage when it comes out.



BC has cold popcorn and pizza if you want to go over and watch it with him. It's BYOB.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 29, 2010, 11:36:18 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:28:29 AM
Also a James O'Keefe update.

QuoteThe government has now confirmed what has always been clear:  No one tried to wiretap or bug Senator Landrieu's office.  Nor did we try to cut or shut down her phone lines.  Reports to this effect over the past 48 hours are inaccurate and false.

As an investigative journalist, my goal is to expose corruption and lack of concern for citizens by government and other institutions, as I did last year when our investigations revealed the massive corruption and fraud perpetrated by ACORN.  For decades, investigative journalists have used a variety of tactics to try to dig out and reveal the truth.

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu's constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn't want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu's explanation was that, "Our lines have been jammed for weeks."  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for "weeks" because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu's district office – the people's office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.
On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building.  The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.  We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I'm eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media.

It has been amazing to witness the journalistic malpractice committed by many of the organizations covering this story.  MSNBC falsely claimed that I violated a non-existent "gag order."  The Associated Press incorrectly reported that I "broke in" to an office which is open to the public.  The Washington Post has now had to print corrections in two stories on me.  And these are just a few examples of inaccurate and false reporting.  The public will judge whether reporters who can't get their facts straight have the credibility to question my integrity as a journalist.

Retractions are being printed and he has video of the entire thing, which the Government has its hands. So he is awfully confident about the outcome of the entire matter. Much like with the ACORN matter, liberal media came rushing to defense of ACORN only to watch more and more videos drop exposing the sheer hypocrisy of ACORNS leaders but also their cheerleaders in the media.

I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt, because the main stream media is already backing down on their wild claims against O'Keefe. A dumb stunt that probably could have been thought out better, but not a wire tapping case of some criminal mastermind bent on evil.

As with the ACORN videos.....let's watch the video footage when it comes out.



He's not a journalist; he's a Hearstian, propagandizing, partisan, Yellow Journalism-peddling, charlatan.

But hey, he didn't bug a federal telephone.  THAT'S A PLUS!!!

This message brought to you by ACORN!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 29, 2010, 11:47:46 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 10:59:40 AM
I don't have layers of fact checkers, speech writers, and a Harvard degree spellcheck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 11:48:07 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:28:29 AM
I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt...

We're giving benefit of doubt now?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 29, 2010, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 10:59:40 AM
I don't have layers of fact checkers, speech writers, and a Harvard degree, much less an open mic to the entire country.

No shit, no shit, no fucking kidding, and this board is what you use as a substitute.

Hey Chuck contrary to what you may believe, you don't know everything, but you act like you do. But we are not Presidents, with an entire fucking White House at his disposal to get simple facts correct. I do politics in passing, the President of the United States is politics in its highest form. And if your writing a State of the Union Speech it wouldn't hurt to get what the Supreme Court Decision actually did rather than what you think it did. If you gonna stand at your podium and bitch slap them in front of the cameras for the entire nation to see, atleast get the facts corrects. Thats all I am addressing, the biggest most talked about thing with the SOTU address was the Alito, Obama reaction with Democrats standing up and cheering something Alito was correct about and Obama was wrong about.

I didn't have the time to actually look into the matter until recently, and i tended to believe Obama's position. Now that I have looked at it (took like 30 minutes) it doesn't really change much. What is embarrasing is the entire Democratic party standing up and cheering about something they too probably never looked at but as politician it is their job.

Me, you, everyone else on this board has their opinions, beliefs, and time constraints to give a shit about 1/10th of what politicians do. Some of its right or wrong based on your political leaning or what you give a shit about. No one is perfect on this site And guess what? The politicians know we don't have the time to fact check every single word that comes out of their mouth. But you should expect better from the President of the United States who is going to publiclly call out a Supreme Court decision to get his facts in order first. I guess the short story of it is, he has a whole team of people paid to pour over his speeches, were just people on message boards who do it for free and by ourselves.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 11:48:07 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:28:29 AM
I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt...

We're giving benefit of doubt now?

Democrats and the media have the benefit of the doubt only for Democrats. Republicans they jump to conclusions on. Just look at the Sarah Palin coverage to the John Edwards. They drug out every off the wall rumor they could think of for Palin, but John Edwards was fucking his mistress and fathering a babying on the side and the media tried its best to keep that quiet.



Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 29, 2010, 11:59:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:51:16 AMI guess the short story of it is, he has a whole team of people paid to pour over his speeches

I like to pour delicious honey on my speeches. Do you think Obama's team gives him different flavor options, like at the dentist?

Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:51:16 AMwere just people on message boards who do it for free and by ourselves.

What do Mark Foley's IM transcripts have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 29, 2010, 12:09:12 PM
Does ANYONE really give a fuck about ACORN?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 29, 2010, 12:11:10 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 29, 2010, 12:09:12 PM
Does ANYONE really give a fuck about ACORN?

You heartless bastard.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 29, 2010, 12:14:11 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 29, 2010, 12:11:10 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 29, 2010, 12:09:12 PM
Does ANYONE really give a fuck about ACORN?

You heartless bastard.

Great band.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 29, 2010, 12:19:24 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 29, 2010, 12:09:12 PM
Does ANYONE really give a fuck about ACORN al-Qaeda?

HowRepublicansviewit'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 29, 2010, 12:21:58 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 29, 2010, 11:00:26 AM
State of the Union Addresses are hokey political theater no matter if it's being staged by Rove, Mike Deaver, James Carville, Mary Matalin, or David Axelrod. Why are we wasting time on this? Shouldn't we be discussing something more important like the bipartisan agreement that the Bears are run by a bunch of dumbasses? Or maybe a thread of "examples of how Patrick Kane and John Madden could have done better in Vancouver, complete with photos."

I come to unite, not divide. We can argue politics later. We're arguing over another SOTU address which shocked everyone by having these never-before seen elements:

1) The political hacks from both parties staking out spots near the aisle so they could shake hands/hug/kiss/grope/make a snarky comment at the president;
2) The facial expressions of the veep and speaker throughout the speech, no doubt assuring the physical safety of the President since at least 1989;
3) The introduction of the "common American" that the President brings into the speech at some point;
4) The well-designed applause lines that become a cause for the President's side of the aisle to make noise as if their team just won the World Series (do you make noise when this happens? I wouldn't know) These applause breaks make the speech approximately 4 times longer than it should be.
5) The shots of some lawmaker/cabinet member snoozing or misbehaving;
6) Red meat proposals for the President's party base;
7) An opposition response that's as silly and staged (if not more staged; come on, did Gov. McDonnell have to act like he was doing a SOTU too?) as the actual SOTU;
8) A couple good lines that we will later learn were written by one of the President's speechwriters who later goes on to greater glory as a newspaper columnist, author, cable TV talking head, or candidate for office him(her)self.
9) A lot of us bickering when we could be doing something more productive (like discuss Vancouver's ladies or Xavier Nady's physical or why Chuck is wrong or why Mike Tice and Rob Marinelli = BONERTIME in the fall).



Teej, never thought I would say this to one of your comments on the political thread, but THIS.  SotU has been Jon-level political theater for a long long time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on January 29, 2010, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 29, 2010, 12:21:58 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 29, 2010, 11:00:26 AM
State of the Union Addresses are hokey political theater no matter if it's being staged by Rove, Mike Deaver, James Carville, Mary Matalin, or David Axelrod. Why are we wasting time on this? Shouldn't we be discussing something more important like the bipartisan agreement that the Bears are run by a bunch of dumbasses? Or maybe a thread of "examples of how Patrick Kane and John Madden could have done better in Vancouver, complete with photos."

I come to unite, not divide. We can argue politics later. We're arguing over another SOTU address which shocked everyone by having these never-before seen elements:

1) The political hacks from both parties staking out spots near the aisle so they could shake hands/hug/kiss/grope/make a snarky comment at the president;
2) The facial expressions of the veep and speaker throughout the speech, no doubt assuring the physical safety of the President since at least 1989;
3) The introduction of the "common American" that the President brings into the speech at some point;
4) The well-designed applause lines that become a cause for the President's side of the aisle to make noise as if their team just won the World Series (do you make noise when this happens? I wouldn't know) These applause breaks make the speech approximately 4 times longer than it should be.
5) The shots of some lawmaker/cabinet member snoozing or misbehaving;
6) Red meat proposals for the President's party base;
7) An opposition response that's as silly and staged (if not more staged; come on, did Gov. McDonnell have to act like he was doing a SOTU too?) as the actual SOTU;
8) A couple good lines that we will later learn were written by one of the President's speechwriters who later goes on to greater glory as a newspaper columnist, author, cable TV talking head, or candidate for office him(her)self.
9) A lot of us bickering when we could be doing something more productive (like discuss Vancouver's ladies or Xavier Nady's physical or why Chuck is wrong or why Mike Tice and Rob Marinelli = BONERTIME in the fall).



Teej, never thought I would say this to one of your comments on the political thread, but THIS.  SotU has been Jon-level political theater for a long long time.

I never thought I'd both agree with TJ on a political thread AND get namechecked on another agreement.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 29, 2010, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your OWN FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203874#msg203874), man.

Pedant'd (http://www.handjobexchange.com/sbox/dlog.php?date=2010-01-27&highlight=p102928308#p102928308) for accurate quoting purposes.

And the fact that AVS doesn't check the name (which is my mistake in stating that it does) doesn't change the fact that turning off AVS is still not a good idea unless you're trying to enable bad behavior.

So, I'm thinking about this; and I can't figure out how turning off AVS enables bad behavior.

All that AVS does is match the address given when paying by credit card to the actual billing address of the credit card holder.  For example, when a small business owner buys a printer from a large IT reseller and pays by credit card, that IT reseller will run an AVS check to make sure there is no fraud in the use of the credit card.  It won't check anything else.  So, if the reseller puts the charge through, ships the product, and then the credit card comes back declined because of a mismatched address, the reseller will not get paid by the bank.

In a campaign sense, all that means is that that donations won't be collected by the campaign.  Since Obama's campaign was rolling in the dough, I'm guessing this didn't really concern them.  The trade-off was faster donation processing for not having the most accurate info and risking not getting paid from he bank/credit card company.

Having AVS turned on wouldn't keep people who aren't supposed to be donating from donating.  As long as the billing address supplied matched the billing address of the credit card, the payment/donation would go through.

So, maybe I'm missing something, but why is this now all of a sudden an issue?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 29, 2010, 01:05:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 29, 2010, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your OWN FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203874#msg203874), man.

Pedant'd (http://www.handjobexchange.com/sbox/dlog.php?date=2010-01-27&highlight=p102928308#p102928308) for accurate quoting purposes.

And the fact that AVS doesn't check the name (which is my mistake in stating that it does) doesn't change the fact that turning off AVS is still not a good idea unless you're trying to enable bad behavior.

So, I'm thinking about this; and I can't figure out how turning off AVS enables bad behavior.

All that AVS does is match the address given when paying by credit card to the actual billing address of the credit card holder.  For example, when a small business owner buys a printer from a large IT reseller and pays by credit card, that IT reseller will run an AVS check to make sure there is no fraud in the use of the credit card.  It won't check anything else.  So, if the reseller puts the charge through, ships the product, and then the credit card comes back declined because of a mismatched address, the reseller will not get paid by the bank.

In a campaign sense, all that means is that that donations won't be collected by the campaign.  Since Obama's campaign was rolling in the dough, I'm guessing this didn't really concern them.  The trade-off was faster donation processing for not having the most accurate info and risking not getting paid from he bank/credit card company.

Having AVS turned on wouldn't keep people who aren't supposed to be donating from donating.  As long as the billing address supplied matched the billing address of the credit card, the payment/donation would go through.

So, maybe I'm missing something, but why is this now all of a sudden an issue?

How does any of this negate the fact that the MAN NEVER PRODUCED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!

COME ON! /gob
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 29, 2010, 01:18:16 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 29, 2010, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your OWN FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203874#msg203874), man.

Pedant'd (http://www.handjobexchange.com/sbox/dlog.php?date=2010-01-27&highlight=p102928308#p102928308) for accurate quoting purposes.

And the fact that AVS doesn't check the name (which is my mistake in stating that it does) doesn't change the fact that turning off AVS is still not a good idea unless you're trying to enable bad behavior.

So, I'm thinking about this; and I can't figure out how turning off AVS enables bad behavior.

All that AVS does is match the address given when paying by credit card to the actual billing address of the credit card holder.  For example, when a small business owner buys a printer from a large IT reseller and pays by credit card, that IT reseller will run an AVS check to make sure there is no fraud in the use of the credit card.  It won't check anything else.  So, if the reseller puts the charge through, ships the product, and then the credit card comes back declined because of a mismatched address, the reseller will not get paid by the bank.

In a campaign sense, all that means is that that donations won't be collected by the campaign.  Since Obama's campaign was rolling in the dough, I'm guessing this didn't really concern them.  The trade-off was faster donation processing for not having the most accurate info and risking not getting paid from he bank/credit card company.

Having AVS turned on wouldn't keep people who aren't supposed to be donating from donating.  As long as the billing address supplied matched the billing address of the credit card, the payment/donation would go through.

So, maybe I'm missing something, but why is this now all of a sudden an issue?

It's fucking not - but Mike C posted something about it. So here we are.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 29, 2010, 01:25:59 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 29, 2010, 11:48:07 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:28:29 AM
I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt...

We're giving benefit of doubt now?

Democrats and the media have the benefit of the doubt only for Democrats. Republicans they jump to conclusions on. Just look at the Sarah Palin coverage to the John Edwards. They drug out every off the wall rumor they could think of for Palin, but John Edwards was fucking his mistress and fathering a babying on the side and the media tried its best to keep that quiet.





He fathered a babying on the side?   That is newsworthy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 01:32:29 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 29, 2010, 01:18:16 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 29, 2010, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your OWN FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203874#msg203874), man.

Pedant'd (http://www.handjobexchange.com/sbox/dlog.php?date=2010-01-27&highlight=p102928308#p102928308) for accurate quoting purposes.

And the fact that AVS doesn't check the name (which is my mistake in stating that it does) doesn't change the fact that turning off AVS is still not a good idea unless you're trying to enable bad behavior.

So, I'm thinking about this; and I can't figure out how turning off AVS enables bad behavior.

All that AVS does is match the address given when paying by credit card to the actual billing address of the credit card holder.  For example, when a small business owner buys a printer from a large IT reseller and pays by credit card, that IT reseller will run an AVS check to make sure there is no fraud in the use of the credit card.  It won't check anything else.  So, if the reseller puts the charge through, ships the product, and then the credit card comes back declined because of a mismatched address, the reseller will not get paid by the bank.

In a campaign sense, all that means is that that donations won't be collected by the campaign.  Since Obama's campaign was rolling in the dough, I'm guessing this didn't really concern them.  The trade-off was faster donation processing for not having the most accurate info and risking not getting paid from he bank/credit card company.

Having AVS turned on wouldn't keep people who aren't supposed to be donating from donating.  As long as the billing address supplied matched the billing address of the credit card, the payment/donation would go through.

So, maybe I'm missing something, but why is this now all of a sudden an issue?

It's fucking not - but Mike C posted something about it. So here we are.

Meh, it was something that got some play on the right-leaning blogs during the campaign.  Nothing "all of a sudden" about it, except that MikeC brought it up.  We're way past that now, and I really don't know if anything substantive was even there anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 29, 2010, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 29, 2010, 12:14:11 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 29, 2010, 12:11:10 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 29, 2010, 12:09:12 PM
Does ANYONE really give a fuck about ACORN?

You heartless bastard.

Great band.

I just watched the Avett Brothers and them on Austin City Limits. She was duller live then I thought she'd be, but they are a good band with good songs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on January 29, 2010, 03:18:38 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:56:45 AM
Democrats and the DURN LIBRUL MEDIA have the benefit of the doubt only for Democrats.

boogeyman'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 29, 2010, 03:33:56 PM
How about that Jeremiah Wright? He hates America. And Obama was friends with him!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 29, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
Obama takes questions from House GOP members (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/173/). I wonder where they hid his teleprompter LOLZ!

Edited to add link to the video. I think McCain proposed a form of Prime Ministers Questions during the campaign. I'm all for doing this again.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/218836
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 29, 2010, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
Obama takes questions from House GOP members (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/173/). I wonder where they hid his teleprompter LOLZ!

Edited to add link to the video. I think McCain proposed a form of Prime Ministers Questions during the campaign. I'm all for doing this again.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/218836

He touched a lot of people. The president is black.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 29, 2010, 04:02:19 PM
Quote from: BH on January 29, 2010, 03:57:21 PM
The president is black.

Yeah, but for about an hour during his SOTU, I almost forgot that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 29, 2010, 04:54:54 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 29, 2010, 04:02:19 PM
Quote from: BH on January 29, 2010, 03:57:21 PM
The president is black.

Yeah, but for about an hour during his SOTU, I almost forgot that.

Almost?  That was close.  Never forget.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 29, 2010, 05:31:00 PM
Quote from: BH on January 29, 2010, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
Obama takes questions from House GOP members (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/173/). I wonder where they hid his teleprompter LOLZ!

Edited to add link to the video. I think McCain proposed a form of Prime Ministers Questions during the campaign. I'm all for doing this again.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/218836

He touched a lot of people. The president is black.

Fuck, that was amazing.  That should happen every month.  I guess the Republicans didn't want the cameras in there until the end? 

I could see why.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CubFaninHydePark on January 29, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Don't let anybody say Obama isn't serious about reaching out to and communicating with the vast majority of the Republican Party and its base:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2010/01/professor_obama_presidents_sta.php (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2010/01/professor_obama_presidents_sta.php)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 29, 2010, 05:49:13 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on January 29, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Don't let anybody say Obama isn't serious about reaching out to and communicating with the vast majority of the Republican Party and its base:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2010/01/professor_obama_presidents_sta.php (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2010/01/professor_obama_presidents_sta.php)

4th lower since FDR? What did FDR do for this country? NOTHIN!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 01:32:29 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 29, 2010, 01:18:16 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 29, 2010, 01:02:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 29, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 08:42:22 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 29, 2010, 06:25:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2010, 10:13:48 AM
I read somewhere that he turned off the AVS checking of credit card donations (checks donor's name, address, etc. against the credit card company's records) or something, which could have led to such behavior... but I never saw anything that established that such behavior was in fact occurring.  It may well have, but that's a serious allegation which requires some backup.

Name isn't checked by AVS. Only the address, zip, and the CVV on the back are checked. Seriously, though: responding to MikeC, morph? Hasn't Andre Bauer taught you anything about feeding stray animals?

Go fuck your OWN FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg203874#msg203874), man.

Pedant'd (http://www.handjobexchange.com/sbox/dlog.php?date=2010-01-27&highlight=p102928308#p102928308) for accurate quoting purposes.

And the fact that AVS doesn't check the name (which is my mistake in stating that it does) doesn't change the fact that turning off AVS is still not a good idea unless you're trying to enable bad behavior.

So, I'm thinking about this; and I can't figure out how turning off AVS enables bad behavior.

All that AVS does is match the address given when paying by credit card to the actual billing address of the credit card holder.  For example, when a small business owner buys a printer from a large IT reseller and pays by credit card, that IT reseller will run an AVS check to make sure there is no fraud in the use of the credit card.  It won't check anything else.  So, if the reseller puts the charge through, ships the product, and then the credit card comes back declined because of a mismatched address, the reseller will not get paid by the bank.

In a campaign sense, all that means is that that donations won't be collected by the campaign.  Since Obama's campaign was rolling in the dough, I'm guessing this didn't really concern them.  The trade-off was faster donation processing for not having the most accurate info and risking not getting paid from he bank/credit card company.

Having AVS turned on wouldn't keep people who aren't supposed to be donating from donating.  As long as the billing address supplied matched the billing address of the credit card, the payment/donation would go through.

So, maybe I'm missing something, but why is this now all of a sudden an issue?

It's fucking not - but Mike C posted something about it. So here we are.

Meh, it was something that got some play on the right-leaning blogs during the campaign.  Nothing "all of a sudden" about it, except that MikeC brought it up.  We're way past that now, and I really don't know if anything substantive was even there anyway.

The point I was hinting at with regard to the lack of AVS checking is this: It would only result in bad behavior if people were stealing credit cards and using them to make donations. This seems highly improbable to me, since the ROI on political donations is retardedly low (to say nothing about adding the risk of incarceration in to the equation).

Here's why (I think) it doesn't matter. If you were so-inclined during the '08 Election, you could go to ten different Wal-Marts wearing your finest Groucho Marx disguise, pick up a $4,600 prepaid Visa card (pay cash, natch) with a bogus name/address at each of these fine establishments, and donate ten times the legal limit to John McCain or Mike Huckabee or (lol) Fred Thompson. All of it would be untraceable, and all of it would have passed the muster of the AVS check.

Oh, why hello there. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on January 30, 2010, 08:12:57 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 29, 2010, 05:49:13 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on January 29, 2010, 05:37:03 PM
Don't let anybody say Obama isn't serious about reaching out to and communicating with the vast majority of the Republican Party and its base:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2010/01/professor_obama_presidents_sta.php (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2010/01/professor_obama_presidents_sta.php)

4th lower since FDR? What did FDR do for this country? NOTHIN!

He produced large "workforces" of assholes leaning on their shovels. /right-wing argument/imagery from the 1930's.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 30, 2010, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 29, 2010, 05:31:00 PM
Quote from: BH on January 29, 2010, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
Obama takes questions from House GOP members (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/173/). I wonder where they hid his teleprompter LOLZ!

Edited to add link to the video. I think McCain proposed a form of Prime Ministers Questions during the campaign. I'm all for doing this again.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/218836

He touched a lot of people. The president is black.



Fuck, that was amazing.  That should happen every month.  I guess the Republicans didn't want the cameras in there until the end? 

I could see why.

Just read the transcript, this was pretty cool.  This was actually a better format than the English Parliament's PMQT, as every other question in that format is a softball question from the PM's own party.  I hope we see a little more of this, would help both sides realize the other size is human.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 30, 2010, 11:15:55 AM
Quote from: thehawk on January 30, 2010, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 29, 2010, 05:31:00 PM
Quote from: BH on January 29, 2010, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
Obama takes questions from House GOP members (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/173/). I wonder where they hid his teleprompter LOLZ!

Edited to add link to the video. I think McCain proposed a form of Prime Ministers Questions during the campaign. I'm all for doing this again.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/218836

He touched a lot of people. The president is black.



Fuck, that was amazing.  That should happen every month.  I guess the Republicans didn't want the cameras in there until the end? 

I could see why.

Just read the transcript, this was pretty cool.  This was actually a better format than the English Parliament's PMQT, as every other question in that format is a softball question from the PM's own party.  I hope we see a little more of this, would help both sides realize the other size is human.

This. And I don't see why Republicans wouldn't have wanted cameras in the room.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 30, 2010, 02:28:02 PM
Jobs credit analysis:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/1/29/4442032.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 30, 2010, 02:35:37 PM
DPD. A wonky explanation of why the "just pass a simple bill" suggestions are unrealistic.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/no-such-thing-as-simple-health-reform/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 30, 2010, 03:01:51 PM
You guys know this is a CUBS messageboard, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 30, 2010, 03:21:03 PM
Quote from: JD on January 30, 2010, 03:01:51 PM
You guys know this is a CUBS messageboard, right?

Suit yourself:

Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
I do politics in passing

Like a frotteur?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 30, 2010, 03:27:05 PM
Quote from: JD on January 30, 2010, 03:01:51 PM
You guys know this is a CUBS messageboard, right?

Once Hendry signs Kiko Calero to complete the 86 win juggernaut, it'll be all Cubs, all the time, hoss.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 30, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 30, 2010, 03:21:03 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 29, 2010, 11:51:16 AM
I do politics in passing

Like a frotteur?

There was a quote at the end of the movie "Tears of the Sun." "The only things frotteurism needs to prosper are rough fabrics and crowded public settings."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on January 30, 2010, 04:18:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 30, 2010, 03:27:05 PM
Quote from: JD on January 30, 2010, 03:01:51 PM
You guys know this is a CUBS messageboard, right?

Once Hendry signs Kiko Calero to complete the 86 win juggernaut, it'll be all Cubs, all the time, hoss.

Ok.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 30, 2010, 07:45:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 30, 2010, 02:35:37 PM
DPD. A wonky explanation of why the "just pass a simple bill" suggestions are unrealistic.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/no-such-thing-as-simple-health-reform/

Nice explanation of the effects of adding complexity to an already complex health care system that already has too much government involvement. Instead of adding to the complexity (and not creating any value), how about peeling the system back.

For no other good or service that I consume am I so divorced from the true cost. (And this includes government services that are wholly subsidized by taxes.)

We've tried different measures intended to make it easier for people to get coverage, but none of them was able to repeal the natural laws of economics (i.e., we have a finite supply and unlimited demand). What we have done is increase agency cost as administrators working "on behalf of" consumer and provider haggle over price.

Many of those problems were created by the right. Some were created by the left. But most of them came from Washington, DC and various state capitals. Start over.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 30, 2010, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 30, 2010, 07:45:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 30, 2010, 02:35:37 PM
DPD. A wonky explanation of why the "just pass a simple bill" suggestions are unrealistic.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/no-such-thing-as-simple-health-reform/

Nice explanation of the effects of adding complexity to an already complex health care system that already has too much government involvement. Instead of adding to the complexity (and not creating any value), how about peeling the system back.

For no other good or service that I consume am I so divorced from the true cost. (And this includes government services that are wholly subsidized by taxes.)

We've tried different measures intended to make it easier for people to get coverage, but none of them was able to repeal the natural laws of economics (i.e., we have a finite supply and unlimited demand). What we have done is increase agency cost as administrators working "on behalf of" consumer and provider haggle over price.

Many of those problems were created by the right. Some were created by the left. But most of them came from Washington, DC and various state capitals. Start over.


Well, if you want real simple, I can do it in 6 words:

All Americans are eligble for Medicare.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 30, 2010, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 30, 2010, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 30, 2010, 07:45:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 30, 2010, 02:35:37 PM
DPD. A wonky explanation of why the "just pass a simple bill" suggestions are unrealistic.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/no-such-thing-as-simple-health-reform/

Nice explanation of the effects of adding complexity to an already complex health care system that already has too much government involvement. Instead of adding to the complexity (and not creating any value), how about peeling the system back.

For no other good or service that I consume am I so divorced from the true cost. (And this includes government services that are wholly subsidized by taxes.)

We've tried different measures intended to make it easier for people to get coverage, but none of them was able to repeal the natural laws of economics (i.e., we have a finite supply and unlimited demand). What we have done is increase agency cost as administrators working "on behalf of" consumer and provider haggle over price.

Many of those problems were created by the right. Some were created by the left. But most of them came from Washington, DC and various state capitals. Start over.


Well, if you want real simple, I can do it in 6 words:

All Americans are eligble for Medicare.

Maggie Thatcher would have agreed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 30, 2010, 09:48:19 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 30, 2010, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 30, 2010, 07:45:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 30, 2010, 02:35:37 PM
DPD. A wonky explanation of why the "just pass a simple bill" suggestions are unrealistic.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/no-such-thing-as-simple-health-reform/

Nice explanation of the effects of adding complexity to an already complex health care system that already has too much government involvement. Instead of adding to the complexity (and not creating any value), how about peeling the system back.

For no other good or service that I consume am I so divorced from the true cost. (And this includes government services that are wholly subsidized by taxes.)

We've tried different measures intended to make it easier for people to get coverage, but none of them was able to repeal the natural laws of economics (i.e., we have a finite supply and unlimited demand). What we have done is increase agency cost as administrators working "on behalf of" consumer and provider haggle over price.

Many of those problems were created by the right. Some were created by the left. But most of them came from Washington, DC and various state capitals. Start over.


Well, if you want real simple, I can do it in 6 words:

All Americans are eligble for Medicare.

I agree.  And the legislation would be simple: delete the words "65 and older" from the Medicare statute.

Probably a two-page bill.  Republicans can get behind that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 31, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php

How did you--what in the--
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 31, 2010, 12:50:05 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 31, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php

How did you--what in the--

Computers.

[waves hand mysteriously]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 12:51:19 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 31, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php

How did you--what in the--

I think you're question should be "Why."

...Because the world can ever half enough MikeC posts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 31, 2010, 12:58:00 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 12:51:19 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 31, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php

How did you--what in the--

I think you're question should be "Why."

...Because the world can ever half enough MikeC posts.

Quote from: MikeCIt's unfair and so happens and everything he never blamed him rack up on Mr. President, its been going on the coffers to make with millions of them were just give a leap of crap and stop this should not afford. Republicans have a court order. If allowed to win. On the right the difference. That's fine for every single word that was doing it was Police Captain. Not to defeat America' playbook step in clean sums? One quote you should be happening in the flood gates to be fun bringing up the people to be on 1 mosque, and and Obama was the pants if those bullshit because in power.

Obama was the pants. But not anymore.

Not anymore.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 31, 2010, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 12:51:19 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 31, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php

How did you--what in the--

I think you're question should be "Why."

...Because the world can ever half enough MikeC posts.

I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 31, 2010, 02:32:17 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 31, 2010, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 12:51:19 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 31, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php

How did you--what in the--

I think you're question should be "Why."

...Because the world can ever half enough MikeC posts.

I see what you did there.

Looks like you only saw have of it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 01, 2010, 09:01:51 AM
Know hope (http://openleft.com/diary/17181/illinois-senate-can-giannoulias-be-stopped).  Just maybe Alexi can be stopped.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 01, 2010, 09:39:15 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on January 31, 2010, 12:50:05 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 31, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php

How did you--what in the--

Computers.

[waves hand mysteriously]

Not worth the effort.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 02, 2010, 10:52:20 AM
Figuring out your ballot at the last minute like me?

I've got... ENDORSEMENTS!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2010-01/51885852.pdf
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/endorsements/2018681,sun-times-endorsement-list-012910.article
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=354948

(I wish I lived in the 1st state Senate district, so I could vote for Adolfo Mondragon.)

More...

http://dpoe.org/
http://www.iviipo.org/2010%20Primary%20Endorsements.htm
http://www.citizenaction-il.org/node/130
http://www.ilafl-cio.org/docs/10PrimEndorse.pdf

Judges:

http://www.isba.org/judicialevaluations/
http://voteforjudges.org/

Finally... The all-important endorsements for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago:

http://illinois.sierraclub.org/vote/2010/index2.html#MWRD
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:58:06 AM
Chuckendorsements:

GOP:
Gov - McKenna
US House (10th) - Coulson
US Senate - Kirk

Dem:
Gov - pick your shit
US House (10th) - Hamos
US Senate - Hoffman
Cook County Board - Preckwinkle

Cook County Board will have the most effect on our lives via SALT (State And Local Taxes)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 02, 2010, 11:16:17 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 02, 2010, 10:52:20 AMhttp://www.iviipo.org/2010%20Primary%20Endorsements.htm

Jerry Butler barely wins the coveted RV endorsement of best nickname on the ballot.

QuoteDeirdre "DK" Hirner, 18th District
Josip "Joe" Trutin, 2nd Distict
Jerry "Iceman" Butler, 3rd District
Javier "Xavier" Nogueras, 8th District
Gertrude "Trudy" Zaja, Hanover Township
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 02, 2010, 11:27:42 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 02, 2010, 11:16:17 AM
Jerry Butler barely wins the coveted RV endorsement of best nickname on the ballot.

QuoteDeirdre "DK" Hirner, 18th District
Josip "Joe" Trutin, 2nd Distict
Jerry "Iceman" Butler, 3rd District
Javier "Xavier" Nogueras, 8th District
Gertrude "Trudy" Zaja, Hanover Township

Clinton A. "Clint" Krislov hasn't earned his quotation marks?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 02, 2010, 11:50:44 AM

Isn't there some Secretary of Badness post we can elect Butler to?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 02, 2010, 12:00:08 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 02, 2010, 11:50:44 AM

Isn't there some Secretary of Badness post we can elect Butler to?

The Bears have a few coaching vacancies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 02, 2010, 12:12:16 PM
WRITE IN GIL GUNDERSON FOR METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT COMMISSIONER!!!

Seriously, that'd be funny.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 02, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
California politics can be as entertaining as Illinois politics.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/02/MNML1BR1TI.DTL


Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on February 02, 2010, 12:32:51 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 31, 2010, 02:32:17 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 31, 2010, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 12:51:19 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on January 31, 2010, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 31, 2010, 11:52:01 AM
http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php

How did you--what in the--

I think you're question should be "Why."

...Because the world can ever half enough MikeC posts.

I see what you did there.

Looks like you only saw have of it.

And you only saw two thirds've it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 02, 2010, 12:43:33 PM
The jig is up... (http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php)

Quote from: MikeCSomething similar the bus and her control. The IG scandals, the Bush Administration over the Americans secure an area, shops are about how white people will accept that is foriegn exchange for ideas on air myself, the report doesn't change bullshit he just so hard enough to actually look to war. I liked him, I don't exist. If something happens is where my horse shit.I was going to be in some way in office during the work some things need but Bush is a story about the recession that that. And yet they are being made. But while the Republicans just want a problem until its not a brain can and his present job was surrounded on incidents far far far greater goal of their job. If you may be pissed. And if Bush for better stop doing. The stuff Bush was running short story of the Iraqi people, there thoughtfully. Yes i didn't make up shit and went to publish an entire fucking White House along with Vietnam or whether you the military commanders of the first side and started the Union Speech it also goes to pack up and the insurgents because they get votes. And its not Presidents, with use for the failed and blow up government needs to do the Bush gets changed course....but the I know everything, but
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 02, 2010, 01:04:10 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 02, 2010, 12:43:33 PM
The jig is up... (http://handjobexchange.com/sbox/markov/mikec.php)

Quote from: MikeCSomething similar the bus and her control. The IG scandals, the Bush Administration over the Americans secure an area, shops are about how white people will accept that is foriegn exchange for ideas on air myself, the report doesn't change bullshit he just so hard enough to actually look to war. I liked him, I don't exist. If something happens is where my horse shit.I was going to be in some way in office during the work some things need but Bush is a story about the recession that that. And yet they are being made. But while the Republicans just want a problem until its not a brain can and his present job was surrounded on incidents far far far greater goal of their job. If you may be pissed. And if Bush for better stop doing. The stuff Bush was running short story of the Iraqi people, there thoughtfully. Yes i didn't make up shit and went to publish an entire fucking White House along with Vietnam or whether you the military commanders of the first side and started the Union Speech it also goes to pack up and the insurgents because they get votes. And its not Presidents, with use for the failed and blow up government needs to do the Bush gets changed course....but the I know everything, but

The twin robots were quick breeze through. The twin robots. were. quick. breeze. through.

Smack 'em yak 'em.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 02, 2010, 03:15:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on February 02, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
California politics can be as entertaining as Illinois politics.

Duncan Hunter was outstanding on All Things Considered tonight.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 02, 2010, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 02, 2010, 03:15:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on February 02, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
California politics can be as entertaining as Illinois politics.

Duncan Hunter was outstanding on All Things Considered tonight.


Was he the one who made Tom Tancreno sound downright sane?  Or was that the other way around?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 02, 2010, 03:54:16 PM
Que TDubbs.

Woman will marry for health insurance. (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/01/preexisting-condition-woman-marry)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 02, 2010, 04:09:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 02, 2010, 03:54:16 PM
Que TDubbs.

Woman will marry for health insurance. (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/01/preexisting-condition-woman-marry)

She has a pre-existing condition.  It's obvious she's already met TDubbs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 02, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 02, 2010, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 02, 2010, 03:15:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on February 02, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
California politics can be as entertaining as Illinois politics.

Duncan Hunter was outstanding on All Things Considered tonight.


Was he the one who made Tom Tancreno sound downright sane?  Or was that the other way around?

Tancredo is anti-gay. Hunter is apparently anti-hermaphrodite. Judge for yourself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Saul Goodman on February 02, 2010, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

Arianna Huffington?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:58:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

He's not as forceful and proactive as I would like for a 5 term (?) elected politician, but I do believe he's got some sense of ethics.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on February 02, 2010, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

DPD

Don't get me started on that stiff.
I used to work with him and his brother.
The biggest pair of self important assholes you'll ever meet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 02, 2010, 11:28:09 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

DPD

Don't get me started on that stiff.
I used to work with him and his brother.
The biggest pair of self important assholes you'll ever meet.

"Politician" said it all for me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on February 03, 2010, 07:15:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

My GOP-leanings aside, Kirk seems like a decent human being, even if he is a GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/28/andy-martin-gop-senate-ca_n_404936.html) and a DE FACTO PEDOPHILE (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/06/andy-martin-gop-senate-ca_n_413624.html) like Andy Martin says. I'm sure he's strangled a stripper or two, but who hasn't? I don't think he'll be a straight party-line voter if he gets elected, so I think he's a fine choice for moderates (which, despite the howling calls of FAKE REPUBLICAN RINO coming from the teabagger crowd, is a good thing for the state of Illinois, given that a moderate would best represent the interests of a majority of his constituents.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 03, 2010, 07:27:20 AM

If the election were today, I'd vote Kirk.

That's how bad Alexi is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 07:43:43 AM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:58:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

He's not as forceful and proactive as I would like for a 5 term (?) elected politician, but I do believe he's got some sense of ethics.

Plus, he conquered "kush"! It''s nowhere to be found!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on February 03, 2010, 08:00:38 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 07:43:43 AM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:58:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

He's not as forceful and proactive as I would like for a 5 term (?) elected politician, but I do believe he's got some sense of ethics.

Plus, he conquered "kush"! It''s nowhere to be found!

And once again I learn something new from a Wheezer post. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kush_(cannabis))
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 03, 2010, 08:20:46 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 03, 2010, 07:15:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

My GOP-leanings aside, Kirk seems like a decent human being, even if he is a GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/28/andy-martin-gop-senate-ca_n_404936.html) and a DE FACTO PEDOPHILE (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/06/andy-martin-gop-senate-ca_n_413624.html) like Andy Martin says. I'm sure he's strangled a stripper or two, but who hasn't? I don't think he'll be a straight party-line voter if he gets elected, so I think he's a fine choice for moderates (which, despite the howling calls of FAKE REPUBLICAN RINO coming from the teabagger crowd, is a good thing for the state of Illinois, given that a moderate would best represent the interests of a majority of his constituents.)

I got no problem voting for Kirk, I'm just sick of seeing that mouthbreather Alexi on TV already.  9 more months of that guy?  Guh.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2010, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 03, 2010, 08:20:46 AM
I got no problem voting for Kirk, I'm just sick of seeing that mouthbreather Alexi on TV already.  9 more months of that guy?  Guh.

Oh, his bank will crash his campaign long before then.

It's dead girl, live boy time to keep Kirk out of the senate.  And there's only 1 of those that appears to apply.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 08:36:08 AM
Cripes, the fucking DENTIST is in the lead in the contest for Democratic nomination for state comptroller. Do people never learn?

11118 of 11215 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Miller, David               383,895   47%
Krishnamoorthi, Raja   377,717   46%
Krislov, Clint               62,729      8%
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 03, 2010, 08:38:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2010, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 03, 2010, 08:20:46 AM
I got no problem voting for Kirk, I'm just sick of seeing that mouthbreather Alexi on TV already.  9 more months of that guy?  Guh.

Oh, his bank will crash his campaign long before then.

It's dead girl, live boy time to keep Kirk out of the senate.  And there's only 1 of those that appears to apply.

Unless, of course, Alexi drops out due to the scandal and Hoffman/Bill Daley/Dan Hynes/Cheryle Jackson/Carol Moseley Braun is inserted to take his place.

I can't believe any of them would run as insane, undisciplined and embarrassing a race as Alan Keyes. So to answer your earlier question, yeah the Dems have their own Alan Keyes, but they won't be so desperate or stupid to run any of them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 03, 2010, 08:38:59 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias the Moe Greene of the Giannoulias family for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on February 03, 2010, 08:41:13 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 08:36:08 AM
Cripes, the fucking DENTIST is in the lead in the contest for Democratic nomination for state comptroller. Do people never learn?

11118 of 11215 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Miller, David               383,895   47%
Krishnamoorthi, Raja   377,717   46%
Krislov, Clint               62,729      8%


Anti-dentite.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 03, 2010, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on February 03, 2010, 08:41:13 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 08:36:08 AM
Cripes, the fucking DENTIST is in the lead in the contest for Democratic nomination for state comptroller. Do people never learn?

11118 of 11215 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Miller, David               383,895   47%
Krishnamoorthi, Raja   377,717   46%
Krislov, Clint               62,729      8%


Anti-dentite.

Too bad when they listed nicknames, he didn't go in as "Miller the Driller".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 03, 2010, 08:50:28 AM
Que Kurt Evans? (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/759760---danny-millions-williams-heads-south-for-heart-surgery)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 03, 2010, 08:50:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 03, 2010, 07:15:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

My GOP-leanings aside, Kirk seems like a decent human being, even if he is a GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/28/andy-martin-gop-senate-ca_n_404936.html) and a DE FACTO PEDOPHILE (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/06/andy-martin-gop-senate-ca_n_413624.html) like Andy Martin says. I'm sure he's strangled a stripper or two, but who hasn't? I don't think he'll be a straight party-line voter if he gets elected, so I think he's a fine choice for moderates (which, despite the howling calls of FAKE REPUBLICAN RINO coming from the teabagger crowd, is a good thing for the state of Illinois, given that a moderate would best represent the interests of a majority of his constituents.)

I couldn't put my finger on it until last night, but Kirk looks like Kucinich. So he's definitely gay.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on February 03, 2010, 08:52:46 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on February 03, 2010, 08:41:13 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 08:36:08 AM
Cripes, the fucking DENTIST is in the lead in the contest for Democratic nomination for state comptroller. Do people never learn?

11118 of 11215 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Miller, David               383,895   47%
Krishnamoorthi, Raja   377,717   46%
Krislov, Clint               62,729      8%


Anti-dentite.

They should have their own schools
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 03, 2010, 08:56:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 03, 2010, 08:50:28 AM
Que Kurt Evans? (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/759760---danny-millions-williams-heads-south-for-heart-surgery)

If I was a millionaire (like this guy) and the best heart surgeon for the procedure I needed was in France, I'd be on the first fucking flight.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on February 03, 2010, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 03, 2010, 08:56:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 03, 2010, 08:50:28 AM
Que Kurt Evans? (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/759760---danny-millions-williams-heads-south-for-heart-surgery)

If I was a millionaire (like this guy) and the best heart surgeon for the procedure I needed was in France, I'd be on the first fucking flight.

When French heart surgeons are available, you gotta go get them guys.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 03, 2010, 09:11:59 AM
You ever been to Newfoundland? The French doctor is probably the closest guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on February 03, 2010, 08:41:13 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 08:36:08 AM
Cripes, the fucking DENTIST is in the lead in the contest for Democratic nomination for state comptroller. Do people never learn?

11118 of 11215 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Miller, David               383,895   47%
Krishnamoorthi, Raja   377,717   46%
Krislov, Clint               62,729      8%


Anti-dentite.

I love my dentist. It's when they go off the reservation that the problems start. Does this man look sane to you?

(http://media.nbcchicago.com/images/410*307/DavidMiller.jpg)

That plaque was probably atop his head the moment the cameras went off.

THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-hN3oF67A) is an anti-dentite.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 03, 2010, 09:17:29 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on February 03, 2010, 08:41:13 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 08:36:08 AM
Cripes, the fucking DENTIST is in the lead in the contest for Democratic nomination for state comptroller. Do people never learn?

11118 of 11215 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Miller, David               383,895   47%
Krishnamoorthi, Raja   377,717   46%
Krislov, Clint               62,729      8%


Anti-dentite.

I love my dentist. It's when they go off the reservation that the problems start. Does this man look sane to you?

(http://media.nbcchicago.com/images/410*307/DavidMiller.jpg)

That plaque was probably atop his head the moment the cameras went off.

THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-hN3oF67A) is an anti-dentite.


I have it on good authority that he is not sane.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on February 03, 2010, 09:19:13 AM
I, too, pulled the lever filled in the black arrows with that thin Sharpie-like marker for Hoffman and am also chagrined that he lost the nomination.   I haven't been this bummed since Al Gore beat Bill Bradley's brains in. Rod Blagojevich defeated Paul Vallas.

Upon further reflection'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on February 03, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on February 03, 2010, 08:41:13 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 08:36:08 AM
Cripes, the fucking DENTIST is in the lead in the contest for Democratic nomination for state comptroller. Do people never learn?

11118 of 11215 Precincts Reporting - 99%

Miller, David               383,895   47%
Krishnamoorthi, Raja   377,717   46%
Krislov, Clint               62,729      8%


Anti-dentite.

I love my dentist. It's when they go off the reservation that the problems start. Does this man look sane to you?

(http://media.nbcchicago.com/images/410*307/DavidMiller.jpg)

That plaque was probably atop his head the moment the cameras went off.

THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-hN3oF67A) is an anti-dentite.


But a camera dd go off... and it wasn't on his head /pedanticbitch
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2010, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 03, 2010, 08:38:59 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias the Moe Greene of the Giannoulias family for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck'd

First, it's Moe Green.  Second, Alexi is a blend of Michael and Fredo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 03, 2010, 09:50:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2010, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 03, 2010, 08:38:59 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias the Moe Greene of the Giannoulias family for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck'd

First, it's Moe Green.  Second, Alexi is a blend of Michael and Fredo.

Tank, there is no way to stop Chuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 03, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 03, 2010, 08:50:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 03, 2010, 07:15:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 02, 2010, 10:48:17 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 02, 2010, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck's got a pretty good point.
One of the reasons I pulled a Democratic ballot this time was specifically to vote against that crook.

FUCK this state.

There's still a chance.  You could vote for Kirk.  He's kind of wishy washy, but he's competent.

I suppose we could also hope Alexi gets Jack Ryan'd over his bank issues.  Who would be the Dem version of ALAN KEYES!!!!!?

My GOP-leanings aside, Kirk seems like a decent human being, even if he is a GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/28/andy-martin-gop-senate-ca_n_404936.html) and a DE FACTO PEDOPHILE (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/06/andy-martin-gop-senate-ca_n_413624.html) like Andy Martin says. I'm sure he's strangled a stripper or two, but who hasn't? I don't think he'll be a straight party-line voter if he gets elected, so I think he's a fine choice for moderates (which, despite the howling calls of FAKE REPUBLICAN RINO coming from the teabagger crowd, is a good thing for the state of Illinois, given that a moderate would best represent the interests of a majority of his constituents.)

I couldn't put my finger on it until last night, but Kirk looks like Kucinich. So he's definitely gay.

No fucking way.

(http://lawrence1992.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/2248624elizabeth-kucinich-photos.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 03, 2010, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2010, 09:26:46 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 03, 2010, 08:38:59 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 02, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
Guess Chuck will be bitching about Giannoulias the Moe Greene of the Giannoulias family for at least 9 more months.

FUCK

Chuck'd

First, it's Moe Green.

Don't tell me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_Greene) my business (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000809/), sir (http://godfather.wikia.com/wiki/Moe_Greene).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 03, 2010, 12:11:15 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 03, 2010, 10:31:43 AM
No fucking way.

Way.

(http://veganica.com/works/a1/p1806_me-dennis-elizabeth.jpg)

I am bummed out about Todd Connor, though, and Linda Pauel seems to be hanging by a thread.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2010, 01:40:39 PM
Hey, Yo, Alexi! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eocJHtBVLyI)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on February 03, 2010, 06:34:46 PM
The NRSC is excoriating him for his ties to a guy who participated in prostitution and gambling? Does nobody see irony anymore? Wouldn't that make him more qualified per their standards?

*This indignation isn't to say that Alexi's not a douchespigot. I'm blissfully unaware of his douche'ne se quoi. I'm not sayin' I'm just sayin...

It's also not to say that I have a moral problem with either gambling or crimes of the flesh. That two-bit pimp wouldn't even register on Tony's radar, to say nothing of "mak[ing] him proud."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 03, 2010, 07:01:23 PM
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/corporation-says-it-will-run-for-congress/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 03, 2010, 08:07:13 PM
The Senator Franken nightmare continues apace...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpQxXPFkb-I
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 03, 2010, 09:31:27 PM
DEMON SHEEP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7HiQRM7BA)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 04, 2010, 12:16:21 AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/01/free-james-okeefe

QuoteTheir real crime was disturbing the peace and quiet of the nation's liberal establishment and embarrassing ACORN. For this, these young overeager guerrilla journalists are charged with a federal crime. ("First Amendment? What's that?")

Fucking lawyers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 08:11:28 AM
If Pat Quinn wins the general election, he can rest easy that he'll never be impeached. Ladies and gentlemen, your Lt. Gov.: Scott Lee Cohen! (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on February 04, 2010, 08:19:09 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 04, 2010, 12:16:21 AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/01/free-james-okeefe

QuoteTheir real crime was disturbing the peace and quiet of the nation's liberal establishment and embarrassing ACORN. For this, these young overeager guerrilla journalists are charged with a federal crime. ("First Amendment? What's that?")

Fucking lawyers.

QuoteA budget so bloated with increased ongoing spending commitments and borrowing that it literally set the stage for the recent decline of California.

Impressive.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 04, 2010, 08:22:11 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 04, 2010, 12:16:21 AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/01/free-james-okeefe

QuoteTheir real crime was disturbing the peace and quiet of the nation's liberal establishment and embarrassing ACORN. For this, these young overeager guerrilla journalists are charged with a federal crime. ("First Amendment? What's that?")

Fucking lawyers.

The comments there make me feel a lot better about the Clusterfuck thread.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on February 04, 2010, 08:26:46 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 04, 2010, 08:22:11 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 04, 2010, 12:16:21 AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/01/free-james-okeefe

QuoteTheir real crime was disturbing the peace and quiet of the nation's liberal establishment and embarrassing ACORN. For this, these young overeager guerrilla journalists are charged with a federal crime. ("First Amendment? What's that?")

Fucking lawyers.

The comments there make me feel a lot better about the Clusterfuck thread. sound like a community consisting exclusively of Mike C.'s and Paul's.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on February 04, 2010, 08:40:49 AM
Quote from: MAD on February 04, 2010, 08:26:46 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 04, 2010, 08:22:11 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 04, 2010, 12:16:21 AM
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/01/free-james-okeefe

QuoteTheir real crime was disturbing the peace and quiet of the nation's liberal establishment and embarrassing ACORN. For this, these young overeager guerrilla journalists are charged with a federal crime. ("First Amendment? What's that?")

Fucking lawyers.

The comments there make me feel a lot better about the Clusterfuck thread. sound like a community consisting exclusively of Mike C.'s and Paul's.

I have no words for how mad I am at your Mike Douche.  I see not a single jiggle of any kind on that page.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 08:11:28 AM
If Pat Quinn wins the general election, he can rest easy that he'll never be impeached. Ladies and gentlemen, your Lt. Gov.: Scott Lee Cohen! (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html)

Ah, memories of Adlai and the LaRouchies!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 04, 2010, 09:36:53 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 08:11:28 AM
If Pat Quinn wins the general election, he can rest easy that he'll never be impeached. Ladies and gentlemen, your Lt. Gov.: Scott Lee Cohen! (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html)

Ah, memories of Adlai and the LaRouchies!

THAT: (http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/lite_guv_lunacy.php)

Quote"Sometimes, I just don't know whether to laugh or cry" a faithful Beachwood reader writes. "How the hell did local media manage to break the news about Dorothy Brown's jeans drama before Tuesday while blowing off Scott Lee Cohen's legal troubles?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 04, 2010, 09:36:53 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 08:11:28 AM
If Pat Quinn wins the general election, he can rest easy that he'll never be impeached. Ladies and gentlemen, your Lt. Gov.: Scott Lee Cohen! (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html)

Ah, memories of Adlai and the LaRouchies!

THAT: (http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/lite_guv_lunacy.php)

Quote"Sometimes, I just don't know whether to laugh or cry" a faithful Beachwood reader writes. "How the hell did local media manage to break the news about Dorothy Brown's jeans drama before Tuesday while blowing off Scott Lee Cohen's legal troubles?"

Where was the great Terry Link and Cohen's other opponents? Didn't they want to win?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:45:26 AM
I hereby declare my write in candidacy for the Lieutenant Governorship of Illinois.  My platform is the following:

1) I will not participate in any official State business during my time in the position.

2) I will refuse all salary and benefits, including pension.

3) In the event of a vacancy in the Governor's office, I shall resign immediately and allow the State Legislature to select a new governor.

If the State won't eliminate the position, let's have an office holder who will essentially do what the State should.

VOTE FOR CHUCK!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 04, 2010, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:45:26 AM
I hereby declare my write in candidacy for the Lieutenant Governorship of Illinois.  My platform is the following:

1) I will not participate in any official State business during my time in the position.

2) I will refuse all salary and benefits, including pension.

3) In the event of a vacancy in the Governor's office, I shall resign immediately and allow the State Legislature to select a new governor.

If the State won't eliminate the position, let's have an office holder who will essentially do what the State should.

VOTE FOR CHUCK!

I hereby declare MY write-in candidacy for Lt. Governor.  First, my opponent Chuck is a BANKER and he seems to have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Broadway Bank and is closely associated with Alexi Giannoulias.  Is this a man we want to hold State office?  I think not.

If elected, I will devote all my energy to pushing my agenda through the State Legislature.  My agenda consists of two prongs:

1.  The Daylight Savings time switch (the spring forward, if you will) will be moved from the 2nd Sunday in March at 1 am to the 2nd Friday in March at 4pm.  This way we can all start the weekend a little earlier, nobody has an hour of sleep taken from them by the government, and people who like Lost can pretend they have traveled through time.

2.  The seizure of the Chicago Bears football franchise by the State of Illinois through use of eminent domain and the subsequent forcible removal of that franchise from Chicago to its new home in Gary, Indiana.

Thank you, God Bless America and God Bless the great state of ILLINOIS!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 04, 2010, 10:11:15 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:45:26 AM
I hereby declare my write in candidacy for the Lieutenant Governorship of Illinois.  My platform is the following:

1) I will not participate in any official State business during my time in the position. prison.

2) I will refuse all salary and benefits, including pension.

3) In the event of a vacancy in the Governor's office, I shall resign immediately and allow the State Legislature to select a new governor.

If the State won't eliminate the position, let's have an office holder who will essentially do what the State should.

VOTE FOR CHUCK!

traidition!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 04, 2010, 10:32:31 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 04, 2010, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:45:26 AM
I hereby declare my write in candidacy for the Lieutenant Governorship of Illinois.  My platform is the following:

1) I will not participate in any official State business during my time in the position.

2) I will refuse all salary and benefits, including pension.

3) In the event of a vacancy in the Governor's office, I shall resign immediately and allow the State Legislature to select a new governor.

If the State won't eliminate the position, let's have an office holder who will essentially do what the State should.

VOTE FOR CHUCK!

I hereby declare MY write-in candidacy for Lt. Governor.  First, my opponent Chuck is a BANKER and he seems to have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Broadway Bank and is closely associated with Alexi Giannoulias.  Is this a man we want to hold State office?  I think not.

If elected, I will devote all my energy to pushing my agenda through the State Legislature.  My agenda consists of two prongs:

1.  The Daylight Savings time switch (the spring forward, if you will) will be moved from the 2nd Sunday in March at 1 am to the 2nd Friday in March at 4pm.  This way we can all start the weekend a little earlier, nobody has an hour of sleep taken from them by the government, and people who like Lost can pretend they have traveled through time.

2.  The seizure of the Chicago Bears football franchise by the State of Illinois through use of eminent domain and the subsequent forcible removal of that franchise from Chicago to its new home in Gary, Indiana.

Thank you, God Bless America and God Bless the great state of ILLINOIS!

You've convinced me. I'm writing "Present" on the ballot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 04, 2010, 11:00:21 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 09:44:32 AM
Where was the great Terry Link and Cohen's other opponents? Didn't they want to win?

Link was on WGN radio this morning moaning that he had somehow quietly alerted Quinn and Hynes and been blown off.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on February 04, 2010, 11:31:58 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 04, 2010, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:45:26 AM
I hereby declare my write in candidacy for the Lieutenant Governorship of Illinois.  My platform is the following:

1) I will not participate in any official State business during my time in the position.

2) I will refuse all salary and benefits, including pension.

3) In the event of a vacancy in the Governor's office, I shall resign immediately and allow the State Legislature to select a new governor.

If the State won't eliminate the position, let's have an office holder who will essentially do what the State should.

VOTE FOR CHUCK!

I hereby declare MY write-in candidacy for Lt. Governor.  First, my opponent Chuck is a BANKER and he seems to have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Broadway Bank and is closely associated with Alexi Giannoulias.  Is this a man we want to hold State office?  I think not.

If elected, I will devote all my energy to pushing my agenda through the State Legislature.  My agenda consists of two prongs:

1.  The Daylight Savings time switch (the spring forward, if you will) will be moved from the 2nd Sunday in March at 1 am to the 2nd Friday in March at 4pm.  This way we can all start the weekend a little earlier, nobody has an hour of sleep taken from them by the government, and people who like Lost can pretend they have traveled through time.

2.  The seizure of the Chicago Bears football franchise by the State of Illinois through use of eminent domain and the subsequent forcible removal of that franchise from Chicago to its new home in Gary, Indiana.

Thank you, God Bless America and God Bless the great state of ILLINOIS!

BLAME IT ON VOTE FOR CT!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 04, 2010, 11:34:04 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 04, 2010, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:45:26 AM
I hereby declare my write in candidacy for the Lieutenant Governorship of Illinois.  My platform is the following:

1) I will not participate in any official State business during my time in the position.

2) I will refuse all salary and benefits, including pension.

3) In the event of a vacancy in the Governor's office, I shall resign immediately and allow the State Legislature to select a new governor.

If the State won't eliminate the position, let's have an office holder who will essentially do what the State should.

VOTE FOR CHUCK!

I hereby declare MY write-in candidacy for Lt. Governor.  First, my opponent Chuck is a BANKER and he seems to have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Broadway Bank and is closely associated with Alexi Giannoulias.  Is this a man we want to hold State office?  I think not.

If elected, I will devote all my energy to pushing my agenda through the State Legislature.  My agenda consists of two prongs:

1.  The Daylight Savings time switch (the spring forward, if you will) will be moved from the 2nd Sunday in March at 1 am to the 2nd Friday in March at 4pm.  This way we can all start the weekend a little earlier, nobody has an hour of sleep taken from them by the government, and people who like Lost can pretend they have traveled through time.

2.  The seizure of the Chicago Bears football franchise by the State of Illinois through use of eminent domain and the subsequent forcible removal of that franchise from Chicago to its new home in Gary, Indiana.

Thank you, God Bless America and God Bless the great state of ILLINOIS!

I don't agree with his Bart-killing policy, but I do approve of his Selma-killing policy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on February 04, 2010, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 08:11:28 AM
If Pat Quinn wins the general election, he can rest easy that he'll never be impeached. Ladies and gentlemen, your Lt. Gov.: Scott Lee Cohen! (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html)

Ah, memories of Adlai and the LaRouchies!

There was (possibly more than) one person in our very own household who voted for Mark Fairchild unaware of the fact that he was, in fact, a Larouchie.  Oh, the agony.  Where have you gone, George Sangemeister, you indolent fuck?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 04, 2010, 12:00:16 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 04, 2010, 11:00:21 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 09:44:32 AM
Where was the great Terry Link and Cohen's other opponents? Didn't they want to win?

Link was on WGN radio this morning moaning that he had somehow quietly alerted Quinn and Hynes and been blown off.

Fuck these gutless fucking assholes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 04, 2010, 12:08:12 PM
Quote from: MAD on February 04, 2010, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 08:11:28 AM
If Pat Quinn wins the general election, he can rest easy that he'll never be impeached. Ladies and gentlemen, your Lt. Gov.: Scott Lee Cohen! (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html)

Ah, memories of Adlai and the LaRouchies!

There was (possibly more than) one person in our very own household who voted for Mark Fairchild unaware of the fact that he was, in fact, a Larouchie.  Oh, the agony.  Where have you gone, George Sangemeister, you indolent fuck?

I had no knowledge of the LaRouche movement before today. Thanks guys, you taught me something today. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 04, 2010, 12:12:35 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 04, 2010, 12:08:12 PM
Quote from: MAD on February 04, 2010, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 08:11:28 AM
If Pat Quinn wins the general election, he can rest easy that he'll never be impeached. Ladies and gentlemen, your Lt. Gov.: Scott Lee Cohen! (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html)

Ah, memories of Adlai and the LaRouchies!

There was (possibly more than) one person in our very own household who voted for Mark Fairchild unaware of the fact that he was, in fact, a Larouchie.  Oh, the agony.  Where have you gone, George Sangemeister, you indolent fuck?

I had no knowledge of the LaRouche movement before today. Thanks guys, you taught me something today. 

That directed energy beams can cure AIDS?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 12:18:02 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 04, 2010, 12:00:16 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 04, 2010, 11:00:21 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 09:44:32 AM
Where was the great Terry Link and Cohen's other opponents? Didn't they want to win?

Link was on WGN radio this morning moaning that he had somehow quietly alerted Quinn and Hynes and been blown off.

Fuck these gutless fucking assholes.

But how come Link didn't call the Tribune or the Sun-Times or the Herald or the Bloomington Pantagraph or Bernie Miklasz's paper or  Pioneer Fucking Press or the Waukegan Fucking News Sun (the latter two papers happy to listen to whatever Link has to say) and tell them?

Link is many things. A scoundrel he's not. Unfortunately, I bet a lot of Dem voters concluded the race was between Hollywood Hendon and Scott Lee "Jobs Fair" "John the Knife"  Cohen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 04, 2010, 12:28:21 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 04, 2010, 12:12:35 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 04, 2010, 12:08:12 PM
Quote from: MAD on February 04, 2010, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 04, 2010, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on February 04, 2010, 08:11:28 AM
If Pat Quinn wins the general election, he can rest easy that he'll never be impeached. Ladies and gentlemen, your Lt. Gov.: Scott Lee Cohen! (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/new-questions-in-2005-arrest-of-democratic-lieutenant-governor-nominee-.html)

Ah, memories of Adlai and the LaRouchies!

There was (possibly more than) one person in our very own household who voted for Mark Fairchild unaware of the fact that he was, in fact, a Larouchie.  Oh, the agony.  Where have you gone, George Sangemeister, you indolent fuck?

I had no knowledge of the LaRouche movement before today. Thanks guys, you taught me something today. 

That directed energy beams can cure AIDS?

Everybody knows that (http://www.cosmicbeamtherapy.com/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 04, 2010, 12:29:29 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 03, 2010, 09:31:27 PM
DEMON SHEEP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7HiQRM7BA)

Awesome link, TEC.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 04, 2010, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 04, 2010, 12:29:29 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 03, 2010, 09:31:27 PM
DEMON SHEEP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7HiQRM7BA)

Awesome link, TEC.

I support the CT 2010 campaign.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 04, 2010, 12:47:53 PM
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/gays_military_1

Something I somehow did not know, from the comments...

QuoteAlso: if, like me, you read this and wondered for a moment "why, again, is Mr. Kristol a public figure?" and answered to yourself, "oh yes, his father," I propose an alternative. Having just read his Wikipedia entry, my new mental answer to this question is, "oh yes, he was Alan Keyes' grad school roommate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kristol

QuoteDuring his first year of graduate school, Kristol shared a room with a fellow government doctoral candidate Alan Keyes, whose unsuccessful 1988 Maryland Senatorial campaign against Paul Sarbanes Kristol would later run.

And this deserves be Bill's epitaph...

QuoteThe New Republic dubbed Kristol "Dan Quayle's brain" upon being appointed the Vice President's chief of staff.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-veeps-keeper
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 04, 2010, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 04, 2010, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 04, 2010, 12:29:29 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 03, 2010, 09:31:27 PM
DEMON SHEEP! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7HiQRM7BA)

Awesome link, TEC.

I support the CT 2010 campaign.

The troops support ME.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 05, 2010, 11:43:39 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tom Tancredo...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/tea-party-fireworks-speaker-tom-tancredo-rips-mccain/story?id=9751718

QuoteThe opening-night speaker at first ever National Tea Party Convention ripped into President Obama, Sen. John McCain and "the cult of multiculturalism," asserting that Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

The speaker, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., told about 600 delegates in a Nashville, Tenn., ballroom that in the 2008 election, America "put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House ... Barack Hussein Obama."

Literacy tests! How has no one ever thought of that before?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 08, 2010, 11:06:27 AM
I thought this was a pretty good discussion, in tone and in substance.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryan_rationing_happen.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 08, 2010, 11:27:14 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 08, 2010, 11:06:27 AM
I thought this was a pretty good discussion, in tone and in substance.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/rep_paul_ryan_rationing_happen.html

Good stuff.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 09, 2010, 09:47:28 AM
In honor of Winter Snowstorm Armageddon, some Al Gore LOLZ!!!!...

http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on February 11, 2010, 09:42:22 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

Where's 'merican.com?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 11, 2010, 09:45:58 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

Here's your American.com editor. Looks like a guy we'd all get along with.

(http://www.aei.org/imgLib/Schultz-%20Nick-150.jpg)

Nick Schulz (http://www.aei.org/scholar/136)

Wonder what his slant is?

QuotePolitics Editor, FoxNews.com, 2000-2002

Ah.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 11, 2010, 09:55:40 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 11, 2010, 09:45:58 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

Here's your American.com editor. Looks like a guy we'd all get along with.

(http://www.aei.org/imgLib/Schultz-%20Nick-150.jpg)

Nick Schulz (http://www.aei.org/scholar/136)

Wonder what his slant is?
QuotePolitics Editor, FoxNews.com, 2000-2002

Ah.

Racist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 11, 2010, 10:43:09 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 11, 2010, 09:45:58 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

Here's your American.com editor. Looks like a guy we'd all get along with.

(http://www.aei.org/imgLib/Schultz-%20Nick-150.jpg)

Nick Schulz (http://www.aei.org/scholar/136)

Wonder what his slant is?

QuotePolitics Editor, FoxNews.com, 2000-2002

Ah.

American.com sucks. I get all my news and analysis from bolshevikhoopleheadswhohate'merica.com.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

(http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i65/carny_032820080311.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

(http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i65/carny_032820080311.jpg)

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 11, 2010, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

(http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i65/carny_032820080311.jpg)

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

Outrage?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 11, 2010, 12:22:26 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

(http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i65/carny_032820080311.jpg)

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

The point the article is making (regardless of whether one thinks it's true) is:

If you're Obama and trying to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, you have to make the case that it is better than doing nothing.  The baseline for "doing nothing" should be some sort of objective estimate, but instead Obama is using his own baseline that is double that of the independent body in charge of setting such estimates.  That lowers the bar for making "doing something" look better than "doing nothing."  At least that's how I read the article.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 12:30:15 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 11, 2010, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

(http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i65/carny_032820080311.jpg)

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

Outrage?

That article got me pretty good and pissed off at the Democrats for being such fucking pussies about this.  Outrage, check!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 11, 2010, 12:22:26 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

(http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i65/carny_032820080311.jpg)

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

The point the article is making (regardless of whether one thinks it's true) is:

If you're Obama and trying to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, you have to make the case that it is better than doing nothing.  The baseline for "doing nothing" should be some sort of objective estimate, but instead Obama is using his own baseline that is double that of the independent body in charge of setting such estimates.  That lowers the bar for making "doing something" look better than "doing nothing."  At least that's how I read the article.

So, what you are saying is that if you make an argument like "Zambrano sucks; he only had 9 wins last year. If we assume his WHIP will be 2.39 in 2010, we'd be best to trade him and eat most of his salary or just release him," you are being "conservative" with the numbers, but you're sandbagging the numbers so much that of course getting him off the team is the best option. If we use other projections, we can see that such a move would be foolish.

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 04:37:25 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 11, 2010, 12:22:26 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 12:01:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 11, 2010, 09:38:06 AM
Just remember guys when your President says health care costs is what is driving the deficit, its because they are rigging the numbers to fit their narrative....

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/obama-budget-rigs-healthcare-numbers

QuoteThe Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees' projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees' projections undercut the administration's narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.

The White House's assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

Good news is some states are crafting legislation to not implement ObamaCare if its passed.

It's unbelievable that those miserable shits would have violated the Fundamental Principle of Public Health Planning, which of course is to hope for the best.

(http://i.cnn.net/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i65/carny_032820080311.jpg)

Hehe.  I read through the article and tried to figure out what the outrage was about.  It seems the administration is being even more conservative about the Medicare costs over the next x number of years, and yet that seems to be too...something...for the conservatives.

I mean, if I read that right, the administration is saying that medicare will cost even more thanteh estimates and is trying to reign that cost in, right?  Am I missing something?

The point the article is making (regardless of whether one thinks it's true) is:

If you're Obama and trying to sell ObamaCare to a skeptical public, you have to make the case that it is better than doing nothing.  The baseline for "doing nothing" should be some sort of objective estimate, but instead Obama is using his own baseline that is double that of the independent body in charge of setting such estimates.  That lowers the bar for making "doing something" look better than "doing nothing."  At least that's how I read the article.

So, what you are saying is that if you make an argument like "Zambrano sucks; he only had 9 wins last year. If we assume his WHIP will be 2.39 in 2010, we'd be best to trade him and eat most of his salary or just release him," you are being "conservative" with the numbers, but you're sandbagging the numbers so much that of course getting him off the team is the best option. If we use other projections, we can see that such a move would be foolish.

I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

But, if you were trying to trade for Carlos Zambrano, wouldn't being more conservative with his numbers make more sense?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 05:14:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 04:37:25 PM

But, if you were trying to trade for Carlos Zambrano, wouldn't being more conservative with his numbers make more sense?

Two different arguments. Obama is saying that under the status quo, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is going to account for X percent of the deficit in the future. Thus, we should do Y and Z now.

I toured the local high school in the suburbs (along with 242) one Saturday morning a few weeks back because the district was trying to get a $175MM referendum passed. They made some good arguments as well as some specious claims. They're trying to demonstrate the benefits of doing what they wanted to do versus "Doing Nothing" and "Proposing a Better Plan."

The numbers and figures they used were plausible (although maybe not convincing enough to spend $175 million). But they were plausible and the figures were explained.

If the district were to say something like, "In 20 years, our projections show we'll have 40 percent more students in our high school" when all other projections show much less growth, there'd be a problem. And it would be a real problem if they were to build a second high school only to close it after 15 years. Come to think of it, they've done that before.

If Al Yellon wrote something like:

"Carlos Zambrano is projected by the BCB readership to go 4-19 with a 5.98 ERA and a 2.09 WHIP in 2010 and he will likely spend 2011 on the DL," we'd mock him because, while I suppose that scenario is possible, it's not plausible, and it's not likely, and it contradicts what other accepted projections have.

If Jim Hendry were to look at that and decide to cite that as a reason to actively shop Zambrano, that would be absurd. Zambrano's value is worth far more.

Now, if you were another ballclub with a chance to get Zambrano, would you seriously consider Al Yellon's projections? If this is someone who can help your team and his value is much higher than a shitty pitcher with a very high salary, you're not going to put together a competitive offer. (Obviously, it wouldn't be productive for either GM to project Zambrano would be good for 41 starts per year and a sub-2 ERA, either.)

As to the American magazine article, it's interesting, and I'm curious why they added an extra 1 percent of annual cost growth in there. Maybe the motivations for doing this are political; however, even if there are political reasons for doing it, I am sure there's some justification for it rooted in something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 06:20:13 PM
Quote from: powen01 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

Can I be the Chief of Staff who just sits around and swears at people?  I'm Jewish!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 11, 2010, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 06:20:13 PM
Quote from: powen01 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

Can I be the Chief of Staff who just sits around and swears at people?  I'm Jewish!

All of a sudden...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 06:41:05 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 06:20:13 PM
Quote from: powen01 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

Can I be the Chief of Staff who just sits around and swears at people?  I'm Jewish!

Quote from: HHCBH"Listen, Steve," I said at one point, "why don't we build you a tree house out back? Then, when visitors come we can tell them we have this hermit who will answer one and only one question for each group of visitors. They should take their time and work out some question that's really complex and covers everything ... then they have to prostrate themselves under your tree and go through some kind of mumbo-jumbo to get you to come out on your porch or limb or whatever. You don't say anything. Just listen gravely as the question is read out. Then you say, 'Oh, yea-a-a-a-a-ah?' and go back in your house."

I'm not sure it's the right archetype, though. Have you ever tried on a Mongolian lamb vest?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 11, 2010, 08:04:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 11, 2010, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: Oleg on February 11, 2010, 06:20:13 PM
Quote from: powen01 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

Can I be the Chief of Staff who just sits around and swears at people?  I'm Jewish!

All of a sudden...

No.  I think it has been at least three decades
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 11, 2010, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: powen01 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

I'm hoping this is the metropolitan water reclamation district ticket in 2012?

My platform: bukkake for all!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on February 12, 2010, 08:45:12 AM
Now the Whitehouse is laying claim to the success in Iraq, nevermind that Biden and Obama did everything to stop the troop surge and claimed it would never work.

I really can't understand how any of you people who voted for these ass clowns believe anything coming out of their mouths.

Victor Davis Hanson...

QuoteThe problem with Obama's new hedging on taxing those who make below $250,000, or his administration's taking credit for victory in the Iraq war that they so once fervently tried to abort, or the flip-flop on renditions and tribunals, or the embarrassments over closing Guantanamo and trying KSM in New York or Mirandizing the Christmas Day bomber,or trashing/praising Wall Street grandees, is not that presidents cannot change their minds as circumstances warrant, or even that all politicians are at times hypocritical. No, the rub is that Obama is not merely flipping and triangulating on issues in a desperate attempt to shadow the polls, but he is doing so on matters that he once swore were absolutely central to his entire candidacy and his signature hope-and-change agenda.

Next week the White House will be taking credit for defeating Hitler and Joe Biden's awesome leadership for rebuilding Europe and bringing our troops home.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 08:51:46 AM
Kate Moss and Natalia Vodianova are naked. (http://thesuperficial.com/2010/02/kate_moss_and_natalia_vodianov.php)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on February 12, 2010, 09:01:04 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 08:51:46 AM
Kate Moss and Natalia Vodianova are naked. (http://thesuperficial.com/2010/02/kate_moss_and_natalia_vodianov.php)

So ... NSFW then?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 09:33:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 12, 2010, 09:01:04 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 08:51:46 AM
Kate Moss and Natalia Vodianova are naked. (http://thesuperficial.com/2010/02/kate_moss_and_natalia_vodianov.php)

So ... NSFW then?

Depends where you work.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 11, 2010, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: powen01 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

I'm hoping this is the metropolitan water reclamation district ticket in 2012?

My platform: bukkake for all!!

Are you planning to mix your seed into our water supply like the Commies did with fluoride?

PRESERVE OUR ESSENCE FROM GIL'S UNHOLY MONKEY SERUM!

(http://i46.tinypic.com/2yuhag0.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 12, 2010, 11:21:12 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 11, 2010, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: powen01 on February 11, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 11, 2010, 05:22:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 11, 2010, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 11, 2010, 01:05:24 PM
I think we'd want to know why they're doubling the estimates that the numbers shown are accurate and not made up. Have they hired Al Yellon's statisticians?

Fair'd and Balance'd.

I never should have opened my mouth. Especially since I now can't get rid of the taste of ultrasound gel. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the GDP+1 assumption seems to apply to years 25-75 of the notional projection and exists primarily to enforce an a priori (and vaguely teleological) asymptotic boundary condition.

The part that I don't yet get is just where the modification implied by the budget's "base assumption" affects the average--clearly, one could modify years 1-10 or 11-24 and yet maintain the shape of the GCE macroeconomic curve, all the while increasing the area under the works.

Wheezer, don't explain this shit to me, just go fix the world. I am sure by the time you are done you will have enough daylight left to sift through the SETI project and find some signs of intelligent life.

Gil/Wheezer 2012!

I'm hoping this is the metropolitan water reclamation district ticket in 2012?

My platform: bukkake for all!!

Are you planning to mix your seed into our water supply like the Commies did with fluoride?

PRESERVE OUR ESSENCE FROM GIL'S UNHOLY MONKEY SERUM!

(http://i46.tinypic.com/2yuhag0.png)
'

And people said I was crazy for only drinking pure grain alcohol and distilled water.

Yeah.  Crazy like a fox.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 12, 2010, 08:45:12 AM
Now the Whitehouse is laying claim to the success in Iraq, nevermind that Biden and Obama did everything to stop the troop surge and claimed it would never work.

I really can't understand how any of you people who voted for these ass clowns believe anything coming out of their mouths.

Victor Davis Hanson...

QuoteThe problem with Obama's new hedging on taxing those who make below $250,000, or his administration's taking credit for victory in the Iraq war that they so once fervently tried to abort, or the flip-flop on renditions and tribunals, or the embarrassments over closing Guantanamo and trying KSM in New York or Mirandizing the Christmas Day bomber,or trashing/praising Wall Street grandees, is not that presidents cannot change their minds as circumstances warrant, or even that all politicians are at times hypocritical. No, the rub is that Obama is not merely flipping and triangulating on issues in a desperate attempt to shadow the polls, but he is doing so on matters that he once swore were absolutely central to his entire candidacy and his signature hope-and-change agenda.

Next week the White House will be taking credit for defeating Hitler and Joe Biden's awesome leadership for rebuilding Europe and bringing our troops home.

How do you or that charlatan VDH claim to know Obama's motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.

Maybe, he's just doing it because it's the right thing to do, rather than the ideological thing to do.  Shocking.

By the way, when is the Obama Dong Chugging Iraq Victory Party?  Is that going to be in Times Square too?  When this war is over, I don't think there will be that much fanfare.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:46:32 PM
DPD, but has Captain America gone TAXOLIB HOMOCRAT?

(http://www.publiusforum.com/images/captAmer_teapartyfear.JPG)

BTW, the "plan" to which this pinko superhero alluded to is nothing more than to take his black friend sidekick and dress him as a pretend IRS agent, because the sight of a black government agent is sure to enflame the teabaggers.

PROFIT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:02:17 PM
You know, Captain America has actually been more of a Taxolib Homocrat than a Real, Honest American over the years. He's even quit in disgust with America before.

The only real American hero is The Punisher.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.

Hey now! Nerds need music too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on February 12, 2010, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

We need to get rid of the Milton Bradley's of politics.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:18:51 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

It's a fact that it happens all the time on both sides of the aisle.  Do I really need to fill up a post with quotes to show it?  How about Robert Reich:

http://wallstreetpit.com/16482-raising-health-insurance-rates-39-percent-for-californians

QuoteObama says he's open to any new ideas from Republicans for how to control health care costs and expand coverage. The problem is Republicans don't want to play this game. They don't care about controlling costs or expanding coverage. They care only about taking back the House and/or the Senate next November.

How does that charlatan Robert Reich claim to know Republicans' motivations for anything?   I hate the self-serving liberal insider talk that claims to know everything about every Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:18:51 PM
QuoteObama says he's open to any new ideas from Republicans for how to control health care costs and expand coverage. The problem is Republicans nearly all politicians don't want to play this game. They don't care about controlling costs or expanding coverage. They care only about taking back the House and/or the Senate their personal power next November.

How does that charlatan Robert Reich claim to know Republicans' motivations for anything?   I hate the self-serving liberal insider talk that claims to know everything about every Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.

There.  Happy?

Bilbo Reich is right.  He just didn't cast his aspersions wide enough.

The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 12, 2010, 02:22:23 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.

Hey now! Nerds need music too.

You're both dumb.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:24:34 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 12, 2010, 02:22:23 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.

Hey now! Nerds need music too.

You're both dumb.

Hey! I...


I have no retort for this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:25:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:18:51 PM
QuoteObama says he's open to any new ideas from Republicans for how to control health care costs and expand coverage. The problem is Republicans nearly all politicians don't want to play this game. They don't care about controlling costs or expanding coverage. They care only about taking back the House and/or the Senate their personal power next November.

How does that charlatan Robert Reich claim to know Republicans' motivations for anything?   I hate the self-serving liberal insider talk that claims to know everything about every Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.

There.  Happy?

Bilbo Reich is right.  He just didn't cast his aspersions wide enough.

The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.

THIS
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:18:51 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

It's a fact that it happens all the time on both sides of the aisle.  Do I really need to fill up a post with quotes to show it?

No. I don't.

Because that wasn't the point at all.

Gil called out something specific that he thought was bullshit.

You responded by pointing out that other people, in general, also sometimes say things that are bullshit, too.

Which is no doubt true.

But it was beside Gil's point, which was a response specifically to MikeC quoting noted cum-wad Victor Davis Hanson.

I bet, in fact, that Gil does not care for self-serving liberal insider talk that claims to know everything about every Democrat's motivation behind anything. But that has nothing to do with either MikeC or noted cum-wad Victor Davis Hanson.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on February 12, 2010, 02:36:22 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.

Fork, do you wake up each day and try to outdo all the wrong statements you've made during the previous days of your life?
Because if you do you've got your work cut out for you tomorrow.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:42:54 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 12, 2010, 02:36:22 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.

Fork, do you wake up each day and try to outdo all the wrong statements you've made during the previous days of your life?
Because if you do you've got your work cut out for you tomorrow.

He's letting the days go by...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chuck's cure-all for the various problems that plague our American polity, that's it in a nut shell.

That is: we need to elect candidates who are there to serve not these clowns we have now whose only job is to get re-elected.

It's a solution so simple, I'm amazed no one's thought of it before.

You heard the man... Get to it, America!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 03:06:26 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:18:51 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

It's a fact that it happens all the time on both sides of the aisle.  Do I really need to fill up a post with quotes to show it?

No. I don't.

Because that wasn't the point at all.

Gil called out something specific that he thought was bullshit.

You responded by pointing out that other people, in general, also sometimes say things that are bullshit, too.

Which is no doubt true.

But it was beside Gil's point, which was a response specifically to MikeC quoting noted cum-wad Victor Davis Hanson.

I bet, in fact, that Gil does not care for self-serving liberal insider talk that claims to know everything about every Democrat's motivation behind anything. But that has nothing to do with either MikeC or noted cum-wad Victor Davis Hanson.

Precisely.  I wasn't trying to fan the flames of the wider conservative/liberal bigger balls debate, I was just responding to MikeC.

But, VDH is a pudwhack.

And no, I don't care for the inside baseball liberal or conservative talk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chuck's cure-all for the various problems that plague our American polity, that's it in a nut shell.

That is: we need to elect candidates who are there to serve not these clowns we have now whose only job is to get re-elected.

It's a solution so simple, I'm amazed no one's thought of it before.

You heard the man... Get to it, America!

It's the right solution.  And it's not simple for a multitude of reasons, #1 of which would be the need to tell the American people this truth: "You are about too see some combination of your taxes going up and the services you receive being cut.  The free ride is over."

Truth as a campaign slogan hardly ever works.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 12, 2010, 03:15:01 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 12, 2010, 02:36:22 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.

Fork, do you wake up each day and try to outdo all the wrong statements you've made during the previous days of your life?
Because if you do you've got your work cut out for you tomorrow.



Their lack of coolness was part of their whole thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 12, 2010, 03:24:40 PM
(http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Homescholers.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 12, 2010, 03:30:50 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:15:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.

Hey now! Nerds need music too.

I thought the Hampton Grease Band had settled this once and for all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 04:06:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chuck's cure-all for the various problems that plague our American polity, that's it in a nut shell.

That is: we need to elect candidates who are there to serve not these clowns we have now whose only job is to get re-elected.

It's a solution so simple, I'm amazed no one's thought of it before.

You heard the man... Get to it, America!

It's the right solution.  And it's not simple for a multitude of reasons, #1 of which would be the need to tell the American people this truth: "You are about too see some combination of your taxes going up and the services you receive being cut.  The free ride is over."

Truth as a campaign slogan hardly ever works.

It's not a "solution" at all... it's a cliche.

Or, if you prefer, a lofty ideal.

An abstract ideal that's all but meaningless unless you're actually proposing a way to realize it.

Otherwise you're just more or less bitching about how those gutless fucking clowns in Congress did it again.

KEVIN MILLAR FOR CONGRESS!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 12, 2010, 04:55:01 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 03:15:01 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 12, 2010, 02:36:22 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 12, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 12, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:10:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 12, 2010, 02:05:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 12, 2010, 12:23:25 PM

How do you, Gil, or that charlatan VDH {insert Liberal talking head here} claim to know Obama's George W. Bush's or {evil corporation X's} motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative liberal insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's Republican's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.


It ain't just the self-serving Conservatives'd.

Unnamed Liberal Talking Head does it, too!

Everybody's doing it. Therefore it's cool.

the Talking Heads were never cool.

Fork, do you wake up each day and try to outdo all the wrong statements you've made during the previous days of your life?
Because if you do you've got your work cut out for you tomorrow.



Their lack of coolness was part of their whole thing.

I swaw what you did there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 12, 2010, 05:06:20 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 04:06:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chuck's cure-all for the various problems that plague our American polity, that's it in a nut shell.

That is: we need to elect candidates who are there to serve not these clowns we have now whose only job is to get re-elected.

It's a solution so simple, I'm amazed no one's thought of it before.

You heard the man... Get to it, America!

It's the right solution.  And it's not simple for a multitude of reasons, #1 of which would be the need to tell the American people this truth: "You are about too see some combination of your taxes going up and the services you receive being cut.  The free ride is over."

Truth as a campaign slogan hardly ever works.

It's not a "solution" at all... it's a cliche.

Or, if you prefer, a lofty ideal.

An abstract ideal that's all but meaningless unless you're actually proposing a way to realize it.

Otherwise you're just more or less bitching about how those gutless fucking clowns in Congress did it again.

KEVIN MILLAR FOR CONGRESS!

Politicians are the Awfulonso Soriano of Oasis cover bands.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 13, 2010, 01:27:15 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:42:54 PM
He's letting the days go by...

Choreographed by Toni Basil (http://ghajek.freeshell.org/breakaway.flv), naturally.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: air2300 on February 13, 2010, 02:12:50 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 12, 2010, 08:45:12 AM
Now the Whitehouse is laying claim to the success in Iraq, nevermind that Biden and Obama did everything to stop the troop surge and claimed it would never work.

I really can't understand how any of you people who voted for these ass clowns believe anything coming out of their mouths.

Victor Davis Hanson...

QuoteThe problem with Obama's new hedging on taxing those who make below $250,000, or his administration's taking credit for victory in the Iraq war that they so once fervently tried to abort, or the flip-flop on renditions and tribunals, or the embarrassments over closing Guantanamo and trying KSM in New York or Mirandizing the Christmas Day bomber,or trashing/praising Wall Street grandees, is not that presidents cannot change their minds as circumstances warrant, or even that all politicians are at times hypocritical. No, the rub is that Obama is not merely flipping and triangulating on issues in a desperate attempt to shadow the polls, but he is doing so on matters that he once swore were absolutely central to his entire candidacy and his signature hope-and-change agenda.

Next week the White House will be taking credit for defeating Hitler and Joe Biden's awesome leadership for rebuilding Europe and bringing our troops home.
You do blame him for everything, so he is allowed to take credit for this, no?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on February 13, 2010, 07:54:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 04:06:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chuck's cure-all for the various problems that plague our American polity, that's it in a nut shell.

That is: we need to elect candidates who are there to serve not these clowns we have now whose only job is to get re-elected.

It's a solution so simple, I'm amazed no one's thought of it before.

You heard the man... Get to it, America!

It's the right solution.  And it's not simple for a multitude of reasons, #1 of which would be the need to tell the American people this truth: "You are about too see some combination of your taxes going up and the services you receive being cut.  The free ride is over."

Truth as a campaign slogan hardly ever works.

It's not a "solution" at all... it's a cliche.

Or, if you prefer, a lofty ideal.

An abstract ideal that's all but meaningless unless you're actually proposing a way to realize it.

Otherwise you're just more or less bitching about how those gutless fucking clowns in Congress did it again.

KEVIN MILLAR FOR CONGRESS!



Term limits would be a good start.  Like, for example, a single eight year term for a president (given that re-election tends to be pretty likely unless your name is Carter).  And maybe single terms for Congressmen/Senators, too.  Take the whole campaigning thing out of it. 

You'd certainly neuter lobbyists by doing this.  Then again, I have no idea if its even constitutional. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 14, 2010, 11:48:39 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on February 13, 2010, 07:54:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 04:06:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chuck's cure-all for the various problems that plague our American polity, that's it in a nut shell.

That is: we need to elect candidates who are there to serve not these clowns we have now whose only job is to get re-elected.

It's a solution so simple, I'm amazed no one's thought of it before.

You heard the man... Get to it, America!

It's the right solution.  And it's not simple for a multitude of reasons, #1 of which would be the need to tell the American people this truth: "You are about too see some combination of your taxes going up and the services you receive being cut.  The free ride is over."

Truth as a campaign slogan hardly ever works.

It's not a "solution" at all... it's a cliche.

Or, if you prefer, a lofty ideal.

An abstract ideal that's all but meaningless unless you're actually proposing a way to realize it.

Otherwise you're just more or less bitching about how those gutless fucking clowns in Congress did it again.

KEVIN MILLAR FOR CONGRESS!



Term limits would be a good start.  Like, for example, a single eight year term for a president (given that re-election tends to be pretty likely unless your name is Carter).  And maybe single terms for Congressmen/Senators, too.  Take the whole campaigning thing out of it. 

You'd certainly neuter lobbyists by doing this.  Then again, I have no idea if its even constitutional. 

The Confederate Constitution called for a single, six-year term for their president.  It also gave the president a line-item veto, and also stated that any bill, or any resolution carrying the force of law, could only deal with a single subject, which had to be stated in the title.

It was actually pretty impressive, save for that whole slavery thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 14, 2010, 04:26:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 14, 2010, 11:48:39 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on February 13, 2010, 07:54:11 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 04:06:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 12, 2010, 02:46:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

And, how do I know this?  Their actions.  Everything they do is about their re-election, not what's best for the country.

For those of you unfamiliar with Chuck's cure-all for the various problems that plague our American polity, that's it in a nut shell.

That is: we need to elect candidates who are there to serve not these clowns we have now whose only job is to get re-elected.

It's a solution so simple, I'm amazed no one's thought of it before.

You heard the man... Get to it, America!

It's the right solution.  And it's not simple for a multitude of reasons, #1 of which would be the need to tell the American people this truth: "You are about too see some combination of your taxes going up and the services you receive being cut.  The free ride is over."

Truth as a campaign slogan hardly ever works.

It's not a "solution" at all... it's a cliche.

Or, if you prefer, a lofty ideal.

An abstract ideal that's all but meaningless unless you're actually proposing a way to realize it.

Otherwise you're just more or less bitching about how those gutless fucking clowns in Congress did it again.

KEVIN MILLAR FOR CONGRESS!



Term limits would be a good start.  Like, for example, a single eight year term for a president (given that re-election tends to be pretty likely unless your name is Carter).  And maybe single terms for Congressmen/Senators, too.  Take the whole campaigning thing out of it. 

You'd certainly neuter lobbyists by doing this.  Then again, I have no idea if its even constitutional. 

The Confederate Constitution called for a single, six-year term for their president.  It also gave the president a line-item veto, and also stated that any bill, or any resolution carrying the force of law, could only deal with a single subject, which had to be stated in the title.

It was actually pretty impressive, save for that whole slavery thing.

I believe "Actually pretty impressive, save for that whole slavery thing" is the slogan above the visitor center in Charleston. That or "South Carolina is So Gay." I don't know. I don't read latin.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 14, 2010, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 14, 2010, 04:26:44 PM
I believe "Actually pretty impressive, save for that whole slavery thing" is the slogan above the visitor center in Charleston. That or "South Carolina is So Gay." I don't know. I don't read latin.

At least the "National Association for the Advancement of Retarded People" business lubricated the path to finally swapping out the Confederate flag for their indigenous brew of Islamic homoerotic iconography:

(http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/usa/south-carolina/images/state-flag-south-carolina.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2010, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

Evan Bayh echos yours truly:

"But running for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough," Bayh said. "And it has never been what motivates me. At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

Good for him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 15, 2010, 10:26:42 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2010, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

Evan Bayh echos yours truly:

"But running for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough," Bayh said. "And it has never been what motivates me. At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

Good for him.

Retiring?

Now who's going to represent WellPoint in the Senate?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 15, 2010, 10:33:01 AM
Pray for Obama (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-14/praying-for-obamas-death)!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 15, 2010, 11:08:49 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2010, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 14, 2010, 04:26:44 PM
I believe "Actually pretty impressive, save for that whole slavery thing" is the slogan above the visitor center in Charleston. That or "South Carolina is So Gay." I don't know. I don't read latin.

At least the "National Association for the Advancement of Retarded People" business lubricated the path to finally swapping out the Confederate flag for their indigenous brew of Islamic homoerotic iconography:

(http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/usa/south-carolina/images/state-flag-south-carolina.jpg)

Suh, I will not STAND for these aspersions on the virility of Sergeant Jasper!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 15, 2010, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2010, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

Evan Bayh echos yours truly:

"But running for the sake of winning an election against a credible candidate, just to remain in public office, is not good enough fair," Bayh said. "And it has never been what motivates me I've had to do. I'm Birch Bayh's son, and while Dad lost his seat to Dan Quayle in the 1980s, I've run for Governor and Senate against luminaries like these: John Mutz, Linley Pearson, Paul Helmke and Marvin Scott. At this time I simply believe I can best Dan Coats will raise some moeny and run a campaign that will be attractive to Hoosiers carrying some remorse for going Dem for President for the first time since 1964. Thus, contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

Good for him.

Reading the writing on the wall'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 15, 2010, 01:21:35 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 15, 2010, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2010, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

Evan Bayh echos yours truly:

"But running for the sake of winning an election against a credible candidate, just to remain in public office, is not good enough fair," Bayh said. "And it has never been what motivates me I've had to do. I'm Birch Bayh's son, and while Dad lost his seat to Dan Quayle in the 1980s, I've run for Governor and Senate against luminaries like these: John Mutz, Linley Pearson, Paul Helmke and Marvin Scott. At this time I simply believe I can best Dan Coats will raise some moeny and run a campaign that will be attractive to Hoosiers carrying some remorse for going Dem for President for the first time since 1964. Thus, contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

Good for him.

Reading the writing on the wall'd.

*rushes the court*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 15, 2010, 05:06:43 PM
The evidence flows in unabated (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=2).

QuoteIndeed, dentistry is only a job for [Don] McLeroy; his real passions are his faith and the [Texas] state board of education. ... For McLeroy, separation of church and state is a myth perpetrated by secular liberals.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM
QuoteHow do you or that charlatan VDH claim to know Obama's motivation for anything?  Do you know him?  Do you work in the White House?  I hate the self-serving conservative insider talk that claims to know EVERYTHING about EVERY Democrat's motivation behind anything.  Bullshit, I say.

Maybe, he's just doing it because it's the right thing to do, rather than the ideological thing to do.  Shocking.

By the way, when is the Obama Dong Chugging Iraq Victory Party?  Is that going to be in Times Square too?  When this war is over, I don't think there will be that much fanfare.

See thats the problem with some of you liberals on this site. You attack the messenger and never address the content of what is being addressed. The issue isn't Victor Davis Hanson or Dennis Miller or any person you liberals hate, its what your President and his Administration is doing is what the problem is.

Its a cool deflection point but it still doesn't dismiss the fact you got an Administration laying claim to the success in Iraq when they had nothing to do with it and fought tooth and nail to do the exacte opposite to that country. Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success. You know its fucked up and stupid Gil, and thats why you can't address that kind of stupidity so you go after a quote by someone you don't like without addressing the main issue.

I guess your main point is "It was the right thing to do, rather than the idideological thing to do" when it came to laying claim to the success in Iraq, or writing bills behind closed doors when he said he wasn't going to do that? You got to be chugging on the Obama dick pretty hard to ignore what he stood for in the election and what he stands for now as President. Your almost freely admitting his whole "Hope and Change" slogan was nothing more than a bullshit gimmick. That Obama is an empty suit and acts in the same capacity as any politician who has come along in the last 100 years. Which by the way i have said all along. You didn't support Obama because you believe everything he said was complete bullshit, you actually believed most of it, and you still believe most of it even when they make ridiculous claims like they did on Iraq.

Anyways, Joe Biden opened his stupid mouth again and tried to scold Scott Brown on Military Tribunals. Funny thing is Scott Brown has served in the, "Massachusetts Army National Guard for more than 30 years and is currently the Guard's top defense attorney in New England."

QuoteSen. Scott Brown thinks Vice President Joe Biden was "off base" when he suggested Sunday that the Massachusetts Republican get his facts straight on the legal procedures for military tribunals.

"It was insulting," said Brown, who frequently jabbed the administration during his Senate campaign for giving suspected terrorists legal representation.

On CBS's "Face the Nation" last weekend, Biden shot back that he doesn't "know whether the new senator from Massachusetts understands: When you get tried in a military tribunal, you get a lawyer, too."

"He's trying to give me a lesson on military law, and I didn't think it was appropriate," Brown told POLITICO. "And I thought he was off base when it comes to explaining to the American people that somehow I need a lesson on whether people get attorneys — of course they get attorneys. There's a difference as to what type of attorney they're going to get and when they're going to get that attorney, and how are they treated, and what rights do they, in fact, get."

Brown said he is particularly incensed by Biden's remarks because he's served in the Massachusetts Army National Guard for more than 30 years and is currently the Guard's top defense attorney in New England.

"I know the military rules and regulations and procedures from A to Z," Brown said.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on February 16, 2010, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM
See thats the problem with some of you liberals on this site. You attack the messenger and never address the content of what is being addressed.

I've got your ad hominem attack right here, you frothing loon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 16, 2010, 09:18:12 AM
Quote from: MAD on February 16, 2010, 09:13:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM
See thats the problem with some of you liberals on this site. You attack the messenger and never address the content of what is being addressed.

I've got your ad hominem attack right here, you frothing loon.

That might be the most Huey-est statment that ever ANGERED an ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 16, 2010, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.

Just ask David Irving.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2010, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.

Just ask David Irving.

Neh.  Even he waited till about 20 years after the war.  Pussy.  It takes a special soemone to do it while it's happening!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 09:41:01 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:36:42 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2010, 09:32:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.

Just ask David Irving.

Neh.  Even he waited till about 20 years after the war.  Pussy.  It takes a special soemone to do it while it's happening!

That Harry Elmer Barnes has some real denialist balls on him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 16, 2010, 10:04:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.

Wait... if I'm rewriting history as it's written, am I not just writing history?  I'm so confused.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 16, 2010, 10:05:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 16, 2010, 10:04:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.

Wait... if I'm rewriting history as it's written, am I not just writing history?  I'm so confused.

I'm just spellchecking history.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 16, 2010, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 16, 2010, 10:04:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.

Wait... if I'm rewriting history as it's written, am I not just writing history?  I'm so confused.

It's like you've got this guy, right? He's writing some shit down. But there's this other guy, right? He's, like, got this pen and this sweet eraser that erases pencil and pen. He's changing some of the shit that this first guy wrote right after he just got done writing it for the first time. It's almost simultaneous.

Whoa.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 16, 2010, 10:13:12 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 16, 2010, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 16, 2010, 10:04:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.

Wait... if I'm rewriting history as it's written, am I not just writing history?  I'm so confused.

It's like you've got this guy, right? He's writing some shit down. But there's this other guy, right? He's, like, got this pen and this sweet eraser that erases pencil and pen. He's changing some of the shit that this first guy wrote right after he just got done writing it for the first time. It's almost simultaneous.

Whoa.

Mind: blown.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 10:24:10 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2010, 10:05:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 16, 2010, 10:04:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 16, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 16, 2010, 09:01:57 AM

Now that history is on its way to portraying them as complete idiots for their opposition on Iraq policy they want to attempt to re-write history and claim it as their success.

I didn't know that history was on its way to doing this but, cool! I should read more history books as they're being written. Sounds like I would feel a lot better about myself.

Well, d'ur.  It's so much easier to rewrite history as it's being written.

Wait... if I'm rewriting history as it's written, am I not just writing history?  I'm so confused.

I'm just spellchecking history.

At the risk of upsetting the humor Gods, this made me laugh.  Even somewhat out loud, too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 10:51:33 AM
Oh, sweet Republican Jesus...

http://www.xpac2010.com/

(http://i45.tinypic.com/spgguc.jpg)

Distilled (http://gawker.com/5472882/cpac-gets-radical-offers-pizza-and-hiphop):

QuoteThe annual Conservative Political Action Conference begins this week in Washington. The movement's leaders will speak and the GOP will plan its strategy. But this year, they're totally getting x-treme. Ladies and gentlemen, presenting "Epic Nights" at the XPAC Lounge.

The XPAC Lounge is your one-stop shop for the latest and most radical in totally bitchin' Conservative fun.

There will be video games and Stephen Baldwin.

Quote"We're gonna have the most popular games. There'll be Guitar Hero. There'll be Dance Revolution. There'll be Call of Duty," said Kevin McCullough, the radio host who created the XPAC Lounge with actor Stephen Baldwin.

There will be "somebody of Joe-the-Plumber stature":

Quote"I wouldn't be surprised if somebody of Joe-the-Plumber stature came in three times a day to come in and rally the kids," CPAC spokesman Ian Walters said.

And, yes, there will be hip-hop, and "conservative comedy":

QuoteIt will be the scene of a late-night "rap/jam session" on Thursday and a conservative comedy lineup on Friday. FoxNews.com's Strategy Room will also be broadcasting from the XPAC Lounge.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 16, 2010, 10:59:01 AM
Speaking as a Shitty Baldwin, I feel shame for Stephen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on February 16, 2010, 11:05:33 AM
I weep for these people that they are actuallly excited about the prospect of getting someone of Joe-The-Plumber's "stature".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on February 16, 2010, 11:08:48 AM
QuoteOn Thursday night Stephen Baldwin will conduct an insightful conversation between Fox News' Andrea Tantaros and Sarah Huckabee over the future of the GOP, the ideas of conservatism, women in politics, and the outlook for the nation. The "10 questions with Stevie B" is something worth making room in your schedule for.

So Thursday night is comedy night then.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 16, 2010, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: MAD on February 16, 2010, 11:05:33 AM
I weep for these people that they are actuallly excited about the prospect of getting someone of Joe-The-Plumber's "stature".

I've moderately curious what kind of metrics determine the stature of a Republican vs. Joe the Plumber. Who has his stature as a fake blue-collar schill riding his fame until people get sick of him? Larry the Cable Guy?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 11:30:08 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2010, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: MAD on February 16, 2010, 11:05:33 AM
I weep for these people that they are actuallly excited about the prospect of getting someone of Joe-The-Plumber's "stature".

I've moderately curious what kind of metrics determine the stature of a Republican vs. Joe the Plumber. Who has his stature as a fake blue-collar schill riding his fame until people get sick of him? Larry the Cable Guy?

A short list:

Rep. Joe Wilson
James O'Keefe
Stephen Baldwin
Michael Steele
Larry the Cable Guy
Jeff Dunham
Dennis Miller
Conservative rapper Hi-Caliber
Stephen Baldwin
Kelsey Grammer
Pat Sajak
Ron Silver's corpse
Stephen Baldwin
Joe the Plumber
Stephen Baldwin
Any Republican with tits
Dr. James Dobson
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 16, 2010, 11:39:23 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 10:51:33 AM


There will be video games and Stephen Baldwin.


I just thank the Lord that I don't have to choose between the two.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 16, 2010, 11:46:02 AM
"Any Republican with tits"

That would be Kelsey Grammar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 16, 2010, 11:50:25 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 11:30:08 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2010, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: MAD on February 16, 2010, 11:05:33 AM
I weep for these people that they are actuallly excited about the prospect of getting someone of Joe-The-Plumber's "stature".

I've moderately curious what kind of metrics determine the stature of a Republican vs. Joe the Plumber. Who has his stature as a fake blue-collar schill riding his fame until people get sick of him? Larry the Cable Guy?

A short list:

Rep. Joe Wilson
James O'Keefe
Stephen Baldwin
Michael Steele
Larry the Cable Guy
Jeff Dunham
Dennis Miller
Conservative rapper Hi-Caliber
Stephen Baldwin
Kelsey Grammer
Pat Sajak
Ron Silver's corpse
Stephen Baldwin
Joe the Plumber
Stephen Baldwin
Any Republican with tits
Dr. James Dobson

I had forgotten that he died.  I learned something today.  That, and I'm supposedly chugging on too much Obama dong, per MikeC.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 16, 2010, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 16, 2010, 11:50:25 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 11:30:08 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2010, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: MAD on February 16, 2010, 11:05:33 AM
I weep for these people that they are actuallly excited about the prospect of getting someone of Joe-The-Plumber's "stature".

I've moderately curious what kind of metrics determine the stature of a Republican vs. Joe the Plumber. Who has his stature as a fake blue-collar schill riding his fame until people get sick of him? Larry the Cable Guy?

A short list:

Rep. Joe Wilson
James O'Keefe
Stephen Baldwin
Michael Steele
Larry the Cable Guy
Jeff Dunham
Dennis Miller
Conservative rapper Hi-Caliber
Stephen Baldwin
Kelsey Grammer
Pat Sajak
Ron Silver's corpse
Stephen Baldwin
Joe the Plumber
Stephen Baldwin
Any Republican with tits
Dr. James Dobson

I had forgotten that he died.  I learned something today.  That, and I'm supposedly chugging on too much Obama dong, per MikeC.

Apparently Nixon would be too librul to run these days.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 16, 2010, 12:13:04 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 11:30:08 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 16, 2010, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: MAD on February 16, 2010, 11:05:33 AM
I weep for these people that they are actuallly excited about the prospect of getting someone of Joe-The-Plumber's "stature".

I've moderately curious what kind of metrics determine the stature of a Republican vs. Joe the Plumber. Who has his stature as a fake blue-collar schill riding his fame until people get sick of him? Larry the Cable Guy?

A short list:

Rep. Joe Wilson
James O'Keefe
Stephen Baldwin
Michael Steele
Larry the Cable Guy
Jeff Dunham
Dennis Miller
Conservative rapper Hi-Caliber
Stephen Baldwin
Kelsey Grammer
Pat Sajak
Ron Silver's corpse
Stephen Baldwin
Joe the Plumber
Stephen Baldwin
Any Republican with tits
Dr. James Dobson

I had not heard of this dude, so I just gave him a quick listen on the interwebs. Yeah, he sucks. Hard. God damnit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 16, 2010, 06:27:00 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 10:51:33 AM
Oh, sweet Republican Jesus...



(http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/christian_art_political/republican_jesus2.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 16, 2010, 06:29:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2010, 11:46:02 AM
"Any Republican with tits"

That would be Kelsey Grammar.

you were expecting maybe Lush Bimbo?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 16, 2010, 06:32:58 PM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2010, 06:29:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2010, 11:46:02 AM
"Any Republican with tits"

That would be Kelsey Grammar.

you were expecting maybe Lush Bimbo?

Does anyone else remember "Pansy Nusbaum"  From "Allen's Alley"? ...nevermind
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2010, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

Evan Bayh echos yours truly:

"But running for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough," Bayh said. "And it has never been what motivates me. At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

Good for him.

Ezra Klein is ice cold enough on Bayh to be quoted in full...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/evan_bayh_an_ordinary_politici.html

QuoteMy impression of Evan Bayh was that he was a major deficit hypocrite. Despite spending all his time talking about the need to reduce spending, he'd voted for all the major spending increases in recent years. When I looked into it, that wasn't true: He voted against the Bush tax cuts, and against the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But he voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, opposed sensible tax increases like President Obama's proposed cap on itemized deductions, and sponsored legislation to spend more than $440 billion exempting rich people's estates from taxation.

So: Evan Bayh's not a major deficit hypocrite. He's a minor deficit hypocrite. But a deficit hypocrite all the same. In his exit speech, he describes himself as "a lonely voice for balancing the budget and restraining spending." Of course, there's no such thing in Washington as a "lonely voice" for a balanced budget. There is a cacophony of such voices, and a dearth of such votes. But votes are the only things able to do the job. If voices balanced the budget, treasury bonds would never rise.

Accusing a politician of deficit hypocrisy isn't a particularly serious slur. Pretty much every politician is guilty of it. It's a bit like trumpeting the fact that some politician or another wears a suit. But if Bayh's sins are ordinary, so too was his career. Which is why I was surprised to see my colleague Jonathan Capehart term this a "brain drain." I've talked to Bayh before, and like Jonathan Chait, found him special only in his ability to formulate platitudes on the fly. The guy missed out on a terrific career as a fortune cookie author ("Your country will be assured of greatness! Your lucky deficit number is zero!"), but the sciences will not weep for their loss.

Take Bayh's dramatic exit. "I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should," he says. "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." All true enough. You'd expect that he'd then diagnose the problem and explain how he'll help fix it. But nope. Instead, he simply laments it and then says he'd like a job "helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

Respectable goals all, but small ball for a senator who has concluded that the American legislative system is so crippled that he can no longer bear to participate in it. Even in this, his most dramatic hour, Bayh was unable to be more than a perfectly typical politician, seeking praise for raising his voice while doing nothing to solve the problem.

He also links to James Fallows...

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/evan_bayh_why_the_no-class_mov.php

QuoteHere's a constructive suggestion: Do you really care about the partisanship that is ruining public life and that, as you said, has driven you from the Senate, Mr. Bayh? Then why not use the fact that you are still in the U.S. Senate for most of another year -- a platform 99.999% of Americans will never occupy -- and apply all the power you can to advance causes you care about. What is holding you back?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 17, 2010, 09:10:21 AM
Maybe (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html).

Quote
And many of the criticisms are valid. The program has had its flaws. But the attention they have received is wildly disproportionate to their importance. To hark back to another big government program, it's almost as if the lasting image of the lunar space program was Apollo 6, an unmanned 1968 mission that had engine problems, and not Apollo 11, the moon landing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
Maybe not?   From Leonhardt's piece:

QuoteJust look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody's Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

What the CBO has actually said:

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=433
QuoteThat impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports). First, it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.
(emphasis mine)

This doesn't sound like an unqualified endorsement.  This is the real problem with evaluating the stimulus.  The counterfactual - what would have happened if the stimulus were not passed - is unavailable.  Counting the number of jobs that stimulus money was spent on is a poor substitute, so we're stuck with econometric models.  I'm pretty sure Leonhardt picked those three sources because they all put a pretty strong multiplier on government spending in their models, an assumption that is certainly questionable (see Christina Romer's or John Cogan's work as examples; Cogan's estimates for the fiscal multiplier are something like 1/6th those of Mark Zandi's at economy.com).

In my quick research on this I found that Leonhardt basically recycled a 3-month-old NY Times "news" article.  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/business/economy/21stimulus.html?_r=1 (as a typical "Morph bashing the NY Times" aside, note the "Economists" versus "Republicans" or "conservative-leaning economists" language used.  Partisans vs. experts!)  I can find plenty of economists who think ARRA has done little or nothing to create jobs on a net basis; Don Luskin of TrendMacro Advisors, Woody Brock of SED, and Victor Canto of La Jolla come to mind immediately.  IMHO, the jobs "created" are simply shifted from one sector or region to another at best.  We see the job created but not the job that wasn't created.  Sort of like the broken window fallacy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
IMHO, the jobs "created" are simply shifted from one sector or region to another at best.  We see the job created but not the job that wasn't created.  Sort of like the broken window fallacy.

That argument has more merit as unemployment falls.  In a scenario of underemployment, it's hard to see where jobs are being shifted from.  It's not like there are, right now, a bunch of road construction workers who dropped Municipal Project A to take Federal Stimulus Project Z.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
IMHO, the jobs "created" are simply shifted from one sector or region to another at best.  We see the job created but not the job that wasn't created.  Sort of like the broken window fallacy.

That argument has more merit as unemployment falls.  In a scenario of underemployment, it's hard to see where jobs are being shifted from.  It's not like there are, right now, a bunch of road construction workers who dropped Municipal Project A to take Federal Stimulus Project Z.

The resources necessary to "create" those jobs come from somewhere.  Since the government does not have its own resources it must take them from somewhere else.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:56:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
IMHO, the jobs "created" are simply shifted from one sector or region to another at best.  We see the job created but not the job that wasn't created.  Sort of like the broken window fallacy.

That argument has more merit as unemployment falls.  In a scenario of underemployment, it's hard to see where jobs are being shifted from.  It's not like there are, right now, a bunch of road construction workers who dropped Municipal Project A to take Federal Stimulus Project Z.

The resources necessary to "create" those jobs come from somewhere.  Since the government does not have its own resources it must take them from somewhere else.

That would be China and investor capital that is unable to find a better source of return (for the risk) than in government debt.

I thought "crowding out" was a Keynsian thing, you fucking liberal!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:56:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
IMHO, the jobs "created" are simply shifted from one sector or region to another at best.  We see the job created but not the job that wasn't created.  Sort of like the broken window fallacy.

That argument has more merit as unemployment falls.  In a scenario of underemployment, it's hard to see where jobs are being shifted from.  It's not like there are, right now, a bunch of road construction workers who dropped Municipal Project A to take Federal Stimulus Project Z.

The resources necessary to "create" those jobs come from somewhere.  Since the government does not have its own resources it must take them from somewhere else.

That would be China and investor capital that is unable to find a better source of return (for the risk) than in government debt.

I thought "crowding out" was a Keynsian thing, you fucking liberal!

It's just a fact.  At some point transferring resources from one sector to another (while paying the government middlemen) or borrowing from future revenue streams becomes counterproductive.  I'd guess we've passed that point.

By the way, China isn't even our top debtholder anymore.  They've been selling like crazy, spreading their sovereign debt risk around.  I don't blame them - I think US Treasuries are a fantastic short right now.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704804204575069172269719754.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 11:07:41 AM
At some point transferring resources from one sector to another (while paying the government middlemen) or borrowing from future revenue streams becomes counterproductive.  I'd guess we've passed that point.

Agreed.  If only we had leadership willing to risk their re-election to tell us that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 17, 2010, 11:39:20 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:56:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
IMHO, the jobs "created" are simply shifted from one sector or region to another at best.  We see the job created but not the job that wasn't created.  Sort of like the broken window fallacy.

That argument has more merit as unemployment falls.  In a scenario of underemployment, it's hard to see where jobs are being shifted from.  It's not like there are, right now, a bunch of road construction workers who dropped Municipal Project A to take Federal Stimulus Project Z.

The resources necessary to "create" those jobs come from somewhere.  Since the government does not have its own resources it must take them from somewhere else.

That would be China Japan and investor capital that is unable to find a better source of return (for the risk) than in government debt.

I thought "crowding out" was a Keynsian thing, you fucking liberal!

Even though Morph already said it'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 17, 2010, 12:00:12 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
IMHO, the jobs "created" are simply shifted from one sector or region to another at best.  We see the job created but not the job that wasn't created.  Sort of like the broken window fallacy.

That argument has more merit as unemployment falls.  In a scenario of underemployment, it's hard to see where jobs are being shifted from.  It's not like there are, right now, a bunch of road construction workers who dropped Municipal Project A to take Federal Stimulus Project Z.

The resources necessary to "create" those jobs come from somewhere.  Since the government does not have its own resources it must take them from somewhere else.

Isn't that the whole point, though?

Namely, that, as demand dries up in a recession, our economy winds up with a whole lot of unused capacity?

And that the goal of fiscal stimulus is to fill the demand gap (which isn't otherwise filling itself) and get all that surplus capacity chugging again?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 17, 2010, 12:00:12 PM
Namely, that, as demand dries up in a recession, our economy winds up with a whole lot of unused capacity?

And that the goal of fiscal stimulus is to fill the demand gap (which isn't otherwise filling itself) and get all that surplus capacity chugging again?

The capital for that demand has to come from somewhere.  In this case, much of that capital is coming from outside sources.

Interestingly, the debt would be irrelevant were it held 100% by USA'ers.  See, if Morph buys a T-bill and Obama hires Chuck to dig a ditch, then taxes me and Morph and uses the funds to repay Morph, wealth is created and maintained internally.  Government has acted as a processing point.

If, instead, Li Muy Bai buys the same T-bill, only Chuck gets taxed and some of the wealth created is shipped overseas.

If we borrow and tax ourselves to repay ourselves, it's a paperwork clusterfuck.  If we borrow from others and tax ourselves to pay it back, we are losing wealth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 12:12:35 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 17, 2010, 12:00:12 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:46:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 10:43:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 10:19:19 AM
IMHO, the jobs "created" are simply shifted from one sector or region to another at best.  We see the job created but not the job that wasn't created.  Sort of like the broken window fallacy.

That argument has more merit as unemployment falls.  In a scenario of underemployment, it's hard to see where jobs are being shifted from.  It's not like there are, right now, a bunch of road construction workers who dropped Municipal Project A to take Federal Stimulus Project Z.

The resources necessary to "create" those jobs come from somewhere.  Since the government does not have its own resources it must take them from somewhere else.

Isn't that the whole point, though?

Namely, that, as demand dries up in a recession, our economy winds up with a whole lot of unused capacity?

And that the goal of fiscal stimulus is to fill the demand gap (which isn't otherwise filling itself) and get all that surplus capacity chugging again?

At some point the action taken to fill the demand gap is ineffective because any transfer of resources done by the government has costs, whether it be to pay the government workers needed to administer the program (which affects the current period; could those people be doing something productive?), increased debt service due to increased borrowing (which affects this period and future periods), etc.  This is supported by some recent empirical studies (like the ones I mentioned) which have found that the fiscal multiplier is actually less than 1, and in some monetary environments it's negative.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 17, 2010, 12:21:57 PM
I hope you all get your gaps filled, right quick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 12:25:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 17, 2010, 12:00:12 PM
Namely, that, as demand dries up in a recession, our economy winds up with a whole lot of unused capacity?

And that the goal of fiscal stimulus is to fill the demand gap (which isn't otherwise filling itself) and get all that surplus capacity chugging again?

The capital for that demand has to come from somewhere.  In this case, much of that capital is coming from outside sources.

Interestingly, the debt would be irrelevant were it held 100% by USA'ers.  See, if Morph buys a T-bill and Obama hires Chuck to dig a ditch, then taxes me and Morph and uses the funds to repay Morph, wealth is created and maintained internally.  Government has acted as a processing point.

If, instead, Li Muy Bai buys the same T-bill, only Chuck gets taxed and some of the wealth created is shipped overseas.

If we borrow and tax ourselves to repay ourselves, it's a paperwork clusterfuck.  If we borrow from others and tax ourselves to pay it back, we are losing wealth.

Of course, Obama, the tax collector, and the US Treasury employees who have to keep track of how much is owed all get paid in this instance, so it's not zero-sum.  There's a transfer of wealth to rent seekers from the productive classes, namely me (source of capital, and I get taxed on the return I earn from holding that T-bill) and Chuck (source of labor, gets taxed on his wages).

Also, who says I wouldn't have hired you to dig that ditch?  Why does Obama get to decide that ditch digging is the best use of Chuck's time from an economic productivity standpoint?  I might have hired Chuck to dig a hole instead of a ditch and paid less, on net, than the combined cost of Chuck, Obama, the Treasury, and the tax collector, so were there jobs created or not?  I'd say we don't know - the job might just have been simply transferred from one economic activity to another.  The Obama Administration would say yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 12:31:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 12:25:21 PM
Also, who says I wouldn't have hired you to dig that ditch?

Everyone.  You aren't in the ditch digging business.  That's why we have division of labor as explained by comparative advantage.

Quote
Why does Obama get to decide that ditch digging is the best use of Chuck's time from an economic productivity standpoint?

He doesn't.  I don't have to take the jorb.  I could pass on the job and relax and watch 80's TV shows and movies.

Quote
I might have hired Chuck to dig a hole instead of a ditch and paid less, on net, than the combined cost of Chuck, Obama, the Treasury, and the tax collector, so were there jobs created or not?  I'd say we don't know - the job might just have been simply transferred from one economic activity to another.  The Obama Every Presidential Administration would say yes.

Politician'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on February 17, 2010, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 17, 2010, 12:21:57 PM
I hope you all get your gaps filled, right quick.

Elect Phil McCracken in 2012!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 12:50:47 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 12:31:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 12:25:21 PM
Also, who says I wouldn't have hired you to dig that ditch?

Everyone.  You aren't in the ditch digging business.  That's why we have division of labor as explained by comparative advantage.

Quote
Why does Obama get to decide that ditch digging is the best use of Chuck's time from an economic productivity standpoint?

He doesn't.  I don't have to take the jorb.  I could pass on the job and relax and watch 80's TV shows and movies.

Quote
I might have hired Chuck to dig a hole instead of a ditch and paid less, on net, than the combined cost of Chuck, Obama, the Treasury, and the tax collector, so were there jobs created or not?  I'd say we don't know - the job might just have been simply transferred from one economic activity to another.  The Obama Every Presidential Administration would say yes.

Politician'd.

My point is that the Administration (and you're right to point out that it's not just Obama) is reallocating resources as it sees fit, whether it's cross-sectionally in the current period, or intertemporally.  That transfer is not cost-free, because government workers and debtholders need to get paid, not to mention there's a possible probable loss of efficiency.  You can't just look at the job that the government took my money to pay for; you have to at least think about what I would have done with that money had the government not taken it from me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 17, 2010, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 12:50:47 PM
You can't just look at the job that the government took my money to pay for; you have to at least think about what I would have done with that money had the government not taken it from me.

In the recession, a lot of that money is effectively just being sat on, no?

Hence the demand gap Slak's dying to fill.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 17, 2010, 01:14:04 PM
I thought this was interesting...

(http://i47.tinypic.com/2n9kp51.jpg)

Not only is Gubment spending at an all-time high (no surprise), but the rise & fall over the past 50 years doesn't fit the Administrations as I would have thought.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 01:20:27 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2010, 01:14:04 PM
(http://i47.tinypic.com/2n9kp51.jpg)

the rise & fall over the past 50 years doesn't fit the Administrations as I would have thought you've been indoctrinated to believe.

Hannity'd Olbermann'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 17, 2010, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 01:20:27 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2010, 01:14:04 PM
(http://i47.tinypic.com/2n9kp51.jpg)

the rise & fall over the past 50 years doesn't fit the Administrations as I would have thought you've been indoctrinated to believe.

Hannity'd Olbermann'd

Olbermann can eat the nuggets out of my shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 01:37:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2010, 01:14:04 PM
I thought this was interesting...

(http://i47.tinypic.com/2n9kp51.jpg)

Not only is Gubment spending at an all-time high (no surprise), but the rise & fall over the past 50 years doesn't fit the Administrations as I would have thought.

Does it fit Congressional control as you might think?  Congress, after all, sets the budget.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 01:37:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2010, 01:14:04 PM
I thought this was interesting...

(http://i47.tinypic.com/2n9kp51.jpg)

Not only is Gubment spending at an all-time high (no surprise), but the rise & fall over the past 50 years doesn't fit the Administrations as I would have thought.

Does it fit Congressional control as you might think?  Congress, after all, sets the budget.

Dems had control from 76 to 80.  Decline. 

GOPs had control from 80 to 86 of the senate.  Increase.

Mixed control pretty much thereafter.

The Veto pen also is a pretty good check on spending.  Last fucker with it refused to use it for any spending bill.  Where were the tea baggers on that nimrod?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 17, 2010, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2010, 01:37:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2010, 01:14:04 PM
I thought this was interesting...

(http://i47.tinypic.com/2n9kp51.jpg)

Not only is Gubment spending at an all-time high (no surprise), but the rise & fall over the past 50 years doesn't fit the Administrations as I would have thought.

Does it fit Congressional control as you might think?  Congress, after all, sets the budget.

Dems had control from 76 to 80.  Decline. 

GOPs had control from 80 to 86 of the senate.  Increase.

Mixed control pretty much thereafter.

The Veto pen also is a pretty good check on spending.  Last fucker with it refused to use it for any spending bill.  Where were the tea baggers on that nimrod?

Bush was never a conservative on spending, among other things.  We all know that.

Now, I've recreated this chart myself, and it looks different, so I'm a bit confused).  I used the data easily pulled from the Bureau of Economic Analysis website, http://www.bea.gov ; I used nominal GDP and the "total expenditures" line from "Government Current Receipts and Expenditures". 

At the end of 1976, I get 28.13%; at the end of 1980 it's 28.96%.
1984: 28.54%
1988: 29.68%
1992: 29.34%
1996: 30.66%
2000: 31.84%
2004: 27.77%
2008: 28.33%

Chart:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2688/4365479285_3063ecf743.jpg)

I'm not sure where usgovernmentspending.com is getting its figures from.  They say "US Budget Data" but I don't know what that means.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 18, 2010, 11:40:40 PM
So, where does the hydraulic theory of wealth diverge from the usual notion of energy, which is conserved? I did read Adam Smith, but it's mostly lost to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on February 19, 2010, 09:01:28 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/stephen-baldwin-on-obama_n_468692.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/stephen-baldwin-on-obama_n_468692.html)

Quote"I'm gonna be real straight with you," Baldwin told ABC's Jonathan Karl. "I am not happy about the way things are. I pray for President Obama every single day. But tell you what. Homey made this bed, now he has got to lay in it."

"'Homey' being President Obama?" Karl asked.

"That is correct," Baldwin said.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 19, 2010, 09:07:20 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on February 19, 2010, 09:01:28 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/stephen-baldwin-on-obama_n_468692.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/stephen-baldwin-on-obama_n_468692.html)

Quote"I'm gonna be real straight with you," Baldwin told ABC's Jonathan Karl. "I am not happy about the way things are. I pray for President Obama every single day. But tell you what. Homey made this bed, now he has got to lay in it."

"'Homey' being President Obama?" Karl asked.

"That is correct," Baldwin said.

(http://www.noooz.com/Homey%20the%20Clown.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 19, 2010, 09:43:33 AM
Too funny not to steal - Coup succeeds in detaining Niger president, exciting teabaggers who misread the headline (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h14_iexxU58f8laXUHC7MTdF-36w)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on February 19, 2010, 09:59:43 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 19, 2010, 09:43:33 AM
Too funny not to steal - Coup succeeds in detaining Niger president, exciting teabaggers who misread the headline (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h14_iexxU58f8laXUHC7MTdF-36w)

Even better: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454302/posts?page=16#16
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on February 19, 2010, 10:08:03 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2010, 09:59:43 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 19, 2010, 09:43:33 AM
Too funny not to steal - Coup succeeds in detaining Niger president, exciting teabaggers who misread the headline (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h14_iexxU58f8laXUHC7MTdF-36w)

Even better: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454302/posts?page=16#16

Holy shit.

Quote
To: Ben Mugged
Why can't they write "President of Niger" just to avoid confusion?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 19, 2010, 10:13:09 AM
Quote from: Oleg on February 19, 2010, 10:08:03 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 19, 2010, 09:59:43 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 19, 2010, 09:43:33 AM
Too funny not to steal - Coup succeeds in detaining Niger president, exciting teabaggers who misread the headline (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h14_iexxU58f8laXUHC7MTdF-36w)

Even better: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454302/posts?page=16#16

Holy shit.

Quote
To: Ben Mugged
Why can't they write "President of Niger" just to avoid confusion?

The whole internet is watching. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454302/posts?page=16#36)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 19, 2010, 01:50:08 PM
Don't Mess With Texas:

Quote38 percent said human beings developed over millions of years with God guiding the process and another 12 percent said that development happened without God having any part of the process. Another 38 percent agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago."

QuoteAsked about the origin and development of life on earth without injecting humans into the discussion, and 53 percent said it evolved over time, "with a guiding hand from God." They were joined by 15 percent who agreed on the evolution part, but "with no guidance from God." About a fifth — 22 percent — said life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time.

QuoteMost of the Texans in the survey — 51 percent — disagree with the statement, "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Thirty-five percent agreed with that statement, and 15 percent said they don't know.  Did humans live at the same time as the dinosaurs? Three in ten Texas voters agree with that statement; 41 percent disagree, and 30 percent don't know.

http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/17/meet-flintstones/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 19, 2010, 01:55:54 PM
Oh Texas. You continue to exceed my expectations.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 19, 2010, 02:09:01 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 19, 2010, 01:55:54 PM
Oh Texas. You continue to exceed my expectations.

Easy there, South Carolina.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 19, 2010, 02:22:22 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 19, 2010, 02:09:01 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 19, 2010, 01:55:54 PM
Oh Texas. You continue to exceed my expectations.

Easy there, South Carolina.

Don't advise me on moderation, Shecky.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 19, 2010, 04:51:10 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 19, 2010, 02:22:22 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 19, 2010, 02:09:01 PM
Quote from: Jon on February 19, 2010, 01:55:54 PM
Oh Texas. You continue to exceed my expectations.

Easy there, South Carolina.

Don't advise me on moderation, Shecky Tincy.

Texas SBOE'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 21, 2010, 09:12:52 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 16, 2010, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2010, 09:57:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 12, 2010, 02:21:31 PM
The real problem in this country today is that our "leaders" don't lead.  Hell, they don't even serve.  They see their offices as jobs they are entitled to.

Evan Bayh echos yours truly:

"But running for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough," Bayh said. "And it has never been what motivates me. At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

Good for him.

Ezra Klein is ice cold enough on Bayh to be quoted in full...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/evan_bayh_an_ordinary_politici.html

QuoteMy impression of Evan Bayh was that he was a major deficit hypocrite. Despite spending all his time talking about the need to reduce spending, he'd voted for all the major spending increases in recent years. When I looked into it, that wasn't true: He voted against the Bush tax cuts, and against the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But he voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, opposed sensible tax increases like President Obama's proposed cap on itemized deductions, and sponsored legislation to spend more than $440 billion exempting rich people's estates from taxation.

So: Evan Bayh's not a major deficit hypocrite. He's a minor deficit hypocrite. But a deficit hypocrite all the same. In his exit speech, he describes himself as "a lonely voice for balancing the budget and restraining spending." Of course, there's no such thing in Washington as a "lonely voice" for a balanced budget. There is a cacophony of such voices, and a dearth of such votes. But votes are the only things able to do the job. If voices balanced the budget, treasury bonds would never rise.

Accusing a politician of deficit hypocrisy isn't a particularly serious slur. Pretty much every politician is guilty of it. It's a bit like trumpeting the fact that some politician or another wears a suit. But if Bayh's sins are ordinary, so too was his career. Which is why I was surprised to see my colleague Jonathan Capehart term this a "brain drain." I've talked to Bayh before, and like Jonathan Chait, found him special only in his ability to formulate platitudes on the fly. The guy missed out on a terrific career as a fortune cookie author ("Your country will be assured of greatness! Your lucky deficit number is zero!"), but the sciences will not weep for their loss.

Take Bayh's dramatic exit. "I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should," he says. "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." All true enough. You'd expect that he'd then diagnose the problem and explain how he'll help fix it. But nope. Instead, he simply laments it and then says he'd like a job "helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

Respectable goals all, but small ball for a senator who has concluded that the American legislative system is so crippled that he can no longer bear to participate in it. Even in this, his most dramatic hour, Bayh was unable to be more than a perfectly typical politician, seeking praise for raising his voice while doing nothing to solve the problem.

He also links to James Fallows...

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/evan_bayh_why_the_no-class_mov.php

QuoteHere's a constructive suggestion: Do you really care about the partisanship that is ruining public life and that, as you said, has driven you from the Senate, Mr. Bayh? Then why not use the fact that you are still in the U.S. Senate for most of another year -- a platform 99.999% of Americans will never occupy -- and apply all the power you can to advance causes you care about. What is holding you back?

I'm way behind here, but I find it amusing that Chuck would champion the useless banalities of someone as completely full of shit and completely lacking of substance as Evan Bayh. The streak of wrong continues!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 21, 2010, 01:07:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itYrXhhnHRE

Guess what? Guess what? You're an asshole.

And you're about to get buttraped by some gay Republicans.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 21, 2010, 06:09:45 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 21, 2010, 01:07:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itYrXhhnHRE

Guess what? Guess what? You're an asshole.

And you're about to get buttraped by some gay Republicans conservatives.

Litmus test'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2010, 06:27:59 PM
So, the State of Illinois, in its infinite wisdom, has asked the public writ large to offer solutions to the State's budget crisis.  www.budget.illinois.gov.

However, they are compiling a list of the public comments recieved.  Boy howdy, is it interesting.

http://www2.illinois.gov/budget/Pages/PublicComments.aspx

You want to talk about meatballs, go there.

Here's Marybeth, from Riverside, channeling her inner MikeC:
QuoteIF HOSPITALS ARE RECEIVING FUNDING FROM THE STATE THEY SHOULD OFFER FREE MAMOGRAMS , IF DOCTORS ARE MAKING OVER $150,000.00 A YEAR THEY CAN DONATE MONEY/TIME FOR MAMOGRAMS. HAVE A DAY A MONTH WHERE THEY OFFER FREE MAMOGRAMS. IT'S CALLED GIVING BACK TO YOUR COMMUNITY AND/OR YOUR STATE!!!! ....OUR ROADS NEED TO BE FIXED AND OBVIOUSLY THAT KEEPS OUR ECONOMOY GOING.....MONEY FOR SCHOOLS IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM OPERATING, HOWEVER, A REVIEW OF SALARIES FOR SUPERINTENDENTS, PRINCIPALS NEED TO BE REVIEWED B/4 DOING SO. A SUPERINTENDENT MAKING $275,000 PLUS A YEAR IS RIDICULOUS!!! THIS IS WHAT UPSETS PEOPLE....HOW CAN THERE BE ALL THIS MONEY TO PAY ONE PERSON WHOM THEY RARELY SEE OR HERE FROM... AND TEACHERS NEED TO ACCEPT CUTS ALSO IF THEY ONLY WORK 9 MONTHS A YEAR THEY SHOULD BE PAID ACCORDINGLY. IF THEY HAVE THEIR BACHELORS DEGREE THEY HAVE ONE SET SALARY IF THEY HAVE THEIR MASTERS THEY SHOULD HAVE A HIGHER SALARY BUT THEY ALSO NEED TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY....NO MORE - TAKE, TAKE, TAKE!!!! MAKE THE NECESSARY CUTS IN SALARY SO THEY'RE NOT ROBBING THE STATE FOR FUNDS WHEN THEY COULD MAKE CUTS WITHIN. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE IN A RECESSION ....IF IT HELPS TO RAISE TAXES 3-4 PERCENT FOR THE YEAR SO BE IT....SHOULD I HELP THOSE IN NEED.....SORRY THIS IS A REAL SORE SPOT WITH ME .....BUT IF THEY'VE LIVED IN THEIR HOME FOR OVER 10 YEARS, HAVE KIDS IN SCHOOL AND/OR RECENTLY LOST THEIR JOB OF 5 PLUS YEARS AND ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB ....I'M OKAY WITH IT .....SENIORS ARE ON FIXED INCOMES THEY'RE BARELY MAKING IT NOW..WE HAVE TO HELP THEM...BUT IF THEY'RE IN WAY OVER THEIR HEADS SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL THEM. MY OWN MOTHER SOLD HER HOME BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS BECOMING WAY TO MUCH....CHILDREN NEED TO HELP THEIR PARENTS..AND TAKE CARE OF THEM. EVERYONE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY HERE!!! SO YES TO RAISING TAXES 3-4%, YES TO ROAD REPAIRS, MAYBE TO SCHOOL FUNDING IF THEY'VE CLEANED UP THEIR OWN HOMES, HOSPITALS NEED TO PROVIDE FREE MAMOGRAMS NOT THE STATE, THE STATE FUNDS THEM ENOUGH, HAVE EVERY DOCTOR MAKING OVER 150,000 A YEAR DONATE A MAMOGRAM, JUST LIKE THE FIREMEN, POLICMEN GIVING UP FURLOUGH THE DOCTORS NEED TO DO SOMETHING IF THEIR WORKING IN ILLINOIS...TIME TO GIVE BACK!! HERE NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE. YES WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

Alot of robust "Union fatcat state employees!!  ZOMG!!" talk too.

Good times.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 24, 2010, 08:03:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2010, 06:27:59 PM
So, the State of Illinois, in its infinite wisdom, has asked the public writ large to offer solutions to the State's budget crisis.  www.budget.illinois.gov.

However, they are compiling a list of the public comments recieved.  Boy howdy, is it interesting.

http://www2.illinois.gov/budget/Pages/PublicComments.aspx

You want to talk about meatballs, go there.

Here's Marybeth, from Riverside, channeling her inner MikeC:
QuoteIF HOSPITALS ARE RECEIVING FUNDING FROM THE STATE THEY SHOULD OFFER FREE MAMOGRAMS , IF DOCTORS ARE MAKING OVER $150,000.00 A YEAR THEY CAN DONATE MONEY/TIME FOR MAMOGRAMS. HAVE A DAY A MONTH WHERE THEY OFFER FREE MAMOGRAMS. IT'S CALLED GIVING BACK TO YOUR COMMUNITY AND/OR YOUR STATE!!!! ....OUR ROADS NEED TO BE FIXED AND OBVIOUSLY THAT KEEPS OUR ECONOMOY GOING.....MONEY FOR SCHOOLS IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM OPERATING, HOWEVER, A REVIEW OF SALARIES FOR SUPERINTENDENTS, PRINCIPALS NEED TO BE REVIEWED B/4 DOING SO. A SUPERINTENDENT MAKING $275,000 PLUS A YEAR IS RIDICULOUS!!! THIS IS WHAT UPSETS PEOPLE....HOW CAN THERE BE ALL THIS MONEY TO PAY ONE PERSON WHOM THEY RARELY SEE OR HERE FROM... AND TEACHERS NEED TO ACCEPT CUTS ALSO IF THEY ONLY WORK 9 MONTHS A YEAR THEY SHOULD BE PAID ACCORDINGLY. IF THEY HAVE THEIR BACHELORS DEGREE THEY HAVE ONE SET SALARY IF THEY HAVE THEIR MASTERS THEY SHOULD HAVE A HIGHER SALARY BUT THEY ALSO NEED TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY....NO MORE - TAKE, TAKE, TAKE!!!! MAKE THE NECESSARY CUTS IN SALARY SO THEY'RE NOT ROBBING THE STATE FOR FUNDS WHEN THEY COULD MAKE CUTS WITHIN. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE IN A RECESSION ....IF IT HELPS TO RAISE TAXES 3-4 PERCENT FOR THE YEAR SO BE IT....SHOULD I HELP THOSE IN NEED.....SORRY THIS IS A REAL SORE SPOT WITH ME .....BUT IF THEY'VE LIVED IN THEIR HOME FOR OVER 10 YEARS, HAVE KIDS IN SCHOOL AND/OR RECENTLY LOST THEIR JOB OF 5 PLUS YEARS AND ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB ....I'M OKAY WITH IT .....SENIORS ARE ON FIXED INCOMES THEY'RE BARELY MAKING IT NOW..WE HAVE TO HELP THEM...BUT IF THEY'RE IN WAY OVER THEIR HEADS SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL THEM. MY OWN MOTHER SOLD HER HOME BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS BECOMING WAY TO MUCH....CHILDREN NEED TO HELP THEIR PARENTS..AND TAKE CARE OF THEM. EVERYONE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY HERE!!! SO YES TO RAISING TAXES 3-4%, YES TO ROAD REPAIRS, MAYBE TO SCHOOL FUNDING IF THEY'VE CLEANED UP THEIR OWN HOMES, HOSPITALS NEED TO PROVIDE FREE MAMOGRAMS NOT THE STATE, THE STATE FUNDS THEM ENOUGH, HAVE EVERY DOCTOR MAKING OVER 150,000 A YEAR DONATE A MAMOGRAM, JUST LIKE THE FIREMEN, POLICMEN GIVING UP FURLOUGH THE DOCTORS NEED TO DO SOMETHING IF THEIR WORKING IN ILLINOIS...TIME TO GIVE BACK!! HERE NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE. YES WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

Alot of robust "Union fatcat state employees!!  ZOMG!!" talk too.

Good times.

Nixon was right.  Computers may be twice as fast now as they were in 1972, but the average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BBM on February 25, 2010, 01:01:00 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 24, 2010, 08:03:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2010, 06:27:59 PM
So, the State of Illinois, in its infinite wisdom, has asked the public writ large to offer solutions to the State's budget crisis.  www.budget.illinois.gov.

However, they are compiling a list of the public comments recieved.  Boy howdy, is it interesting.

http://www2.illinois.gov/budget/Pages/PublicComments.aspx

You want to talk about meatballs, go there.

Here's Marybeth, from Riverside, channeling her inner MikeC:
QuoteIF HOSPITALS ARE RECEIVING FUNDING FROM THE STATE THEY SHOULD OFFER FREE MAMOGRAMS , IF DOCTORS ARE MAKING OVER $150,000.00 A YEAR THEY CAN DONATE MONEY/TIME FOR MAMOGRAMS. HAVE A DAY A MONTH WHERE THEY OFFER FREE MAMOGRAMS. IT'S CALLED GIVING BACK TO YOUR COMMUNITY AND/OR YOUR STATE!!!! ....OUR ROADS NEED TO BE FIXED AND OBVIOUSLY THAT KEEPS OUR ECONOMOY GOING.....MONEY FOR SCHOOLS IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM OPERATING, HOWEVER, A REVIEW OF SALARIES FOR SUPERINTENDENTS, PRINCIPALS NEED TO BE REVIEWED B/4 DOING SO. A SUPERINTENDENT MAKING $275,000 PLUS A YEAR IS RIDICULOUS!!! THIS IS WHAT UPSETS PEOPLE....HOW CAN THERE BE ALL THIS MONEY TO PAY ONE PERSON WHOM THEY RARELY SEE OR HERE FROM... AND TEACHERS NEED TO ACCEPT CUTS ALSO IF THEY ONLY WORK 9 MONTHS A YEAR THEY SHOULD BE PAID ACCORDINGLY. IF THEY HAVE THEIR BACHELORS DEGREE THEY HAVE ONE SET SALARY IF THEY HAVE THEIR MASTERS THEY SHOULD HAVE A HIGHER SALARY BUT THEY ALSO NEED TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY....NO MORE - TAKE, TAKE, TAKE!!!! MAKE THE NECESSARY CUTS IN SALARY SO THEY'RE NOT ROBBING THE STATE FOR FUNDS WHEN THEY COULD MAKE CUTS WITHIN. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE IN A RECESSION ....IF IT HELPS TO RAISE TAXES 3-4 PERCENT FOR THE YEAR SO BE IT....SHOULD I HELP THOSE IN NEED.....SORRY THIS IS A REAL SORE SPOT WITH ME .....BUT IF THEY'VE LIVED IN THEIR HOME FOR OVER 10 YEARS, HAVE KIDS IN SCHOOL AND/OR RECENTLY LOST THEIR JOB OF 5 PLUS YEARS AND ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB ....I'M OKAY WITH IT .....SENIORS ARE ON FIXED INCOMES THEY'RE BARELY MAKING IT NOW..WE HAVE TO HELP THEM...BUT IF THEY'RE IN WAY OVER THEIR HEADS SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL THEM. MY OWN MOTHER SOLD HER HOME BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS BECOMING WAY TO MUCH....CHILDREN NEED TO HELP THEIR PARENTS..AND TAKE CARE OF THEM. EVERYONE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY HERE!!! SO YES TO RAISING TAXES 3-4%, YES TO ROAD REPAIRS, MAYBE TO SCHOOL FUNDING IF THEY'VE CLEANED UP THEIR OWN HOMES, HOSPITALS NEED TO PROVIDE FREE MAMOGRAMS NOT THE STATE, THE STATE FUNDS THEM ENOUGH, HAVE EVERY DOCTOR MAKING OVER 150,000 A YEAR DONATE A MAMOGRAM, JUST LIKE THE FIREMEN, POLICMEN GIVING UP FURLOUGH THE DOCTORS NEED TO DO SOMETHING IF THEIR WORKING IN ILLINOIS...TIME TO GIVE BACK!! HERE NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE. YES WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

Alot of robust "Union fatcat state employees!!  ZOMG!!" talk too.

Good times.

Nixon was right.  Computers may be twice as fast now as they were in 1972, but the average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever.

And that's why Al Gore left the earth to become the first emperor  of the Moon
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 25, 2010, 08:59:37 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 24, 2010, 08:03:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2010, 06:27:59 PM
So, the State of Illinois, in its infinite wisdom, has asked the public writ large to offer solutions to the State's budget crisis.  www.budget.illinois.gov.

However, they are compiling a list of the public comments recieved.  Boy howdy, is it interesting.

http://www2.illinois.gov/budget/Pages/PublicComments.aspx

You want to talk about meatballs, go there.

Here's Marybeth, from Riverside, channeling her inner MikeC:
QuoteIF HOSPITALS ARE RECEIVING FUNDING FROM THE STATE THEY SHOULD OFFER FREE MAMOGRAMS , IF DOCTORS ARE MAKING OVER $150,000.00 A YEAR THEY CAN DONATE MONEY/TIME FOR MAMOGRAMS. HAVE A DAY A MONTH WHERE THEY OFFER FREE MAMOGRAMS. IT'S CALLED GIVING BACK TO YOUR COMMUNITY AND/OR YOUR STATE!!!! ....OUR ROADS NEED TO BE FIXED AND OBVIOUSLY THAT KEEPS OUR ECONOMOY GOING.....MONEY FOR SCHOOLS IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM OPERATING, HOWEVER, A REVIEW OF SALARIES FOR SUPERINTENDENTS, PRINCIPALS NEED TO BE REVIEWED B/4 DOING SO. A SUPERINTENDENT MAKING $275,000 PLUS A YEAR IS RIDICULOUS!!! THIS IS WHAT UPSETS PEOPLE....HOW CAN THERE BE ALL THIS MONEY TO PAY ONE PERSON WHOM THEY RARELY SEE OR HERE FROM... AND TEACHERS NEED TO ACCEPT CUTS ALSO IF THEY ONLY WORK 9 MONTHS A YEAR THEY SHOULD BE PAID ACCORDINGLY. IF THEY HAVE THEIR BACHELORS DEGREE THEY HAVE ONE SET SALARY IF THEY HAVE THEIR MASTERS THEY SHOULD HAVE A HIGHER SALARY BUT THEY ALSO NEED TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY....NO MORE - TAKE, TAKE, TAKE!!!! MAKE THE NECESSARY CUTS IN SALARY SO THEY'RE NOT ROBBING THE STATE FOR FUNDS WHEN THEY COULD MAKE CUTS WITHIN. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE IN A RECESSION ....IF IT HELPS TO RAISE TAXES 3-4 PERCENT FOR THE YEAR SO BE IT....SHOULD I HELP THOSE IN NEED.....SORRY THIS IS A REAL SORE SPOT WITH ME .....BUT IF THEY'VE LIVED IN THEIR HOME FOR OVER 10 YEARS, HAVE KIDS IN SCHOOL AND/OR RECENTLY LOST THEIR JOB OF 5 PLUS YEARS AND ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB ....I'M OKAY WITH IT .....SENIORS ARE ON FIXED INCOMES THEY'RE BARELY MAKING IT NOW..WE HAVE TO HELP THEM...BUT IF THEY'RE IN WAY OVER THEIR HEADS SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL THEM. MY OWN MOTHER SOLD HER HOME BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS BECOMING WAY TO MUCH....CHILDREN NEED TO HELP THEIR PARENTS..AND TAKE CARE OF THEM. EVERYONE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY HERE!!! SO YES TO RAISING TAXES 3-4%, YES TO ROAD REPAIRS, MAYBE TO SCHOOL FUNDING IF THEY'VE CLEANED UP THEIR OWN HOMES, HOSPITALS NEED TO PROVIDE FREE MAMOGRAMS NOT THE STATE, THE STATE FUNDS THEM ENOUGH, HAVE EVERY DOCTOR MAKING OVER 150,000 A YEAR DONATE A MAMOGRAM, JUST LIKE THE FIREMEN, POLICMEN GIVING UP FURLOUGH THE DOCTORS NEED TO DO SOMETHING IF THEIR WORKING IN ILLINOIS...TIME TO GIVE BACK!! HERE NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE. YES WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

Alot of robust "Union fatcat state employees!!  ZOMG!!" talk too.

Good times.

Nixon was right.  Computers may be twice as fast now as they were in 1972, but the average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever.

There's enough WRONG in marybeth's screed to make us all miserable!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 25, 2010, 09:54:11 AM
This is amusing...the Sunlight Foundation is running a live feed of the Health Care Summit, with a list of the biggest industry donors next to whoever is speaking.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/live/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 25, 2010, 10:06:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 25, 2010, 09:54:11 AM
This is amusing...the Sunlight Foundation is running a live feed of the Health Care Summit, with a list of the biggest industry donors next to whoever is speaking.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/live/

Tom Coburn thinks we should talk about why health care costs so much.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 25, 2010, 11:13:09 AM
http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/twitter_users_tell_cnn_anchors_to_stfu_during_health_care_summit_022520101038352/

Quote@thisisrobthomas: cnn speaking about the health care summit like they're watching football. hey people, this is not a fucking game. people are dying.

@attila: The spin by the talking heads responding to the Presidential Health Care Summit is totally ruining the moment. Just STFU @CNN

@JamesCHarwood: I flipped over to FOX News because CNN and MSNBC are going to their own talking heads instead of showing the Health Care Summit.

@bondcliff: Watch Health Care Summit on Cspan. CNN, MSNBC and others breaking in with "Scores" every few minutes. They can't help themselves.

@meatnbread: CNN, why you gotta keep showing this when you break from the Health Care Summit?

@thegriff: Watching the Health Care Summit on Fox News because CNN and MSNBC have chosen to break it up with commercials and commentary. #fail

@DinaMeis Health Care Summit : MEDIA channels need to STOP getting into Commentary & Commericals !!! I want to watch this - @cnn @msnbc

Amen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 25, 2010, 11:36:50 AM
Pillars of fiscal conservatism or profligate heirs to W?  I posit these examples.

Exhibit 1:  Michael Steele.

QuoteA POLITICO analysis of expenses found that compared with 2005, the last comparable year preceding a midterm election, the committee's payments for charter flights doubled; the number of sedan contractors tripled, and meal expenses jumped from $306,000 to $599,000. [...] When Steele took over the chairmanship last winter, he inherited a $23 million surplus. Since then, the former Maryland lieutenant governor has raised $10 million less than the party collected in 2005 and has spent $10 million more. By the end of 2009, the committee's surplus had shrunk to $8.4 million, according to campaign finance reports.

Exhibit 2:  Teabagger darling and conservative revolutionary folk hero Marco Rubio.

QuoteSenate candidate and former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio released a torrid letter Wednesday accusing Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign of leaking Rubio's state Republican Party American Express statements showing nearly $110,000 in charges over 25 months.  The Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times, which obtained the records, listed several personal items found on the statements, including grocery bills and wine bought from a store near his Miami home. Rubio said he personally paid American Express $16,052.50 for nonparty expenses.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
Next time you have a health care debate, don't let Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid come, its like automatic failure for your side if they are allowed to speak. Plus when you combine Pelosi, Reid and Obama you get some kind of super "I refuse to tell the truth" zombie speak that never survives the bullshit test.

Damn i almost forget about Joe "Iraq could be one of the great success stories of the Obama administration" Biden. It was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it. When those 4 are in the room together you know something shitty no one wants is being crammed down your throat while they tell you its gonna be awesome.

I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right? You guys can have Health Care, you have no interest in anything Republicans have to offer. You can own the entire issue and take credit for its success or its failure. Its all yours Democrats, you don't need a damn thing from Republicans except insurance for when the entire fiasco does nothing the Democrats propose it will do. Then you can point to the Republicans and say, "See they voted for it too." That's all this horse and pony show is about. If the health care bill is awesome, then fucking get it over it with, cram it through and take all the glory. This whole time were arguing over whether the Republicans are going to provide political cover for this entire sham.



Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 26, 2010, 12:28:48 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
Next time you have a health care debate, don't let Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid come, its like automatic failure for your side if they are allowed to speak. Plus when you combine Pelosi, Reid and Obama you get some kind of super "I refuse to tell the truth" zombie speak that never survives the bullshit test.

Damn i almost forget about Joe "Iraq could be one of the great success stories of the Obama administration" Biden. It was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it. When those 4 are in the room together you know something shitty no one wants is being crammed down your throat while they tell you its gonna be awesome.

I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right? You guys can have Health Care, you have no interest in anything Republicans have to offer. You can own the entire issue and take credit for its success or its failure. Its all yours Democrats, you don't need a damn thing from Republicans except insurance for when the entire fiasco does nothing the Democrats propose it will do. Then you can point to the Republicans and say, "See they voted for it too." That's all this horse and pony show is about. If the health care bill is awesome, then fucking get it over it with, cram it through and take all the glory. This whole time were arguing over whether the Republicans are going to provide political cover for this entire sham.

Go fuck yourself in the eye with a stick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 26, 2010, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 26, 2010, 12:28:48 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
Next time you have a health care debate, don't let Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid come, its like automatic failure for your side if they are allowed to speak. Plus when you combine Pelosi, Reid and Obama you get some kind of super "I refuse to tell the truth" zombie speak that never survives the bullshit test.

Damn i almost forget about Joe "Iraq could be one of the great success stories of the Obama administration" Biden. It was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it. When those 4 are in the room together you know something shitty no one wants is being crammed down your throat while they tell you its gonna be awesome.

I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right? You guys can have Health Care, you have no interest in anything Republicans have to offer. You can own the entire issue and take credit for its success or its failure. Its all yours Democrats, you don't need a damn thing from Republicans except insurance for when the entire fiasco does nothing the Democrats propose it will do. Then you can point to the Republicans and say, "See they voted for it too." That's all this horse and pony show is about. If the health care bill is awesome, then fucking get it over it with, cram it through and take all the glory. This whole time were arguing over whether the Republicans are going to provide political cover for this entire sham.

Go fuck yourself in the eye with a stick.


This softens the pain of my insomnia tonight.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on February 26, 2010, 12:38:38 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 26, 2010, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 26, 2010, 12:28:48 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
Next time you have a health care debate, don't let Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid come, its like automatic failure for your side if they are allowed to speak. Plus when you combine Pelosi, Reid and Obama you get some kind of super "I refuse to tell the truth" zombie speak that never survives the bullshit test.

Damn i almost forget about Joe "Iraq could be one of the great success stories of the Obama administration" Biden. It was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it. When those 4 are in the room together you know something shitty no one wants is being crammed down your throat while they tell you its gonna be awesome.

I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right? You guys can have Health Care, you have no interest in anything Republicans have to offer. You can own the entire issue and take credit for its success or its failure. Its all yours Democrats, you don't need a damn thing from Republicans except insurance for when the entire fiasco does nothing the Democrats propose it will do. Then you can point to the Republicans and say, "See they voted for it too." That's all this horse and pony show is about. If the health care bill is awesome, then fucking get it over it with, cram it through and take all the glory. This whole time were arguing over whether the Republicans are going to provide political cover for this entire sham.

Go fuck yourself in the eye with a stick.


This softens the pain of my insomnia tonight.

I like this new "edgy" Wheezer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 26, 2010, 12:58:14 AM
Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2010, 12:38:38 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 26, 2010, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 26, 2010, 12:28:48 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
Next time you have a health care debate, don't let Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid come, its like automatic failure for your side if they are allowed to speak. Plus when you combine Pelosi, Reid and Obama you get some kind of super "I refuse to tell the truth" zombie speak that never survives the bullshit test.

Damn i almost forget about Joe "Iraq could be one of the great success stories of the Obama administration" Biden. It was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it. When those 4 are in the room together you know something shitty no one wants is being crammed down your throat while they tell you its gonna be awesome.

I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right? You guys can have Health Care, you have no interest in anything Republicans have to offer. You can own the entire issue and take credit for its success or its failure. Its all yours Democrats, you don't need a damn thing from Republicans except insurance for when the entire fiasco does nothing the Democrats propose it will do. Then you can point to the Republicans and say, "See they voted for it too." That's all this horse and pony show is about. If the health care bill is awesome, then fucking get it over it with, cram it through and take all the glory. This whole time were arguing over whether the Republicans are going to provide political cover for this entire sham.

Go fuck yourself in the eye with a stick.


This softens the pain of my insomnia tonight.

I like this new "edgy" Wheezer.

I'm not crazy about it, but it looks like it may have to do (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG7pd4z20ic).

[Edit.--Yet closer to the mark'd.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 26, 2010, 11:52:48 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
Next time you have a health care debate, don't let Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid come, its like automatic failure for your side if they are allowed to speak. Plus when you combine Pelosi, Reid and Obama you get some kind of super "I refuse to tell the truth" zombie speak that never survives the bullshit test.

Damn i almost forget about Joe "Iraq could be one of the great success stories of the Obama administration" Biden. It was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it. When those 4 are in the room together you know something shitty no one wants is being crammed down your throat while they tell you its gonna be awesome.

I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right? You guys can have Health Care, you have no interest in anything Republicans have to offer. You can own the entire issue and take credit for its success or its failure. Its all yours Democrats, you don't need a damn thing from Republicans except insurance for when the entire fiasco does nothing the Democrats propose it will do. Then you can point to the Republicans and say, "See they voted for it too." That's all this horse and pony show is about. If the health care bill is awesome, then fucking get it over it with, cram it through and take all the glory. This whole time were arguing over whether the Republicans are going to provide political cover for this entire sham.





So, you have no problem with reconciliation?  Just checking.  You hear that, Harry?  MikeC has given you the go ahead.

/retard rant

I have a modest proposal.  How about this: the party that wins the most seats in the election gets to pass legislation that it wants to pass.  When the other party comes into power, they get to pass the shit they want to pass.  Fuck the filibuster, fuck reconciliation.  Majority wins.  It ain't 1795 anymore.

/retard rant
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 26, 2010, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PMIt was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it.

Are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse known for their rhetorical skills? I'm just a heathen who doesn't know shit about biblery, but don't they just ride around on their horses fucking shit up?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 26, 2010, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
Next time you have a health care debate, don't let Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid come, its like automatic failure for your side if they are allowed to speak. Plus when you combine Pelosi, Reid and Obama you get some kind of super "I refuse to tell the truth" zombie speak that never survives the bullshit test.

Damn i almost forget about Joe "Iraq could be one of the great success stories of the Obama administration" Biden. It was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it. When those 4 are in the room together you know something shitty no one wants is being crammed down your throat while they tell you its gonna be awesome.

I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right? You guys can have Health Care, you have no interest in anything Republicans have to offer. You can own the entire issue and take credit for its success or its failure. Its all yours Democrats, you don't need a damn thing from Republicans except insurance for when the entire fiasco does nothing the Democrats propose it will do. Then you can point to the Republicans and say, "See they voted for it too." That's all this horse and pony show is about. If the health care bill is awesome, then fucking get it over it with, cram it through and take all the glory. This whole time were arguing over whether the Republicans are going to provide political cover for this entire sham.





If the Bill becomes law you will finally be able to take your meds.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 26, 2010, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on February 26, 2010, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PMIt was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it.

Are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse known for their rhetorical skills? I'm just a heathen who doesn't know shit about biblery, but don't they just ride around on their horses fucking shit up?

They really just stood around in nice suits and talked a lot. It wasn't as dramatic as that bible would have you believe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 26, 2010, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: R-V on February 26, 2010, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PMIt was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it.

Are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse known for their rhetorical skills? I'm just a heathen who doesn't know shit about biblery, but don't they just ride around on their horses fucking shit up?

I just want to get my Free Republic glossary up to date.  Are the Four Horsemen Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid?  Just checking.

It's not these guys?  McReynolds, Sutherland, van Devanter and Butler.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 26, 2010, 12:24:13 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on February 26, 2010, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on February 26, 2010, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PMIt was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it.

Are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse known for their rhetorical skills? I'm just a heathen who doesn't know shit about biblery, but don't they just ride around on their horses fucking shit up?

They really just stood around in nice suits and talked a lot. It wasn't as dramatic as that bible would have you believe.

I believe Famine wore pantsuits from JC Penney.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Kermit IV on February 26, 2010, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on February 26, 2010, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PMIt was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it.

Are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse known for their rhetorical skills? I'm just a heathen who doesn't know shit about biblery, but don't they just ride around on their horses fucking shit up?

No, you're right.  That, and doing amazing work with Photoshop.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on February 26, 2010, 12:35:03 PM
Quote from: R-V on February 26, 2010, 11:57:38 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PMIt was like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who couldn't tell you the truth if their lives depended on it.

Are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse known for their rhetorical skills? I'm just a heathen who doesn't know shit about biblery, but don't they just ride around on their horses fucking shit up?

(http://www.rfgolds.com/Four%20Horseman-medium.jpg)


Wooooooo!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 27, 2010, 08:58:00 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/the_real_story_on_health-care.html

QuoteChuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Does that surprise you? Chuck's point is that the health care bill already passed the Senate with 60 votes last December. Democrats would use reconciliation only for a series of rather modest amendments to the overall bill. And he pointed out that some of those amendments (notably broadening the "Nebraska deal" on Medicaid relief for all states) are actually things the Republicans have called for. My hunch, judging from some of the things Rep. George Miller (D) of California said at the summit, is that Democrats may consider adding a few other Republican ideas to the reconciliation package.

I do not expect what I will call the Todd Clarification to stop Republicans from condemning the Democrats if they get a bill through with the reconciliation amendments. But shouldn't all of us be referring to them just that way—as "amendments" rather than as "a bill"? Todd's point also brings home the fact that both houses have used a thoroughly conventional legislative process to get the bill this far. We might then begin to ask the obvious question: Why should we take it for granted that one election result in one state (Massachusetts) ought to be allowed to derail a year's worth of legislative work? In any event, my conservative friends have told me for years that my dear native state of Massachusetts is unrepresentative of the country. I don't hear them saying that now.

Kudos to Todd for stating a truth that just about all of us have missed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 27, 2010, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 27, 2010, 08:58:00 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/the_real_story_on_health-care.html

QuoteChuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Does that surprise you? Chuck's point is that the health care bill already passed the Senate with 60 votes last December. Democrats would use reconciliation only for a series of rather modest amendments to the overall bill. And he pointed out that some of those amendments (notably broadening the "Nebraska deal" on Medicaid relief for all states) are actually things the Republicans have called for. My hunch, judging from some of the things Rep. George Miller (D) of California said at the summit, is that Democrats may consider adding a few other Republican ideas to the reconciliation package.

I do not expect what I will call the Todd Clarification to stop Republicans from condemning the Democrats if they get a bill through with the reconciliation amendments. But shouldn't all of us be referring to them just that way—as "amendments" rather than as "a bill"? Todd's point also brings home the fact that both houses have used a thoroughly conventional legislative process to get the bill this far. We might then begin to ask the obvious question: Why should we take it for granted that one election result in one state (Massachusetts) ought to be allowed to derail a year's worth of legislative work? In any event, my conservative friends have told me for years that my dear native state of Massachusetts is unrepresentative of the country. I don't hear them saying that now.

Kudos to Todd for stating a truth that just about all of us have missed.

I don't care! Teh Dems are RAHMING through their massive government takeover with death panels and zorses and zombies!

It's refreshing to hear some common sense on this bill.  Chuck Todd was a waste in my opinion, but he mildly looks better in my opinion after this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 27, 2010, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 27, 2010, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 27, 2010, 08:58:00 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 25, 2010, 11:56:44 PM
I say onto reconciliation, which is supposed to kick into gear on Monday right?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/the_real_story_on_health-care.html

QuoteChuck Todd of NBC made a superb point on "Hardball" last night that everyone should pay attention to. He noted that absolutely no one is proposing to pass a health-care bill under the "reconciliation process," that is, with a majority rather than 60 votes in the Senate.

Does that surprise you? Chuck's point is that the health care bill already passed the Senate with 60 votes last December. Democrats would use reconciliation only for a series of rather modest amendments to the overall bill. And he pointed out that some of those amendments (notably broadening the "Nebraska deal" on Medicaid relief for all states) are actually things the Republicans have called for. My hunch, judging from some of the things Rep. George Miller (D) of California said at the summit, is that Democrats may consider adding a few other Republican ideas to the reconciliation package.

I do not expect what I will call the Todd Clarification to stop Republicans from condemning the Democrats if they get a bill through with the reconciliation amendments. But shouldn't all of us be referring to them just that way—as "amendments" rather than as "a bill"? Todd's point also brings home the fact that both houses have used a thoroughly conventional legislative process to get the bill this far. We might then begin to ask the obvious question: Why should we take it for granted that one election result in one state (Massachusetts) ought to be allowed to derail a year's worth of legislative work? In any event, my conservative friends have told me for years that my dear native state of Massachusetts is unrepresentative of the country. I don't hear them saying that now.

Kudos to Todd for stating a truth that just about all of us have missed.

I don't care! Teh Dems are RAHMING through their massive government takeover with death panels and zorses and zombies!

It's refreshing to hear some common sense on this bill.  Chuck Todd was a waste in my opinion, but he mildly looks better in my opinion after this.

Todd also called out Michael Steele on this ill-considered talking point ahead of the Health Care Summit...

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-steele-says-obama-should-hav

QuoteSTEELE: This whole dog and pony show that we're about to witness today is something that should have taken place a year ago, when the administration first came in last February and laid out its agenda for health care. This is how you should have started it—bipartisan, public forum, CSPAN, your cameras rolling to capture this and to capture, most importantly, what the American people want. And right now, they want us to start over, and I think we should.

TODD: Chairman Steele, in fairness to them, I mean, it was a year ago that they actually had a summit.

GUTHRIE: On March 5th.

TODD: And it wasn't just the legislative leaders. They brought in folks from the industry as well. And that one was televised. So... does that one not count? I'm just curious.

STEELE: Well, apparently it didn't. Because we don't have health care.

Sure... Catching Michael Steele in a bit of fact-free clowning is a low bar, but I'll take what we can get.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 28, 2010, 01:31:46 PM
Either McCain is flat-out lying or he should never be allowed to vote on legislation again...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/mccain-wait----tarp-was-targeted-at-wall-st-who-knew.php
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/mccain-it-wasnt-just-me----america-was-misled-on-tarp-video.php

Mendacious or monumentally incurious. Pick your poison.

Either way, he's an incoherent bag of backpedaling Not President.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 02, 2010, 05:32:12 PM
TPD...

http://washingtonindependent.com/77854/latest-conservative-smear-calls-justice-dept-lawyers-terror-sympathizers
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/Cheney_group_questions_loyalty_of_Justice_lawyers.html

Is there anything about our American system of jurisprudence that Republican assholes like Chuck Grassley and Liz Cheney won't shit on?

Why do they hate our freedom?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on March 02, 2010, 05:48:10 PM
Freedom to do what?  I never follow any of the links in here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 02, 2010, 05:59:34 PM
Quote from: JD on March 02, 2010, 05:48:10 PM
Freedom to do what?  I never follow any of the links in here.

OUR FREEDOM TO BE AMERICAN
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 02, 2010, 06:07:57 PM
Quote from: JD on March 02, 2010, 05:48:10 PM
Freedom to do what?  I never follow any of the links in here.

This thread needs something to spruce it up. I know!

(http://brooklyntransplant.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/nightcourt1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 02, 2010, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 28, 2010, 01:31:46 PM
Either McCain is flat-out lying or he should never be allowed to vote on legislation again...

I'll give him credit for pissing off Big Herba with the Dietary Supplement Safety Act.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Shooter on March 02, 2010, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 02, 2010, 06:07:57 PM
Quote from: JD on March 02, 2010, 05:48:10 PM
Freedom to do what?  I never follow any of the links in here.

This thread needs something to spruce it up. I know!

(http://brooklyntransplant.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/nightcourt1.jpg)

Agreed.

(http://www.superficialgallery.com/Celebs/albums/albums/MarkiePost/normal_Markie-Post-0021.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on March 02, 2010, 08:32:02 PM
Quote from: Shooter on March 02, 2010, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 02, 2010, 06:07:57 PM
Quote from: JD on March 02, 2010, 05:48:10 PM
Freedom to do what?  I never follow any of the links in here.

This thread needs something to spruce it up. I know!

(http://brooklyntransplant.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/nightcourt1.jpg)

Agreed.

(http://www.superficialgallery.com/Celebs/albums/albums/MarkiePost/normal_Markie-Post-0021.jpg)

Holee crap.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 02, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
HOUSEGUEST   MARSHA GETS HER SUIT COVERED IN MESSY FOAM   MARSHA WARFIELD   MOVIE   1995 68501  USA
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 02, 2010, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 02, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
HOUSEGUEST   MARSHA GETS HER SUIT COVERED IN MESSY FOAM   MARSHA WARFIELD   MOVIE   1995 68501  USA


MARKIE POST  HEARTS AFIRE  (MK173)  MARKIE GETS IN BUBBLE BATH IN BLACK EVENING DRESS  TV      1992 MK32   USA
MARKIE POST  DEAD RUN               MARKIE IN A SILVER EVENING DRESS IN THE RAIN       TVMOVIE 1994 9106   USA
MARKIE POST  HEARTS AFFIRE          MARKIE GETS MESSY CAKE ICING ON HER FACE           TV      1994 130604 USA


"WAMTEC, the Wet & Messy Tape Club."

Darkest corner yet?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 03, 2010, 08:12:45 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 02, 2010, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 02, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
HOUSEGUEST   MARSHA GETS HER SUIT COVERED IN MESSY FOAM   MARSHA WARFIELD   MOVIE   1995 68501  USA


MARKIE POST  HEARTS AFIRE  (MK173)  MARKIE GETS IN BUBBLE BATH IN BLACK EVENING DRESS  TV      1992 MK32   USA
MARKIE POST  DEAD RUN               MARKIE IN A SILVER EVENING DRESS IN THE RAIN       TVMOVIE 1994 9106   USA
MARKIE POST  HEARTS AFFIRE          MARKIE GETS MESSY CAKE ICING ON HER FACE           TV      1994 130604 USA


"WAMTEC, the Wet & Messy Tape Club."

Darkest corner yet?

(http://www.johnslaby.com/dark_corner.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 03, 2010, 08:41:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2010, 08:12:45 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 02, 2010, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 02, 2010, 09:04:42 PM
HOUSEGUEST   MARSHA GETS HER SUIT COVERED IN MESSY FOAM   MARSHA WARFIELD   MOVIE   1995 68501  USA


MARKIE POST  HEARTS AFIRE  (MK173)  MARKIE GETS IN BUBBLE BATH IN BLACK EVENING DRESS  TV      1992 MK32   USA
MARKIE POST  DEAD RUN               MARKIE IN A SILVER EVENING DRESS IN THE RAIN       TVMOVIE 1994 9106   USA
MARKIE POST  HEARTS AFFIRE          MARKIE GETS MESSY CAKE ICING ON HER FACE           TV      1994 130604 USA


"WAMTEC, the Wet & Messy Tape Club."

Darkest corner yet?

(http://www.johnslaby.com/dark_corner.jpg)

Ooh. "Conceptual art." Fancy.

(http://i50.tinypic.com/29opco2.jpg)

QuoteUnseen is a homage to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The twin boys symbolize the twin towers: happy, innocent and vulnerable to the unseen storm approaching behind them. Arising from the storm are the contrails of two planes - one already turning towards them. In the upper right is a crescent moon symbolizing Islam. On the opposite side of the painting are telephone poles that form crucifixes symbolizing Christianity. The piece is signed 911.

Original painting NOT FOR SALE
Limited Edition Photographic Print, 7in x 13in, Single Matt $50

Conceptual.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 03, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
I appreciate the explanation of the concept.  Before I read it I had an entirely different conception, and it wasn't immaculate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: D. Doluntap on March 03, 2010, 11:28:45 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 02, 2010, 06:07:57 PM
Quote from: JD on March 02, 2010, 05:48:10 PM
Freedom to do what?  I never follow any of the links in here.

This thread needs something to spruce it up. I know!

(http://brooklyntransplant.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/nightcourt1.jpg)

Court? At night? I'm already laughing!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 03, 2010, 04:07:19 PM
Well this sucks. I wondered why he hadn't posted (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/) in so long.

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html (http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on March 03, 2010, 04:11:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 03, 2010, 04:07:19 PM
Well this sucks. I wondered why he hadn't posted (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/) in so long.

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html (http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html)

Damn.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 03, 2010, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 03, 2010, 04:07:19 PM
Well this sucks. I wondered why he hadn't posted (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/) in so long.

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html (http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html)

I don't know this guy but that's a horrible way to go.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 04, 2010, 08:52:44 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 03, 2010, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 03, 2010, 04:07:19 PM
Well this sucks. I wondered why he hadn't posted (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/) in so long.

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html (http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html)

I don't know this guy but that's a horrible way to go.

A couple of my favorites:

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2009/03/lets-make-poverty-less-enticing.html

QuoteI can't tell you how angry it makes me to think about extremely rude poor people all across this country talking very loudly on their cellphones in soup kitchens and unemployment offices, whining about all their financial problems so everyone can hear. I'm glad someone is finally speaking out about it. And while these poor people were rudely broadcasting their tales of woe to everyone within earshot, guess what they were eating? Mushroom risotto and Broccoli! Isn't gruel good enough for poor people anymore? Those poor people are eating better than I am. Is it really fair that I should have to eat the Pork Brains in Milk Gravy Mrs. Swift served up the other night to cut down on grocery bills and reduce my cholesterol intake, while these poor people are eating like kings?

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2009/03/10-best-conservative-movies.html

QuotePlanet of the Apes is based on an intriguing premise: What if evolution were true instead of just an unlikely theory? In this film apes have "evolved" to the point where they talk, wear clothes and walk upright. Evolutionists would have you believe that monkeys are our uncles so if you evolved them a little, then it would stand to reason that they would be just like us. And the apes on this planet sure seem human at first but as the film unfolds we see that there is nothing very human about these animals at all. No matter how you dress them up or how many words of English you teach them in the end they're still just "damned dirty apes," as Charlton Heston discovers. I don't think I've ever seen a better refutation of Darwin's theories.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 04, 2010, 12:23:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2010, 08:52:44 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 03, 2010, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 03, 2010, 04:07:19 PM
Well this sucks. I wondered why he hadn't posted (http://jonswift.blogspot.com/) in so long.

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html (http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2010/03/a-death-in-the-blogging-family.html)

I don't know this guy but that's a horrible way to go.

A couple of my favorites:

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2009/03/lets-make-poverty-less-enticing.html

QuoteI can't tell you how angry it makes me to think about extremely rude poor people all across this country talking very loudly on their cellphones in soup kitchens and unemployment offices, whining about all their financial problems so everyone can hear. I'm glad someone is finally speaking out about it. And while these poor people were rudely broadcasting their tales of woe to everyone within earshot, guess what they were eating? Mushroom risotto and Broccoli! Isn't gruel good enough for poor people anymore? Those poor people are eating better than I am. Is it really fair that I should have to eat the Pork Brains in Milk Gravy Mrs. Swift served up the other night to cut down on grocery bills and reduce my cholesterol intake, while these poor people are eating like kings?

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2009/03/10-best-conservative-movies.html

QuotePlanet of the Apes is based on an intriguing premise: What if evolution were true instead of just an unlikely theory? In this film apes have "evolved" to the point where they talk, wear clothes and walk upright. Evolutionists would have you believe that monkeys are our uncles so if you evolved them a little, then it would stand to reason that they would be just like us. And the apes on this planet sure seem human at first but as the film unfolds we see that there is nothing very human about these animals at all. No matter how you dress them up or how many words of English you teach them in the end they're still just "damned dirty apes," as Charlton Heston discovers. I don't think I've ever seen a better refutation of Darwin's theories.

So "Planet of the Apes" is a documentary?  I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it." (http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on March 04, 2010, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it stopped in to get directions on how to get away from there."[/url]
(http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Principal Skinner'd.

The guy ought to do the honorable thing and sue those faggots for serving him so many drinks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 04, 2010, 12:57:53 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it." (http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

I guess he's going to do more research.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 04, 2010, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 04, 2010, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it stopped in to get directions on how to get away from there."[/url]
(http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Principal Skinner'd.

The guy ought to do the honorable thing and sue those faggots for serving him so many drinks.

"Would these homosexuals stop sucking my cock?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 04, 2010, 01:37:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 04, 2010, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 04, 2010, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it stopped in to get directions on how to get away from there."[/url]
(http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Principal Skinner'd.

The guy ought to do the honorable thing and sue those faggots for serving him so many drinks.

"Would these homosexuals stop sucking my cock?"

For some reason, this is my favorite line:

QuoteA male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

At least we know it wasn't a lawmaker's night out at the gay bar.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 04, 2010, 01:40:35 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 04, 2010, 01:37:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 04, 2010, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 04, 2010, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it stopped in to get directions on how to get away from there."[/url]
(http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Principal Skinner'd.

The guy ought to do the honorable thing and sue those faggots for serving him so many drinks.

"Would these homosexuals stop sucking my cock?"

For some reason, this is my favorite line:

QuoteA male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

At least we know it wasn't a lawmaker's night out at the gay bar.



That passenger?  Larry Craig.  He's not a lawmaker *now*.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 04, 2010, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 04, 2010, 01:37:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 04, 2010, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 04, 2010, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it stopped in to get directions on how to get away from there."[/url]
(http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Principal Skinner'd.

The guy ought to do the honorable thing and sue those faggots for serving him so many drinks.

"Would these homosexuals stop sucking my cock?"

For some reason, this is my favorite line:

QuoteA male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

At least we know it wasn't a lawmaker's night out at the gay bar.



I think I know the reason why it's your favorite line. It's by far the best line. So he met some twink at the bar and was taking him home. To prove he didn't love twinks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 04, 2010, 01:54:02 PM
I don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like he was looking to get married.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 04, 2010, 03:12:19 PM
I his defense, I would like the jury to keep in mind the fact that he was driving an American car.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on March 04, 2010, 04:09:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 04, 2010, 03:12:19 PM
I his defense, I would like the jury to keep in mind the fact that he was driving an American car.

<FORK>So it was an American ride; a stick shift to boot.</FORK>
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 04, 2010, 08:18:53 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 04, 2010, 04:09:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 04, 2010, 03:12:19 PM
I his defense, I would like the jury to keep in mind the fact that he was driving an American car.

<FORK>So it was an American ride; a stick shift to boot.</FORK>

I would have gone with something more along the line of a driveshaft pun here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on March 04, 2010, 09:34:55 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 04, 2010, 08:18:53 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 04, 2010, 04:09:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 04, 2010, 03:12:19 PM
I his defense, I would like the jury to keep in mind the fact that he was driving an American car.

<FORK>So it was an American ride; a stick shift to boot.</FORK>

I would have gone with something more along the line of a driveshaft pun here.

Post up your best joke, Romeo, and we'll see who gets more laughs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Indolent Reader on March 05, 2010, 09:35:57 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 04, 2010, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 04, 2010, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it stopped in to get directions on how to get away from there."[/url]
(http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Principal Skinner'd.

The guy ought to do the honorable thing and sue those faggots for serving him so many drinks.

"Would these homosexuals stop sucking my cock?"

NSFW.  The Onion at its finest.

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/why_do_all_these_homosexuals


Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 05, 2010, 10:26:59 AM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on March 05, 2010, 09:35:57 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 04, 2010, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 04, 2010, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it stopped in to get directions on how to get away from there."[/url]
(http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Principal Skinner'd.

The guy ought to do the honorable thing and sue those faggots for serving him so many drinks.

"Would these homosexuals stop sucking my cock?"

NSFW.  The Onion at its finest.

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/why_do_all_these_homosexuals

What are the odds?!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 05, 2010, 11:29:11 AM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it." (http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Sad trombone (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/04/vatican-gay-sex-scandal).

QuoteThe Vatican was today rocked by a sex scandal reaching into Pope Benedict's household after a chorister was sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting.

Angelo Balducci, a Gentleman of His Holiness, was caught by police on a wiretap allegedly negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a 29-year-old Vatican chorister, over the specific physical details of men he wanted brought to him. Transcripts in the possession of the Guardian suggest that numerous men may have been procured for Balducci, at least one of whom was studying for the priesthood.

The explosive claims about Balducci's private life have caused grave embarrassment to the Vatican, which has yet to publicly comment on the affair.

...

The transcripts imply that over a period of around five months in 2008, Ehiem procured for Balducci at least 10 contacts with, among others, "two black Cuban lads", a former male model from Naples, and a rugby player from Rome.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 05, 2010, 05:46:17 PM
What. The. Fuck? (http://www.texasobserver.org/dateline/he-who-casts-the-first-stone)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on March 05, 2010, 11:10:15 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 05, 2010, 05:46:17 PM
What. The. Fuck? (http://www.texasobserver.org/dateline/he-who-casts-the-first-stone)

Jesus thinks those guys are faggots.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 08, 2010, 11:49:10 AM

That's our Sarah (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html)...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 08, 2010, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 08, 2010, 11:49:10 AM

That's our Sarah (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html)...

Found the opening line to her next big speech:

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 08, 2010, 03:38:52 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 04, 2010, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 04, 2010, 01:37:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 04, 2010, 01:25:05 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 04, 2010, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Jon on March 04, 2010, 12:51:00 PM
"I only wanted to try it to prove I didn't like it stopped in to get directions on how to get away from there."[/url]
(http://cbs13.com/local/ashburn.arrest.dui.2.1534505.html)

Principal Skinner'd.

The guy ought to do the honorable thing and sue those faggots for serving him so many drinks.

"Would these homosexuals stop sucking my cock?"

For some reason, this is my favorite line:

QuoteA male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

At least we know it wasn't a lawmaker's night out at the gay bar.



I think I know the reason why it's your favorite line. It's by far the best line. So he met some twink at the bar and was taking him home. To prove he didn't love twinks.

Well, this is probably the least suprising admission ever.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/ashburn_im_gay.php?ref=fpblg (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/ashburn_im_gay.php?ref=fpblg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 08, 2010, 05:22:48 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 02, 2010, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on February 28, 2010, 01:31:46 PM
Either McCain is flat-out lying or he should never be allowed to vote on legislation again...

I'll give him credit for pissing off Big Herba with the Dietary Supplement Safety Act.

Scratch that (http://www.overthecountertoday.com/2010/03/mccain-withdraws-support-for-dietary-supplement-safety-act.html). What a spineless blob.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 10, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
With the honesty and integrity of a shady used car salesman, Nancy Pelosi pitches Obamacare to the public....

QuoteBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

You always know your getting an awesome deal when the salesman busts out the "trust me" line or says you have to buy it first to see what you are really getting. That always helps me put my guard down and makes it easier to fork over the cash.

Or for the people not based in Nancy Pelosi's fucked up world of insanity, it makes people distrust you even more. You Democrats need to muzzle that bitch, she doesn't help you at all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 10, 2010, 09:26:40 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 10, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
You Democrats need to muzzle that bitch

So. Classy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 10, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
With the honesty and integrity of a shady used car salesman, Nancy Pelosi pitches Obamacare to the public....

QuoteBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

You always know your getting an awesome deal when the salesman busts out the "trust me" line or says you have to buy it first to see what you are really getting. That always helps me put my guard down and makes it easier to fork over the cash.

Or for the people not based in Nancy Pelosi's fucked up world of insanity, it makes people distrust you even more. You Democrats need to muzzle that bitch, she doesn't help you at all.


At this point, you're really just a parody of yourself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on March 10, 2010, 11:14:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 10, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
With the honesty and integrity of a shady used car salesman, Nancy Pelosi pitches Obamacare to the public....

QuoteBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

You always know your getting an awesome deal when the salesman busts out the "trust me" line or says you have to buy it first to see what you are really getting. That always helps me put my guard down and makes it easier to fork over the cash.

Or for the people not based in Nancy Pelosi's fucked up world of insanity, it makes people distrust you even more. You Democrats need to muzzle that bitch, she doesn't help you at all.


At this point, you're really just a parody of yourself.

At this point?

This fucknut crossed that Rubicon ages ago, in my book.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 10, 2010, 11:14:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 10, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
With the honesty and integrity of a shady used car salesman, Nancy Pelosi pitches Obamacare to the public....

QuoteBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

You always know your getting an awesome deal when the salesman busts out the "trust me" line or says you have to buy it first to see what you are really getting. That always helps me put my guard down and makes it easier to fork over the cash.

Or for the people not based in Nancy Pelosi's fucked up world of insanity, it makes people distrust you even more. You Democrats need to muzzle that bitch, she doesn't help you at all.


At this point, you're really just a parody of yourself.

At this point?

This fucknut crossed that Rubicon ages ago, in my book.

I just love how he comes in, doesn't comment or reply to any of the posts before his, then pumps out the crazy.  Great stuff.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 10, 2010, 11:28:17 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 10, 2010, 11:14:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 10, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
With the honesty and integrity of a shady used car salesman, Nancy Pelosi pitches Obamacare to the public....

QuoteBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

You always know your getting an awesome deal when the salesman busts out the "trust me" line or says you have to buy it first to see what you are really getting. That always helps me put my guard down and makes it easier to fork over the cash.

Or for the people not based in Nancy Pelosi's fucked up world of insanity, it makes people distrust you even more. You Democrats need to muzzle that bitch, she doesn't help you at all.


At this point, you're really just a parody of yourself.

At this point?

This fucknut crossed that Rubicon ages ago, in my book.

I just love how he comes in, doesn't comment or reply to any of the posts before his, then pumps out the crazy.  Great stuff.

It's MikeC's fucked up world of insanity.

We're just posting in it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 10, 2010, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 10, 2010, 11:28:17 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 10, 2010, 11:14:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 10, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
With the honesty and integrity of a shady used car salesman, Nancy Pelosi pitches Obamacare to the public....

QuoteBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

You always know your getting an awesome deal when the salesman busts out the "trust me" line or says you have to buy it first to see what you are really getting. That always helps me put my guard down and makes it easier to fork over the cash.

Or for the people not based in Nancy Pelosi's fucked up world of insanity, it makes people distrust you even more. You Democrats need to muzzle that bitch, she doesn't help you at all.


At this point, you're really just a parody of yourself.

At this point?

This fucknut crossed that Rubicon ages ago, in my book.

I just love how he comes in, doesn't comment or reply to any of the posts before his, then pumps out the crazy.  Great stuff.

It's MikeC's fucked up world of insanity.

We're just posting in it.

Have any of you Democrats put a muzzle on Pelosi yet? Muzzles aren't that expensive. I heard if you schedule an appointment with her secretary you can get in there and slap the muzzle on. How hard can it be? Oh right, it's just like you Democrats. Always passing the buck. I have an idea. Why don't you ALL go put the muzzle on at the same time? You know, like a Communistically or something.

Yeah you would do that. You make me sick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 10, 2010, 12:11:14 PM
She strikes me as more of a muzzleR than a muzzleE.  However, we can say with some level of confidence that she tolerates muzzles.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4264/saturday-night-live-nancy-pelosi
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2010, 01:46:56 PM
Sounds like the Bolsheviks want to put a muzzle on that filibitch (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/reid_promises_filibuster_refor.html).

Quote"Changing the rules at the beginning of the 112th Congress will require the chair to declare the Senate is in a new session and can legally draft new rules," explains Stein. "That ruling would be made by Vice President Joe Biden, who has spoken out against the current abuse of the filibuster. The ruling can be appealed, but that appeal can be defeated with a simple majority vote."

This interpretation was given further force when Sen. Chuck Schumer spoke later in the session. "My committee, the Rules Committee, is going to look at this," he said. And one of the angles they plan to explore is that "the Constitutional right of the Senate to make its own rules supersedes the two-thirds rule, but only when we write new rules at the beginning of each Congress."

I asked Schumer whether there was a process ongoing to develop a single strategy to change the filibuster. "This is something we're very serious about," he replied. "It's not unanimous in the caucus, but the vast majority of the caucus is interested in seeing if there's a way to undo, modify, or lessen our filibuster rule."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on March 10, 2010, 02:32:20 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 10, 2010, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 10, 2010, 11:28:17 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 10, 2010, 11:14:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2010, 11:09:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 10, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
With the honesty and integrity of a shady used car salesman, Nancy Pelosi pitches Obamacare to the public....

QuoteBut we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

You always know your getting an awesome deal when the salesman busts out the "trust me" line or says you have to buy it first to see what you are really getting. That always helps me put my guard down and makes it easier to fork over the cash.

Or for the people not based in Nancy Pelosi's fucked up world of insanity, it makes people distrust you even more. You Democrats need to muzzle that bitch, she doesn't help you at all.


At this point, you're really just a parody of yourself.

At this point?

This fucknut crossed that Rubicon ages ago, in my book.

I just love how he comes in, doesn't comment or reply to any of the posts before his, then pumps out the crazy.  Great stuff.

It's MikeC's fucked up world of insanity.

We're just posting in it.

Have any of you Democrats put a muzzle on Pelosi yet? Muzzles aren't that expensive. I heard if you schedule an appointment with her secretary you can get in there and slap the muzzle on. How hard can it be? Oh right, it's just like you Democrats. Always passing the buck. I have an idea. Why don't you ALL go put the muzzle on at the same time? You know, like a Communistically or something.

Yeah you would do that. You make me sick.

Intrepid Reader:  The Honorable Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky

"How do you plan on paying for that muzzle, a-hole?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 11, 2010, 11:07:35 AM

As I always suspected, the GOP is just suffering from a case of penis envy...

(http://i41.tinypic.com/ao8dg9.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 11, 2010, 11:19:01 AM
I didn't know who Marc Thiessen was or much about this "Al Qaeda Seven" stuff until I saw him on the Daily Show the other night. Fucking despicable even by Cheney standards.

http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/03/11/innocent-man-helped-by-gitmo-bay-attorney-one-of-the-cases-liz-cheney-doesnt-want-you-to-read-about/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 11, 2010, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 11, 2010, 11:19:01 AM
I didn't know who Marc Thiessen was or much about this "Al Qaeda Seven" stuff until I saw him on the Daily Show the other night. Fucking despicable even by Cheney standards.

http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/03/11/innocent-man-helped-by-gitmo-bay-attorney-one-of-the-cases-liz-cheney-doesnt-want-you-to-read-about/

He's just another chickenhawk, neocon, waste of a human being.  Oh, and a McCarthyist to boot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 11, 2010, 01:21:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 11, 2010, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 11, 2010, 11:19:01 AM
I didn't know who Marc Thiessen was or much about this "Al Qaeda Seven" stuff until I saw him on the Daily Show the other night. Fucking despicable even by Cheney standards.

http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/03/11/innocent-man-helped-by-gitmo-bay-attorney-one-of-the-cases-liz-cheney-doesnt-want-you-to-read-about/

He's just another chickenhawk, neocon, waste of a human being.  Oh, and a McCarthyist to boot.

Clearly these assholes hate the US Constitution with every fiber of their being.

(And don't forget Chuck Grassley (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg207327#msg207327).)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 12, 2010, 06:26:05 PM
More stupid fucks who hate America...

http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iv/

Quote9:27 – The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course.

9:30 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with "the writings of") and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson's ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don't buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar's problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.

9:40 – We're just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board's far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America's exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.

9:45 – Here's the amendment Dunbar changed: "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present." Here's Dunbar's replacement standard, which passed: "explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau,  Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone." Not only does Dunbar's amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history — Thomas Jefferson.

9:51 – Dunbar's amendment striking Jefferson passed with the votes of the board's far-right members and board member Geraldine "Tincy" Miller of Dallas.

9:56 – Here is what the Library of Congress says about Jefferson's influence: "Recognized in Europe as the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson quickly became a focal point or lightning rod for revolutionaries in Europe and the Americas." The Library of Congress notes, in particular, Jefferson's influence on revolutionaries in France (including on the Declaration of the Rights of Man), other European nations, South America and Haiti.

...

12:04 – The current standards draft currently refer to the economic system that exists in the United States as "free enterprise (capitalist, free market)." Mercer offers an amendment to strike out "(capitalist, free market)" in the standards and leave just "free enterprise." The board's far-right members have repeatedly complained (absurd) that "capitalism" is a negative term and, in any case, that state statute requires students to learn about the "free enterprise system." Scholars on the curriculum teams had argued that "capitalism" and "free market" are commonly used terms in economics courses and everyday discourse. But Mercer and his allies on the board have this bizarre fetish with the words "free enterprise" over all others. Terri Leo: "I do think words mean things. . . . I see no reason, frankly, to compromise with liberal professors from academia." The woman is shameless. How dare she attack someone whose politics she doesn't even know.

12:08 – Pat Hardy notes that the scholar who recommended that "capitalism" and "free market"  be used in the standards teaches at Texas A&M and is a Republican. He is "not some kind of crazy liberal," she says.

12:11 – One is tempted to climb to the top of the Texas Education Agency building and shout: "These people have lost their minds."

12:12 – Pat Hardy is calling out the board for its silliness and the suggestion that "capitalism" is a "nasty word."

12:13 – Ken Mercer: I think capitalism is a good word, but academics don't. Really? And where does he get that? This is a classic example of how some board members attack and smear without any facts.

12:15 – Guess what? It passes. The Texas State Board of Education has stricken from the standards references to "capitalism" and "free market" because the board's right-wingers think "capitalism" is a negative term. The only permitted term for such an economic system will be "free enterprise." We wouldn't believe this if we hadn't just watched it happen. This is so stupid it makes our head hurt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

When did MikeC get a new handle?  And what set you off?  Calling your side out for wanting to erase Thomas Jefferson from the history books?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 12, 2010, 10:00:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

When did MikeC get a new handle?  And what set you off?  Calling your side out for wanting to erase Thomas Jefferson from the history books?

I just went back and read some of Freakmaster's contributions. They're pretty similar to this one.

It did get me to go back and read the Katrina thread from 2005 and that thread is like Desipio in a time machine. Back when KD posted semi-regularly, Paul was involved, Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?) and Oleg was bozos72. The thread is a Desipio historians dream. In other words, Thrill should check it out.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.0
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 12, 2010, 10:37:16 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

You don't know a fucking thing about Jonestown, do you (http://www.philxmilstein.com/probe/tracks/RoLo/ChuckStephens.mp3)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on March 13, 2010, 09:53:12 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 12, 2010, 10:00:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

When did MikeC get a new handle?  And what set you off?  Calling your side out for wanting to erase Thomas Jefferson from the history books?

I just went back and read some of Freakmaster's contributions. They're pretty similar to this one.

It did get me to go back and read the Katrina thread from 2005 and that thread is like Desipio in a time machine. Back when KD posted semi-regularly, Paul was involved, Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?) and Oleg was bozos72. The thread is a Desipio historians dream. In other words, Thrill should check it out.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.0

Ahhh, back when 15 pages represented a long-as-fuck thread.  IIRC, that thread was the biggest around at the time.

Also, I may be a couple days late in serving up some PROOF for morpheus from our conversation in the ShoutBox, but this is simply too good to resist (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.msg22452#msg22452).

Quote from: morpheus on September 01, 2005, 09:22:55 AM
MikeC is spot-on. 

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 13, 2010, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 13, 2010, 09:53:12 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 12, 2010, 10:00:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

When did MikeC get a new handle?  And what set you off?  Calling your side out for wanting to erase Thomas Jefferson from the history books?

I just went back and read some of Freakmaster's contributions. They're pretty similar to this one.

It did get me to go back and read the Katrina thread from 2005 and that thread is like Desipio in a time machine. Back when KD posted semi-regularly, Paul was involved, Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?) and Oleg was bozos72. The thread is a Desipio historians dream. In other words, Thrill should check it out.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.0

Ahhh, back when 15 pages represented a long-as-fuck thread.  IIRC, that thread was the biggest around at the time.

Also, I may be a couple days late in serving up some PROOF for morpheus from our conversation in the ShoutBox, but this is simply too good to resist (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.msg22452#msg22452).

Quote from: morpheus on September 01, 2005, 09:22:55 AM
MikeC is spot-on. 



Probably the first and last time that BC and MikeC have gotten props in a single post.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 13, 2010, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 13, 2010, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on March 13, 2010, 09:53:12 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 12, 2010, 10:00:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

When did MikeC get a new handle?  And what set you off?  Calling your side out for wanting to erase Thomas Jefferson from the history books?

I just went back and read some of Freakmaster's contributions. They're pretty similar to this one.

It did get me to go back and read the Katrina thread from 2005 and that thread is like Desipio in a time machine. Back when KD posted semi-regularly, Paul was involved, Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?) and Oleg was bozos72. The thread is a Desipio historians dream. In other words, Thrill should check it out.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.0

Ahhh, back when 15 pages represented a long-as-fuck thread.  IIRC, that thread was the biggest around at the time.

Also, I may be a couple days late in serving up some PROOF for morpheus from our conversation in the ShoutBox, but this is simply too good to resist (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.msg22452#msg22452).

Quote from: morpheus on September 01, 2005, 09:22:55 AM
MikeC is spot-on. 



Probably the first and last time that BC and MikeC have gotten props in a single post.

Let us never forget who doled out those props.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 13, 2010, 12:11:47 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 12, 2010, 10:00:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

When did MikeC get a new handle?  And what set you off?  Calling your side out for wanting to erase Thomas Jefferson from the history books?

I just went back and read some of Freakmaster's contributions. They're pretty similar to this one.

It did get me to go back and read the Katrina thread from 2005 and that thread is like Desipio in a time machine. Back when KD posted semi-regularly, Paul was involved, Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?) and Oleg was bozos72. The thread is a Desipio historians dream. In other words, Thrill should check it out.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.0

Here's KD on our good friend, freakmaster:

Quote from: KD on September 03, 2005, 07:49:40 PM
I think it's usually a good idea to discount the "thoughts" of a person unable to use the quote function this late into the Internet's illustrious career.

Proof that Doc didn't limit his vendettas to Slak:

Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2005, 09:37:10 AM
It's pretty much understood that Paul Popovich is an ass, and asses spew shit.

Perspective:

Quote from: MikeC on September 02, 2005, 02:38:39 PM
This is a catastrophic event that no nation has ever faced.

Finally: holy shit... You guys remember Paul?

Quote from: Paul on September 01, 2005, 09:40:43 AM
If I'd gotten a 1200 on the SATs I'd have been sorely disappointed.

Quote from: Paul on September 01, 2005, 06:07:06 PM
Fuck you, you insecure nobody.

Quote from: Paul on September 02, 2005, 10:49:03 PM
You're both an asshole and a moron.

Quote from: KD on September 02, 2005, 11:32:50 PM
I'm a Taurus.  So's George Brett.

Quote from: Paul on September 03, 2005, 02:24:52 AM
Quote from: MikeC on September 03, 2005, 01:13:02 AM
I think

Arguable.

Quote from: Paul on September 07, 2005, 11:37:17 AM
And Uncle Tom's Cabin has its heart in the right place, but it's shoddy literature.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 13, 2010, 02:35:42 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 13, 2010, 12:11:47 PM
Quote from: Paul on September 07, 2005, 11:37:17 AM
And Uncle Tom's Cabin has its heart in the right place, but it's shoddy literature.

Harriet Beecher Stowe was no Søren Kierkegaard.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 13, 2010, 06:12:27 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 12, 2010, 10:00:37 PM
Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?)

It's really not even worth explaining.  Not an interesting story.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 13, 2010, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 13, 2010, 06:12:27 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 12, 2010, 10:00:37 PM
Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?)

It's really not even worth explaining.  Not an interesting story.

And with that I conclude my investigation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Doc on March 14, 2010, 04:04:52 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 13, 2010, 12:11:47 PM

Proof that Doc didn't limit his vendettas to Slak:

Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2005, 09:37:10 AM
It's pretty much understood that Paul Popovich is an ass, and asses spew shit.


Quote from: Slack-E on March 13, 2010, 06:42:21 PM

And with that I conclude my investigation.

Shut up. I swear to God I'm going to find you and plug two in your fat gut, you cur. The vendetta's alive, much like me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 14, 2010, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: Doc on March 14, 2010, 04:04:52 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 13, 2010, 12:11:47 PM

Proof that Doc didn't limit his vendettas to Slak:

Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2005, 09:37:10 AM
It's pretty much understood that Paul Popovich is an ass, and asses spew shit.


Quote from: Slack-E on March 13, 2010, 06:42:21 PM

And with that I conclude my investigation.

Shut up. I swear to God I'm going to find you and plug two in your fat gut, you cur. The vendetta's alive, much like me.

Fuck yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on March 14, 2010, 08:26:51 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 14, 2010, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: Doc on March 14, 2010, 04:04:52 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 13, 2010, 12:11:47 PM

Proof that Doc didn't limit his vendettas to Slak:

Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2005, 09:37:10 AM
It's pretty much understood that Paul Popovich is an ass, and asses spew shit.


Quote from: Slack-E on March 13, 2010, 06:42:21 PM

And with that I conclude my investigation.

Shut up. I swear to God I'm going to find you and plug two in your fat gut, you cur. The vendetta's alive, much like me.

Fuck yes.

THI

I love that an old thread was referenced and it somehow resulted in the ringing of a bell that sits outside the general store above the rocking chair in which Doc presumably sits, in some faraway land.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 14, 2010, 08:57:00 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 14, 2010, 08:26:51 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 14, 2010, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: Doc on March 14, 2010, 04:04:52 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 13, 2010, 12:11:47 PM

Proof that Doc didn't limit his vendettas to Slak:

Quote from: Doc on September 01, 2005, 09:37:10 AM
It's pretty much understood that Paul Popovich is an ass, and asses spew shit.


Quote from: Slack-E on March 13, 2010, 06:42:21 PM

And with that I conclude my investigation.

Shut up. I swear to God I'm going to find you and plug two in your fat gut, you cur. The vendetta's alive, much like me.

Fuck yes.

THI

I love that an old thread was referenced and it somehow resulted in the ringing of a bell that sits outside the general store above the rocking chair in which Doc presumably sits, in some faraway land.

A strange and exotic land, this Kansas.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Doc on March 14, 2010, 10:41:03 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 14, 2010, 08:26:51 PM
THI

I love that an old thread was referenced and it somehow resulted in the ringing of a bell that sits outside the general store above the rocking chair in which Doc presumably sits, in some faraway land.

Oddly, I hadn't been to town for might some time. A co-inky-dink, as you townspeople say, that I mosey-ed by this den of iniquities. I thank my lucky stars I spied the posting, as I had been drowning my vile venom with Red Eye and Widow Maker. It was a salve to me that I was able to produce a cattle prod for my favorite dandy. Slaky needs a beatdown every now and a'gin. Post whores are still whores, and they get what they deserve.

Now, kindly explain THI. I been away.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 14, 2010, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: Doc on March 14, 2010, 10:41:03 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 14, 2010, 08:26:51 PM
THI

I love that an old thread was referenced and it somehow resulted in the ringing of a bell that sits outside the general store above the rocking chair in which Doc presumably sits, in some faraway land.

Oddly, I hadn't been to town for might some time. A co-inky-dink, as you townspeople say, that I mosey-ed by this den of iniquities. I thank my lucky stars I spied the posting, as I had been drowning my vile venom with Red Eye and Widow Maker. It was a salve to me that I was able to produce a cattle prod for my favorite dandy. Slaky needs a beatdown every now and a'gin. Post whores are still whores, and they get what they deserve.

Now, kindly explain THI. I been away.

It means he agrees with me that we're glad you're back.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on March 15, 2010, 12:01:11 AM
Someone is going to have an aneurysm... and I can't blame him if he does. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF11-Tvzh0M&feature=fvhl)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Doc on March 15, 2010, 09:25:42 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 14, 2010, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: Doc on March 14, 2010, 10:41:03 PM
Oddly, I hadn't been to town for might some time. A co-inky-dink, as you townspeople say, that I mosey-ed by this den of iniquities. I thank my lucky stars I spied the posting, as I had been drowning my vile venom with Red Eye and Widow Maker. It was a salve to me that I was able to produce a cattle prod for my favorite dandy. Slaky needs a beatdown every now and a'gin. Post whores are still whores, and they get what they deserve.

Now, kindly explain THI. I been away.

It means he agrees with me that we're glad you're back.

Yes, yes. THI for all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 15, 2010, 11:35:36 AM
Quote from: Doc on March 15, 2010, 09:25:42 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 14, 2010, 11:01:26 PM
Quote from: Doc on March 14, 2010, 10:41:03 PM
Oddly, I hadn't been to town for might some time. A co-inky-dink, as you townspeople say, that I mosey-ed by this den of iniquities. I thank my lucky stars I spied the posting, as I had been drowning my vile venom with Red Eye and Widow Maker. It was a salve to me that I was able to produce a cattle prod for my favorite dandy. Slaky needs a beatdown every now and a'gin. Post whores are still whores, and they get what they deserve.

Now, kindly explain THI. I been away.

It means he agrees with me that we're glad you're back.

Yes, yes. THI for all.

Please cover your mouth when you cough.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 01:39:20 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 13, 2010, 09:53:12 AM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 12, 2010, 10:00:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 12, 2010, 09:27:19 PM
Quote from: freakmaster on March 12, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
LOL, always great comedy to read the true believers.  You know, you guys are dwindling every day -- plenty of room on the bandwagon now!  Seriously though, how blind are you guys?  Tell me this:  If you would have been at Jonestown, and were say, last in line, and everyone around you was dropping like flies, would you still drink the Kool-Aid?  Something tells me that with this crowd, the answer is yes.

When did MikeC get a new handle?  And what set you off?  Calling your side out for wanting to erase Thomas Jefferson from the history books?

I just went back and read some of Freakmaster's contributions. They're pretty similar to this one.

It did get me to go back and read the Katrina thread from 2005 and that thread is like Desipio in a time machine. Back when KD posted semi-regularly, Paul was involved, Eli was known as TG (which I still don't get unless Eli is short for Teli?) and Oleg was bozos72. The thread is a Desipio historians dream. In other words, Thrill should check it out.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.0

Ahhh, back when 15 pages represented a long-as-fuck thread.  IIRC, that thread was the biggest around at the time.

Also, I may be a couple days late in serving up some PROOF for morpheus from our conversation in the ShoutBox, but this is simply too good to resist (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=1732.msg22452#msg22452).

Quote from: morpheus on September 01, 2005, 09:22:55 AM
MikeC is spot-on. 



I stand by my validation of MikeC's statement (not MikeC... besides, this was in fucking 2005, give me a fucking break) and of BC's statement.  MikeC said
QuoteWow got some stupid Bush bashers in this thread. Lets get one thing correct about oil refineries. No new oil refineries have been built in the last 20-30 years due to the environmentalist movement. Everyone wants cheap gas but no one wants to have an oil refinery in their back yard. And now people are shocked that gas is high. I used to live in Arizona and they have been trying to build an oil refinery outside Yuma for the last 10 years and still have not even been able to break ground due to all the legislation and red tape they have to go through. Most companies don't even try because it is an endless line of paper work.

And yet some of you blame Bush for it? Thats fucking stupid.

Oil refineries can be built to process the much cheaper non-sweet crude oil. It takes a few extra steps in the refinement process but barrels of oil are only around $30 dollars, I think. And the market has millions of these barrels of oil with no real home.

In the long run the gas crisis could be a good thing, forcing automakers into alternative fuel vehicles faster. Natural Gas and Hydrogen cars could be seen more in the next 10 years. But I think the wave of the future is Hybrids for now that can get 50 miles a gallon on average and let people keep their hefty SUV's. 
Sounds right to me.  BC said
QuoteAnd, as far as global warming goes, there is scientific evidence that says it is going on, and there is also evidence that says it isn't. I'm not one ready to say that is happening and we need to do 100 things to stop it. Maybe we can do two or three things that we should be doing anyway for general environmental health...
Sounds right to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 01:39:20 PM
BC said
QuoteAnd, as far as global warming goes, there is scientific evidence that says it is going on, and there is also evidence that says it isn't. I'm not one ready to say that is happening and we need to do 100 things to stop it. Maybe we can do two or three things that we should be doing anyway for general environmental health...
Sounds right to me.

Agreed.  I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air, but wouldn't the conservative position be to do a few things to limit the risk?

And isn't there a national defense angle that less oil usage would be a benefit to us?  Isn't that conservative as well?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 15, 2010, 02:29:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:07:51 PM
I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air...

And, since you're not a climate scientist, your personal opinion on the scientific validity of theories of anthropogenic climate change matters even less than your opinions on sports do.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Doc on March 15, 2010, 02:33:52 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 15, 2010, 02:29:51 PM
And, since you're not a climate scientist, your personal opinion on the scientific validity of theories of anthropogenic climate change matters even less than your opinions on sports do.

Yeah!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on March 15, 2010, 02:39:04 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 01:39:20 PM
BC said
QuoteAnd, as far as global warming goes, there is scientific evidence that says it is going on, and there is also evidence that says it isn't. I'm not one ready to say that is happening and we need to do 100 things to stop it. Maybe we can do two or three things that we should be doing anyway for general environmental health...
Sounds right to me.

Agreed.  I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air, but wouldn't the conservative position be to do a few things to limit the risk?

And isn't there a national defense angle that less oil usage would be a benefit to us?  Isn't that conservative as well?

I'll agree with THIS. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 15, 2010, 02:29:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:07:51 PM
I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air...

And, since you're not a climate scientist, your personal opinion on the scientific validity of theories of anthropogenic climate change matters even less than your opinions on sports do.

Can you tell me whose opinions on sports, other than those in ownership of or employed by sports leagues/franchises, DO matter?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on March 15, 2010, 02:44:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 15, 2010, 02:29:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:07:51 PM
I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air...

And, since you're not a climate scientist, your personal opinion on the scientific validity of theories of anthropogenic climate change matters even less than your opinions on sports do.

Can you tell me whose opinions on sports, other than those in ownership of or employed by sports leagues/franchises, DO matter?

Thrill's questions on where to watch sports on TV matter.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 01:39:20 PM
BC said
QuoteAnd, as far as global warming goes, there is scientific evidence that says it is going on, and there is also evidence that says it isn't. I'm not one ready to say that is happening and we need to do 100 things to stop it. Maybe we can do two or three things that we should be doing anyway for general environmental health...
Sounds right to me.

Agreed.  I don't know if global warming is occurring (if at all) due to extra carbon in the air, but wouldn't the conservative position be to do a few things to limit the risk?

And isn't there a national defense angle that less oil usage would be a benefit to us?  Isn't that conservative as well?

No.  The conservative thing would be to NOT increase regulation and meddle in private markets on a global scale, enacting a giant wealth transfer from developed to developing economies, crushing global economic output, and lining the pockets of the economic rent-seekers in the middle of this transfer, all in the name of a theory that even its chief proponents in academia admit is not even "settled" yet (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html).

The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 03:04:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

I'm not saying we should do that.  But the guy who figures out commercially feasible fusion power is going to be as big a hero as Grant or Eisenhower.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 15, 2010, 03:11:48 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PMenacting a giant wealth transfer from developed to developing economies

In order to be a climate skeptic, you have to believe that thousands of scientists are either wrong, dumb, or lying. Let's assume they're not wrong or dumb. They're working off slightly more sophisticated models than the flat earthers.

Here's what I don't understand. What is their INCENTIVE to lie? Are they all in the pocket of Big ThirdWorld? Aren't most of these scientists from industrialized countries that would get the short end of the stick in the Hypothetical Giant Wealth Transfer? Wouldn't that hurt their ability to get another fatcat research grant so they can buy that four-pocketed labcoat they've been lusting after?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 15, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

Not really, every commodity has its day. 150 years ago, you would have been wealthy if you produced whale oil.

Green technology is where the marketplace is heading. Whether you agree with climate change theories or not, there's a shitload of money to be made, and the US should be at the forefront of the technology.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 15, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 15, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

Not really, every commodity has its day. 150 years ago, you would have been wealthy if you produced whale oil.

Green technology is where the marketplace is heading. Whether you agree with climate change theories or not, there's a shitload of money to be made, and the US should be at the forefront of the technology.

I agree with this ForkPost. Green technology is supposed to be more efficient or something, so it would only be reasonable that we'd want to move to that technology
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenFoe on March 15, 2010, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 15, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

Not really, every commodity has its day. 150 years ago, you would have been wealthy if you produced whale oil.

Green technology is where the marketplace is heading. Whether you agree with climate change theories or not, there's a shitload of money to be made, and the US should be at the forefront of the technology.

I don't know about any of this global warming stuff, but I do know that neither people not countries produce Whale Oil.

Only whales do.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 15, 2010, 03:49:26 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2010, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 15, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

Not really, every commodity has its day. 150 years ago, you would have been wealthy if you produced whale oil.

Green technology is where the marketplace is heading. Whether you agree with climate change theories or not, there's a shitload of money to be made, and the US should be at the forefront of the technology.

I don't know about any of this global warming stuff, but I do know that neither people not countries produce Whale Oil.

Only whales do.

And, from what I've read, the whales just came right on ashore and handed it over to the kind, simple humans who asked politely for it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 15, 2010, 03:49:26 PM
And, from what I've read, the whales just came right on ashore and handed it over to the kind, simple humans who asked politely for it.

This is going to lead to trouble.

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/2/2a/Whale_Probe.jpg/600px-Whale_Probe.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 15, 2010, 03:56:22 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 15, 2010, 03:49:26 PM
And, from what I've read, the whales just came right on ashore and handed it over to the kind, simple humans who asked politely for it.

This is going to lead to trouble.

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/2/2a/Whale_Probe.jpg/600px-Whale_Probe.jpg)

A giant rock with a glowing penis shaft?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 15, 2010, 04:01:24 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 15, 2010, 03:56:22 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 15, 2010, 03:49:26 PM
And, from what I've read, the whales just came right on ashore and handed it over to the kind, simple humans who asked politely for it.

This is going to lead to trouble.

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/2/2a/Whale_Probe.jpg/600px-Whale_Probe.jpg)

A giant rock with a glowing penis shaft?

CAPTAIN, THERE BE WHALES HERE!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 15, 2010, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

I continue to assert that the creation of wealth is a fallacy, Mr. Shannon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on March 15, 2010, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2010, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 15, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

Not really, every commodity has its day. 150 years ago, you would have been wealthy if you produced whale oil.

Green technology is where the marketplace is heading. Whether you agree with climate change theories or not, there's a shitload of money to be made, and the US should be at the forefront of the technology.

I don't know about any of this global warming stuff, but I do know that neither people not countries produce Whale Oil.

Only whales do.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things that anybody has ever bothered to type.  I am dumber for just responding to this.

No shit, only whales produce whale oil.  What's next, Ric Romero, smog is a word that comes from the combination of smoke and fog?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenFoe on March 15, 2010, 06:02:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 15, 2010, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2010, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 15, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

Not really, every commodity has its day. 150 years ago, you would have been wealthy if you produced whale oil.

Green technology is where the marketplace is heading. Whether you agree with climate change theories or not, there's a shitload of money to be made, and the US should be at the forefront of the technology.

I don't know about any of this global warming stuff, but I do know that neither people not countries produce Whale Oil.

Only whales do.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things that anybody has ever bothered to type.  I am dumber for just responding to this.

No shit, only whales produce whale oil.  What's next, Ric Romero, smog is a word that comes from the combination of smoke and fog?

Either you're an unfunny dork or a complete fucking moron.

I'm guessing both.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 15, 2010, 06:02:48 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 15, 2010, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2010, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 15, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:58:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2010, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 15, 2010, 02:47:59 PM
The national defense angle I am a bit more sympathetic to, actually - oil dependence sucks because we are price takers in that regard and can end up paying up for the oil we need to function.  However, the funny thing about oil is that it's a pretty fungible commodity.  Once it gets sold it can be re-sold.  So the idea that a Saudi Arabia or Russia could cut us off doesn't really hold water.

It's not a matter of it being re-sold.  It's a matter that, regardless where you buy it from, the wealth eventually flows to our enemies.  How great would the world be right now if we could tell Saudi Arabia this: "You make nothing but oil and we don't need it anymore.  Our ships, planes, troops and investments are leaving."

That's a fair point, actually... but do you really think that it will happen that way?  All at once?  I'm guessing the transition will be very slow and take many years.  And it does us no good if we cripple our own economy's ability to produce in the process.

Not really, every commodity has its day. 150 years ago, you would have been wealthy if you produced whale oil.

Green technology is where the marketplace is heading. Whether you agree with climate change theories or not, there's a shitload of money to be made, and the US should be at the forefront of the technology.

I don't know about any of this global warming stuff, but I do know that neither people not countries produce Whale Oil.

Only whales do.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things that anybody has ever bothered to type.  I am dumber for just responding to this.

No shit, only whales produce whale oil.  What's next, Ric Romero, smog is a word that comes from the combination of smoke and fog?

Desipio Plus also comes with green font too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 15, 2010, 06:17:54 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2010, 06:02:36 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 15, 2010, 05:57:09 PM
This has got to be one of the stupidest things that anybody has ever bothered to type.  I am dumber for just responding to this.

No shit, only whales produce whale oil.  What's next, Ric Romero, smog is a word that comes from the combination of smoke and fog?

Either you're an unfunny dork or a complete fucking moron.

I'm guessing both.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 15, 2010, 06:02:48 PM
Desipio Plus also comes with green font too.

Intrepid Reader: KurtEvans

LOL! You assholes don't even know what FARK is. OMG!

[ insert cryptic "Bubba The Sponge" reference ]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 16, 2010, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 11, 2010, 01:21:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 11, 2010, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 11, 2010, 11:19:01 AM
I didn't know who Marc Thiessen was or much about this "Al Qaeda Seven" stuff until I saw him on the Daily Show the other night. Fucking despicable even by Cheney standards.

http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/03/11/innocent-man-helped-by-gitmo-bay-attorney-one-of-the-cases-liz-cheney-doesnt-want-you-to-read-about/

He's just another chickenhawk, neocon, waste of a human being.  Oh, and a McCarthyist to boot.

Clearly these assholes hate the US Constitution with every fiber of their being.

(And don't forget Chuck Grassley (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg207327#msg207327).)

Back to the "Keep America Safe" assholes... Another solid takedown:

http://volokh.com/2010/03/10/lawyers-treason-and-deception-a-response-to-andrew-mccarthy/

If you ever need a good example of the proper meaning of "begging the question," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) look no further than the argument supporting this "outrage":

QuoteThe proud American legal tradition involves defending the unpopular who are accused of crimes but presumed innocent.

It has nothing to do with assisting the enemy in lawsuits against the American people during wartime.

Kerr:

QuoteFinally, McCarthy strangely overlooks the basic fact that much of the litigation for the Guantanamo detainees concerns whether they are in fact the enemy. McCarthy presupposes that we all know that all the folks at Gitmo are terrorists, and the only issue is whether we feel like helping them knowing that it hurts America. But like the soldiers at the Boston Massacre, and like other criminal defendants, the Guantanamo detainees are "the accused."

There's nothing "strange" at all about McCarthy overlooking this minor fact. He and his fellow rat-fuckers have no shame in their cynical authoritarianism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 16, 2010, 01:30:27 AM
TPD...

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that this "Al-Qaeda Seven" nonsense is all just so much hand-waving (of a piece with the Keep America Safers' other efforts to whitewash Bush-era torture), the ultimate goal of which is to provide ground from which to portray potential misconduct on the part of DoJ lawyers who provided legal cover for illegal acts (say, Yoo and Bybee) as just further examples of 'lawyers doing their jobs as lawyers.'
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on March 16, 2010, 08:50:29 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 16, 2010, 01:14:20 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 11, 2010, 01:21:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 11, 2010, 11:24:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 11, 2010, 11:19:01 AM
I didn't know who Marc Thiessen was or much about this "Al Qaeda Seven" stuff until I saw him on the Daily Show the other night. Fucking despicable even by Cheney standards.

http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/03/11/innocent-man-helped-by-gitmo-bay-attorney-one-of-the-cases-liz-cheney-doesnt-want-you-to-read-about/

He's just another chickenhawk, neocon, waste of a human being.  Oh, and a McCarthyist to boot.

Clearly these assholes hate the US Constitution with every fiber of their being.

(And don't forget Chuck Grassley (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg207327#msg207327).)

Back to the "Keep America Safe" assholes... Another solid takedown:

http://volokh.com/2010/03/10/lawyers-treason-and-deception-a-response-to-andrew-mccarthy/

If you ever need a good example of the proper meaning of "begging the question," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) look no further than the argument supporting this "outrage":

QuoteThe proud American legal tradition involves defending the unpopular who are accused of crimes but presumed innocent.

It has nothing to do with assisting the enemy in lawsuits against the American people during wartime.

Kerr:

QuoteFinally, McCarthy strangely overlooks the basic fact that much of the litigation for the Guantanamo detainees concerns whether they are in fact the enemy. McCarthy presupposes that we all know that all the folks at Gitmo are terrorists, and the only issue is whether we feel like helping them knowing that it hurts America. But like the soldiers at the Boston Massacre, and like other criminal defendants, the Guantanamo detainees are "the accused."

There's nothing "strange" at all about McCarthy overlooking this minor fact. He and his fellow rat-fuckers have no shame in their cynical authoritarianism.



You'd think someone with the last name of McCarthy would want to stay the fuck away from anything like this. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 16, 2010, 09:09:28 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 16, 2010, 01:14:20 AM

...the proper meaning of "begging the question,"...


The misuse of this phrase makes me ANGRY... and it's so widespread. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on March 16, 2010, 09:19:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 16, 2010, 09:09:28 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 16, 2010, 01:14:20 AM

...the proper meaning of "begging the question,"...


The misuse of this phrase makes me ANGRY... and it's so widespread.  

"Begs Raises the question."
And it's so easy to state correctly.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 16, 2010, 10:09:07 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2010, 09:19:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 16, 2010, 09:09:28 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 16, 2010, 01:14:20 AM

...the proper meaning of "begging the question,"...


The misuse of this phrase makes me ANGRY... and it's so widespread.  

"Begs Raises the question."
And it's so easy to state correctly.

THI to all of THI.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 16, 2010, 01:19:11 PM
Those clever Republicans. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/tea-party-protest-signs-r_n_500803.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2010, 03:23:56 PM
Dow Jones - 1/22/2001: 10,659.98
Dow Jones - 3/16/2010: 10,685.98

The market is now up 0.244% since Busch took office.

Thank god for the hopey changy stuff.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 10:50:29 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2010, 03:23:56 PM
Dow Jones - 1/22/2001: 10,659.98
Dow Jones - 3/16/2010: 10,685.98

The market is now up 0.244% since Busch took office.

Thank god for the hopey changy stuff.

Sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on March 17, 2010, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2010, 03:23:56 PM
Dow Jones - 1/22/2001: 10,659.98
Dow Jones - 3/16/2010: 10,685.98

The market is now up 0.244% since Busch took office.

Thank god for the hopey changy stuff.

At least you don't only cherry pick baseball stats.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 17, 2010, 11:13:25 AM
Quote from: Pre on March 17, 2010, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2010, 03:23:56 PM
Dow Jones - 1/22/2001: 10,659.98
Dow Jones - 3/16/2010: 10,685.98

The market is now up 0.244% since Busch took office.

Thank god for the hopey changy stuff.

At least you don't only cherry pick baseball stats.

If you take out all the at-bats when Derrek Lee got a hit, the Dow has been just awful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 11:57:08 AM
Yeah, I really don't know what to think of this (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/tea-party-parkinsons/), except that the guy was clearly trying to incite the anti-reform crowd and that some people can be assholes.

Otherwise, it's just democracy.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 17, 2010, 12:06:25 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 11:57:08 AM
Yeah, I really don't know what to think of this (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/tea-party-parkinsons/), except that the guy was clearly trying to incite the anti-reform crowd and that some people can be assholes.

Otherwise, it's just democracy.



This may just be gut instinct as a member of the silent majority, but aren't most protestors, in general, morans and or assholes? Most of them are eagerly awaiting a chance to confront a member of the opposing side. The Parkinson's moran was clearly trying to provoke the right wing morans, who were happy to oblige, being morans.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 17, 2010, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 17, 2010, 12:06:25 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 11:57:08 AM
Yeah, I really don't know what to think of this (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/tea-party-parkinsons/), except that the guy was clearly trying to incite the anti-reform crowd and that some people can be assholes.

Otherwise, it's just democracy.



This may just be gut instinct as a member of the silent majority, but aren't most protestors, in general, morans and or assholes? Most of them are eagerly awaiting a chance to confront a member of the opposing side. The Parkinson's moran was clearly trying to provoke the right wing morans, who were happy to oblige, being morans.

Isn't that pretty much what Gil just said?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 12:13:32 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 17, 2010, 12:06:25 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 11:57:08 AM
Yeah, I really don't know what to think of this (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/tea-party-parkinsons/), except that the guy was clearly trying to incite the anti-reform crowd and that some people can be assholes.

Otherwise, it's just democracy.



This may just be gut instinct as a member of the silent majority, but aren't most protestors, in general, morans and or assholes? Most of them are eagerly awaiting a chance to confront a member of the opposing side. The Parkinson's moran was clearly trying to provoke the right wing morans, who were happy to oblige, being morans.

Indeed.  I feel sorry for the guy, but he was clearly trying to goad them into a fight.  The morph-looking fella (a friendly potshot, I assume you) was happy to oblige by giving not one, but TWO dollars.

Make your arguments, see if you can convince others, tally up the score and move along.  Democracy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 17, 2010, 12:31:40 PM
So does this mean all pro-lifers are in favor of universal health care and free abortions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:39:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 12:31:40 PM
So does this mean all pro-lifers are in favor of universal health care and free abortions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html)

No.  Correlation <> causation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 17, 2010, 12:42:51 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 12:13:32 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 17, 2010, 12:06:25 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 11:57:08 AM
Yeah, I really don't know what to think of this (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/17/tea-party-parkinsons/), except that the guy was clearly trying to incite the anti-reform crowd and that some people can be assholes.

Otherwise, it's just democracy.



This may just be gut instinct as a member of the silent majority, but aren't most protestors, in general, morans and or assholes? Most of them are eagerly awaiting a chance to confront a member of the opposing side. The Parkinson's moran was clearly trying to provoke the right wing morans, who were happy to oblige, being morans.

Indeed.  I feel sorry for the guy, but he was clearly trying to goad them into a fight.  The morph-looking fella (a friendly potshot, I assume you) was happy to oblige by giving not one, but TWO dollars.

Make your arguments, see if you can convince others, tally up the score and move along.  Democracy.

I was actually trying to agree with Gil's statement.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 12:47:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:39:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 12:31:40 PM
So does this mean all pro-lifers are in favor of universal health care and free abortions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html)

No.  Correlation <> causation.

True, albeit glib.

That said, this seems more than a little bit reasonable...

QuoteOne key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

The connection was explained to me by a wise and holy man, Cardinal Basil Hume. He was the senior Roman Catholic prelate of England and Wales when I lived in London; as a reporter and a Catholic, I got to know him.

In Britain, only 8 percent of the population is Catholic (compared with 25 percent in the United States). Abortion there is legal. Abortion is free. And yet British women have fewer abortions than Americans do. I asked Cardinal Hume why that is.

The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain's universal health-care system. "If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed," Hume explained, "she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?"

A young woman I knew in Britain added another explanation. "If you're [sexually] active," she said, "the way to avoid abortion is to avoid pregnancy. Most of us do that with an IUD or a diaphragm. It means going to the doctor. But that's easy here, because anybody can go to the doctor free."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 12:47:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:39:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 12:31:40 PM
So does this mean all pro-lifers are in favor of universal health care and free abortions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html)

No.  Correlation <> causation.

True, albeit glib.

That said, this seems more than a little bit reasonable...

QuoteOne key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

The connection was explained to me by a wise and holy man, Cardinal Basil Hume. He was the senior Roman Catholic prelate of England and Wales when I lived in London; as a reporter and a Catholic, I got to know him.

In Britain, only 8 percent of the population is Catholic (compared with 25 percent in the United States). Abortion there is legal. Abortion is free. And yet British women have fewer abortions than Americans do. I asked Cardinal Hume why that is.

The cardinal said that there were several reasons but that one important explanation was Britain's universal health-care system. "If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it's needed," Hume explained, "she's more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn't it obvious?"

A young woman I knew in Britain added another explanation. "If you're [sexually] active," she said, "the way to avoid abortion is to avoid pregnancy. Most of us do that with an IUD or a diaphragm. It means going to the doctor. But that's easy here, because anybody can go to the doctor free."

Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 17, 2010, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

That was one of the two possible explanations.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

That was one of the two possible explanations.

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?  Maybe, but I'd like to see more than a theory posited.  Are there lots of U.S. women aborting their babies because they don't think that baby will get medical care?

This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me.  There's a lot more going on there than the simple and reasonable sounding explanation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:10:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me. 

And that sounds an awful lot like a STRAWMAN to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on March 17, 2010, 01:13:08 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe.  

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

I'd like to hear TDubbs take on this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:15:03 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

That was one of the two possible explanations.

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?

Subsidize what and more of it will happen?

Subsidized abortions? Subsidized childbirth? Subsidized contraception?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:18:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:10:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me. 

And that sounds an awful lot like a STRAWMAN to me.

From wiki: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1]  To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Here's the problem: I didn't misrepresent anyone's positions.  I didn't claim to have refuted anything.  I only pointed out the similarity of the two situations.  Is that a STRAWMAN?

If I say that the question of whether "touchdowns" is an important stat in evaluating a quarterback is similar to the question of whether "runs batted in" is an important stat in evaluating a hitter... did I just raise a STRAWMAN?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:25:32 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

Or "No glove, no love"...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

I don't know which way I'm supposed to feel about the issue. I don't know if doctors would suddenly or gradually stop being good at doctoring because the government is running our healthcare. I think there are good doctors and there are shitty doctors.

I don't know how much more I'd have to pay a month to be a part of a government run healthcare program. I know I pay a lot as it is and I still only get covered for 80% after the deductible.

I don't know how universal health care would work in a huge country like the United States compared to the smooth sailing it has in the much less populous European countries, specifically Norway and Sweden. I do know it would be cool if I could have more than three days off to be with my son after he's born. I also know that you guys don't want to pay for my ability to do that.

So that's pretty much where I am. Stuck in neutral. Glad I could barely contribute to this discussion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:25:32 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

Or "No glove, no love"...

Hence my emphasis on "to take it upon themselves."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

I don't know which way I'm supposed to feel about the issue. I don't know if doctors would suddenly or gradually stop being good at doctoring because the government is running our healthcare. I think there are good doctors and there are shitty doctors.

I don't know how much more I'd have to pay a month to be a part of a government run healthcare program. I know I pay a lot as it is and I still only get covered for 80% after the deductible.

I don't know how universal health care would work in a huge country like the United States compared to the smooth sailing it has in the much less populous European countries, specifically Norway and Sweden. I do know it would be cool if I could have more than three days off to be with my son after he's born. I also know that you guys don't want to pay for my ability to do that.

So that's pretty much where I am. Stuck in neutral. Glad I could barely contribute to this discussion.

They also kill themselves alot and pay like 85% in taxes to the government, so it's a tradeoff.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 17, 2010, 01:38:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

I don't know which way I'm supposed to feel about the issue. I don't know if doctors would suddenly or gradually stop being good at doctoring because the government is running our healthcare. I think there are good doctors and there are shitty doctors.

I don't know how much more I'd have to pay a month to be a part of a government run healthcare program. I know I pay a lot as it is and I still only get covered for 80% after the deductible.

I don't know how universal health care would work in a huge country like the United States compared to the smooth sailing it has in the much less populous European countries, specifically Norway and Sweden. I do know it would be cool if I could have more than three days off to be with my son after he's born. I also know that you guys don't want to pay for my ability to do that.

So that's pretty much where I am. Stuck in neutral. Glad I could barely contribute to this discussion.

They also kill themselves alot and pay like 85% in taxes to the government, so it's a tradeoff.

Can't make an omelet without breaking a few Swedes.


I suspect that suicide rate has a lot more to do with the 6 month night every year.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on March 17, 2010, 01:39:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

I don't know which way I'm supposed to feel about the issue. I don't know if doctors would suddenly or gradually stop being good at doctoring because the government is running our healthcare. I think there are good doctors and there are shitty doctors.

I don't know how much more I'd have to pay a month to be a part of a government run healthcare program. I know I pay a lot as it is and I still only get covered for 80% after the deductible.

I don't know how universal health care would work in a huge country like the United States compared to the smooth sailing it has in the much less populous European countries, specifically Norway and Sweden. I do know it would be cool if I could have more than three days off to be with my son after he's born. I also know that you guys don't want to pay for my ability to do that.

So that's pretty much where I am. Stuck in neutral. Glad I could barely contribute to this discussion.

They also kill themselves alot and pay like 85% in taxes to the government, so it's a tradeoff.

Fuck that noise.

And, I sort of understand Slaky's neutral post.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 17, 2010, 01:42:39 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").

Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

I don't know which way I'm supposed to feel about the issue. I don't know if doctors would suddenly or gradually stop being good at doctoring because the government is running our healthcare. I think there are good doctors and there are shitty doctors.

I don't know how much more I'd have to pay a month to be a part of a government run healthcare program. I know I pay a lot as it is and I still only get covered for 80% after the deductible.

I don't know how universal health care would work in a huge country like the United States compared to the smooth sailing it has in the much less populous European countries, specifically Norway and Sweden. I do know it would be cool if I could have more than three days off to be with my son after he's born. I also know that you guys don't want to pay for my ability to do that.

So that's pretty much where I am. Stuck in neutral. Glad I could barely contribute to this discussion.

I'm pretty sure you can take 12 weeks off, they just don't have to pay your for them. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2010, 01:42:57 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 17, 2010, 01:38:49 PM
I suspect that suicide rate has a lot more to do with the 6 month night every year.

It also keeps healthcare costs down.

Hey!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:43:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2010, 01:42:57 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 17, 2010, 01:38:49 PM
I suspect that suicide rate has a lot more to do with the 6 month night every year.

It also keeps healthcare costs down.

Hey!

Self-rationing?  Self-convened Death Panels!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on March 17, 2010, 01:45:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

My uncle-in-law is on the board of a county healthcare district thing in the Joliet area
and he's talked several times about how hard they are working to get donations and
funding for effective birth control for their poverty to lower class patient base.  There's
a whole lot of women that want to take the shot or pill based birth control that can't
afford it and end up pregnant because their boyfriends or husbands don't want to
wear rubbers.  I know that's a single example, but "I find that hard to believe" isn't
exactly a counter example.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:51:37 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

DPD.  And because ELI IS RIGHT!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 17, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

So what you're saying is that being a higher paid doctor means you're a better doctor?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 01:52:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor really high-paid specialist in a useless field is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

Primary care doctor'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:55:49 PM
I can't even tell who's serious and who's joking. Except for Eli.

Here:

American doctors are clearly the best doctors because they get paid so much more to heal people quicker. In countries with socialized medicine, the doctors don't give a shit and happily watch their patients die.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:55:49 PM
I can't even tell who's serious and who's joking. Except for Eli.

I'm mostly just in an all-caps kind of mood.  This thread lends itself well to that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 01:52:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor really high-paid specialist in a useless field is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

Primary care doctor'd.

Spoken like a man who's seen the best of what LA plastic surgeons have to offer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 02:02:27 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:55:49 PM
I can't even tell who's serious and who's joking. Except for Eli.

I'm mostly just in an all-caps kind of mood.  This thread lends itself well to that.

I probably should have kept to myself.

I'm sure my points will get misinterpreted. All I'm saying is this:

Doctors can be good and bad regardless of the healthcare system they work under. I pay a lot for 80% coverage plus a deductible. I do not know how universal health care would change what I pay. They pay less per capita in other countries.

Those are facts from where I sit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 17, 2010, 02:07:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 02:02:27 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:55:49 PM
I can't even tell who's serious and who's joking. Except for Eli.

I'm mostly just in an all-caps kind of mood.  This thread lends itself well to that.

I probably should have kept to myself.

I'm sure my points will get misinterpreted. All I'm saying is this:

Doctors can be good and bad regardless of the healthcare system they work under. I pay a lot for 80% coverage plus a deductible. I do not know how universal health care would change what I pay. They pay less per capita in other countries.

Those are facts from where I sit.

I was just pointing out that being paid more money is not necessarily an INCENTIVE to be a better doctor, simply to be a doctor.

One might say that a better monetary INCENTIVE for being a good doctor is working in a system where patients have the ability to sue your ass for malpractice if you fuck up.

NEW ARGUMENT TIME!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:12:47 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 17, 2010, 02:07:31 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 02:02:27 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:57:49 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:55:49 PM
I can't even tell who's serious and who's joking. Except for Eli.

I'm mostly just in an all-caps kind of mood.  This thread lends itself well to that.

I probably should have kept to myself.

I'm sure my points will get misinterpreted. All I'm saying is this:

Doctors can be good and bad regardless of the healthcare system they work under. I pay a lot for 80% coverage plus a deductible. I do not know how universal health care would change what I pay. They pay less per capita in other countries.

Those are facts from where I sit.

I was just pointing out that being paid more money is not necessarily an INCENTIVE to be a better doctor, simply to be a doctor.

One might say that a better monetary INCENTIVE for being a good doctor is working in a system where patients have the ability to sue your ass for malpractice if you fuck up.

NEW ARGUMENT TIME!

You know, you're being awfully descript today.  You should be careful - you've got a rep to protect.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

Again, the hydraulic argument.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 02:26:57 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 17, 2010, 01:45:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe.  

My uncle-in-law is on the board of a county healthcare district thing in the Joliet area
and he's talked several times about how hard they are working to get donations and
funding for effective birth control for their poverty to lower class patient base.  There's
a whole lot of women that want to take the shot or pill based birth control that can't
afford it and end up pregnant because their boyfriends or husbands don't want to
wear rubbers.
 I know that's a single example, but "I find that hard to believe" isn't
exactly a counter example.

This is key.

Contraception is much more effective when women can control it themselves rather than having to rely on a man (who may not be around to face the consequences after the fact) to take care of it for her.

Which brings us back to...

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:11:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe.  

Free condoms, yes.

Less so diaphragms or IUDs or birth control pills or various other means for women to take it upon themselves to avoid unwanted pregnancies (beyond "keep your pants on, sweetheart").
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

But what about the rugged MikeCs who wish to forgo the ho$pital $y$tem, just rub some dirt on it and go on bein' American?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:08:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Would you settle for better or equal aggregate outcomes at half the aggregate cost?

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html

(Someone else, likely RV, God rest his soul, posted the graphic at this link around here before, though I can't recall how far back.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:09:58 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

"Single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages"?

When did RV flee the U.S. or qualify for Medicare?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:08:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Would you settle for better or equal aggregate outcomes at half the aggregate cost?

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html

(Someone else, likely RV, God rest his soul, posted the graphic at this link around here before, though I can't recall how far back.)

No, because there are many things that affect health outcomes.  U.S. lifestyles are awful, awful from a health standpoint, which surely has a greater effect on life expectancy than what doctors do.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2010, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:17:22 PM
No, because there are many things that affect health outcomes.  U.S. lifestyles are awful, awful from a health standpoint, which surely has a greater effect on life expectancy than what doctors do.

Can we ban high fructose corn syrup in the bill?

What would Archer Daniels Midland say about that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:19:28 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:09:58 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

"Single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages"?

When did RV flee the U.S. or qualify for Medicare?

I read this as a direct comparison between Norway's $5k per capita spending and the U.S.'s $7k.  But I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:20:30 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:09:58 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

"Single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages"?

When did RV flee the U.S. or qualify for Medicare?

I should have added if he's old enough. It's just funny hearing about the evils of this socialistic government run single payer health care when one exists right now that plenty of people don't want touched or altered in any way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 03:22:37 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:20:30 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:09:58 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Including the one he lives in.

"Single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages"?

When did RV flee the U.S. or qualify for Medicare?

I should have added if he's old enough. It's just funny hearing about the evils of this socialistic government run single payer health care when one exists right now that plenty of people don't want touched or altered in any way.

The AARP is crazy good at the whole lobbyin' thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:28:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:08:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

Would you settle for better or equal aggregate outcomes at half the aggregate cost?

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html

(Someone else, likely RV, God rest his soul, posted the graphic at this link around here before, though I can't recall how far back.)

No, because there are many things that affect health outcomes.  U.S. lifestyles are awful, awful from a health standpoint, which surely has a greater effect on life expectancy than what doctors do.

Or don't do, for that matter.

You know, given a healthcare system here that disincentivizes less expensive preventative care for millions upon millions of people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:39:44 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

You'd never know in any system. It depends on what you're seeing the doctor for. In small towns in rural areas (of any country), you have one hospital nearby. Your doctor will be from that hospital. You better hope he/she is a good doctor. That has nothing to do with the healthcare system of the country you live in. It's blind luck.

However, in a universal health care system - if something terrible happens to you - you can travel the distance to the nearest, highly recommended doctor without having to check if he/she is covered under your insurance. In our current system, you have to hope this doctor is under your insurance.

Is that a fair statement?

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

With the government controlling healthcare will you even be able to choose which doctor you go to?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

With the government controlling healthcare will you even be able to choose which doctor you go to?

If this were enacted here? Yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

With the government controlling healthcare will you even be able to choose which doctor you go to?

If this were enacted here? Yes.

I'm trying to figure out how you wouldn't get to choose. This strikes me as fearmongering.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 03:48:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

And this is quantified how?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:52:21 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

With the government controlling healthcare will you even be able to choose which doctor you go to?

If this were enacted here? Yes.

I'm trying to figure out how you wouldn't get to choose. This strikes me as fearmongering.

For example, John Conyers' proposed House Resolution 676 (The United States National Health Insurance Act).

From Section 102:

Quote(b) Portability- Such benefits are available through any licensed health care clinician anywhere in the United States that is legally qualified to provide the benefits.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

With the government controlling healthcare will you even be able to choose which doctor you go to?

If this were enacted here? Yes.

I'm trying to figure out how you wouldn't get to choose. This strikes me as fearmongering.

In a single payer system there would many more options to choose from and you would get to pick. That's how it goes with Medicare.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM


So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:00:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

With the government controlling healthcare will you even be able to choose which doctor you go to?

If this were enacted here? Yes.

I'm trying to figure out how you wouldn't get to choose. This strikes me as fearmongering.

In a single payer system there would many more options to choose from and you would get to pick. That's how it goes with Medicare.

Um... that's how it goes with Medicare?  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:02:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

Don't forget the serial breeders.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:02:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

Don't forget the serial breeders.

That's why I would propose legislation to outlaw TLC forever.

Fucking Duggars.  And Gosselins.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2010, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:02:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

Don't forget the serial breeders.

That's why I would propose legislation to outlaw TLC forever.

Fucking Duggars.  And Gosselins.

I think we can rustle up bipartisan support for such a motion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 17, 2010, 04:14:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:00:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:40:07 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on March 17, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 17, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: Slack-E on March 17, 2010, 01:28:47 PM
Here's what I know: my communist, unAmerican, socialist, Nazi, third world scum wife was and remains appalled at the healthcare in the United States.

Just curious... what exactly appalls her about it?  Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe) or the fact that it's not "given" to everyone?  (given is in scare quotes because the government can't give something to *everyone*... it can only take from one person and give to another)  Or is it something else?

No, it's not the quality of care. It's the cost. Knowing that if she fell and broke her arm, it'd cost a good chunk of income. At home, it wouldn't cost her anything upfront. Yes, she and I and you understand that they are taxed to make up for that.

Per capita, Norwegians spend about 5 grand a year on health care. Americans spend over 7 grand. They don't have to worry about which insurance covers you for which doctors. If they're hurt or sick, they just go to the doctor and they don't have to worry about billing. Are their doctors worse/dumber than ours? Of course not. There's no way to convince anyone of that because anyone can cherry pick a medical horror story from anywhere and paint with a broad brush. There are good doctors and bad doctors in every country.

For her, it was quite a culture shock. Put yourself in those shoes. I'm sure you can understand why she would feel that way.

Data for those numbers is here: http://www.topforeignstocks.com/2009/07/03/a-comparison-of-us-health-care-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

This is something that a lot of people don't understand because their employer pays such a huge portion (80%) (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=270&cat=5) of their premiums.

So everything's fine and dandy - you get health insurance really cheap! The only problems are

- some of that employer portion could be going in your pocket if health insurance wasn't so goddamn expensive
- if you actually get sick or injured you're out a fat deductible

Among other things. Give me single-payer health care where I pay $5,000 a year in payroll taxes rather than $7,000 in premiums and lost wages, please.

There are plenty of countries that offer this now.  What's stopping you?

But on a serious note... you are assuming that the $5,000 versus $7,000 comparison means that the consumer in each place gets the same value (whether amount or quality) of health care to consume.  I don't see anything there to suggest that.  Do I want to spend $2,000 less every year?  Sure... assuming I get the same value of goods or services.

So if the US were to switch healthcare systems, the quality of your healthcare would decline because the doctors would stop giving a shit? Would this be a gradual change? Or are you saying that the doctors in other countries are inferior?


With the insurance company steering you towards the doctors it wants you to see do you really know if you're getting the best doctor for the money you paid in premiums?

With the government controlling healthcare will you even be able to choose which doctor you go to?

If this were enacted here? Yes.

I'm trying to figure out how you wouldn't get to choose. This strikes me as fearmongering.

In a single payer system there would many more options to choose from and you would get to pick. That's how it goes with Medicare.

Um... that's how it goes with Medicare?  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Sure.

So make Medicare the only entity who pays doctors. Problem solved!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 07:37:25 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

QuoteUntil now, my answer to the first question has been that while much of what the bankers did was reprehensible, it was perfectly legal. I still think this is the case—in finance, it is often the case that the biggest scandal is what you can get away with within the law—but the Valukas report raises the possibility that I was wrong, and that the big Wall Street firms were engaged in Enron-style accounting fraud. Spitzer and Black, who are both associated with the Roosevelt Institute, have been arguing for months that accounting fraud, and other wrongdoing, was pervasive on Wall Street. "If we are to prevent another, potentially more devastating financial crisis, we must understand what happened and who knew what," they write."We must stop the three card monte accounting practices that create the potential and reality of fundamental misrepresentation."

THI.  As any accountant-type around here could tell you, GAAP leaves an awful lot of room for manipulation anyway, but this report makes it clear there's at least enough 'there' there for further investigation.

I just hope they also decide at some point to take a better look at rating agencies (who fucked up beyond belief, yet seem to escape the public's interest), Fannie and Freddie, and of course the government's own role in the financial crisis.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2010, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 18, 2010, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

MORE BETTER JOBS THROUGH DEREGULATION!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2010, 08:28:42 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

(http://i40.tinypic.com/149w4cl.jpg)

Bait-taking joke aside, THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS:
Quote
in finance, it is often the case that the biggest scandal is what you can get away with within the law




Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:29:24 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 18, 2010, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

MORE BETTER JOBS THROUGH DEREGULATION!

Sooner or later, all problems can be solved through GEORGE HUTCHINS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 18, 2010, 08:31:02 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 18, 2010, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

MORE BETTER JOBS THROUGH DEREGULATION!

"I have a clear simple REAL SOLID PLAN to create more better jobs - better careers, throughout our North Carolina, and Nationwide, in present times,  which will benefit countless American Generations yet unborn."

"As a manager of a successful company, ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS, in a DEREGULATED, Less Hostile, Less Expensive to the Employer, work environment, I would hire anyone who would do a good legal honest job, no matter what their RACE, COLOR, or, validated RELIGION is, in respect to their honest legal efforts, which would assist the company, to create better products, and good customer service, which produces greater legal earned profits, for the entire company, {Corporation}."

==> "Most American Corporations, American Companies, and Americans do the same actions, as I do."

==> Many of our American Jobs have been driven over-seas, due to AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, PRIVILEGES BASED ON RACE, so-called ANTI-RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LAWS, which create a Hostile environment, due to endless countless EXPENSIVE unfounded complaints - lawsuits, which cause it, to be TOO EXPENSIVE to operate in American, for major American Corporations; where, it has become MUCH more less expensive, to operate overseas, in foreign nations, outside of U.S. Federal Law, where these so-called ANTI-RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LAWS, PRIVILEGES BASED ON RACE LAWS, and/or, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION RACE QUOTA LAWS, do NOT exist.

===> "Through a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, we need to remove these ridiculous, STUPID, so-called Anti-Racial Discrimination Laws, in order to, bring our corporate jobs back to American, in order to, establish a LESS Hostile, LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE EMPLOYER, Work Environment by Law; for, more Better Paying Careers, and Good Paying Jobs, for ALL Americans, nationwide, on U.S. Soil."


Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2010, 08:32:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:29:24 AM
Quote from: CT III on March 18, 2010, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

MORE BETTER JOBS THROUGH DEREGULATION!

Sooner or later, all problems can be solved through GEORGE HUTCHINS.

He's managed to secure the sought-after Hockeenight endorsement.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:48:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 08:28:42 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 07:40:42 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 05:33:07 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2010/03/the-lehman-report.html

This wouldn't have happened had the financial institutions been more deregulated, right?

Sure.  Because everyone knows that "deregulation" = "no regulation" and of course that's exactly what free-market advocates want.  No regulation at all.  No rules against fraud or other crime.  Just anarchy.[/sarc]

(http://i40.tinypic.com/149w4cl.jpg)

Bait-taking joke aside, THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS:
Quote
in finance, it is often the case that the biggest scandal is what you can get away with within the law


Damnit.

(http://www.beyondhollywood.com/gallery/stills3/fish-hook-anti-smoking-ad-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on March 18, 2010, 09:50:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.

Isn't comparing hypothetical health care scenarios for a GIVEN YEAR precisely comparing them in a vacuum?  What about health care up to that GIVEN YEAR?  Doesn't that matter?  Perhaps there were some sort of preventative measures that could have been taken up until that GIVEN YEAR that would have made the physical therapy and the MRIs unnecessary because you may not have gotten the herniated discs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 09:52:43 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 18, 2010, 09:50:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.

Isn't comparing hypothetical health care scenarios for a GIVEN YEAR precisely comparing them in a vacuum?  What about health care up to that GIVEN YEAR?  Doesn't that matter?  Perhaps there were some sort of preventative measures that could have been taken up until that GIVEN YEAR that would have made the physical therapy and the MRIs unnecessary because you may not have gotten the herniated discs.

Tell me how that changes my point that comparing per-capita spending on health care is a meaningless statistic without much, much more information.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 18, 2010, 09:55:30 AM
Stock market up in the last year nearly 30% to over 10,700.

Jorbless claims down.

Leading indicators up a little, but still up.

Interest rates low.

30 million people about to get health insurance.

The deficit projected to be $1.1 trillion lower over the next 20 years.

Spring starts in 3 days.

It's morning in America, kids!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 10:17:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

I just call that practicing ample preventive medicine.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2010, 10:25:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 10:17:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

I just call that practicing ample preventive medicine.

How is the cigarette you have afterward any good for you?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 18, 2010, 10:34:48 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 10:17:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

I just call that practicing ample preventive medicine.

Your doc calls it "gauging the income elasticity of demand."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 10:37:44 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 18, 2010, 10:34:48 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2010, 10:17:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2010, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 04:23:00 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 17, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:37:07 PM
No.  The total value is comprised of quality AND quantity.

So you're under the impression that in such a system you're limited to how many visits you get per a certain period of time? Or how many doctors can tend to you at once? Less doctors per person? Help me out.

No, I'm under the impression that in the US, people consume more health care than in other countries, for many reasons... such as being filled with fat slobs who don't take care of themselves.  As Wheezer indicates, quantifying the amount of health care spending that is related to quantity (number of visits, procedures, etc.) versus quality (effectiveness of care, value per dollar of spending)t is not an easy task, because it's hard to disentangle the quality and quantity effects.  The BLS has a hard time handling this with all sorts of goods and services; they use "hedonic quality adjustments" to try to account for it.

You've circled back on yourself. The question I posed of quantification was more about what this "value" stuff is made of.

To make it simple, suppose that I spend $1,000 on health care in a given year, and I get a thorough physical exam, a prostate check, an open MRI on my two herniated discs (which took me 1 week to get and then I'm at the doctor's office the next day to tell me what's up), and some physical therapy out of it.  Now, suppose a Swede in similar health and age to me spends $1,000 on health care, and he gets a physical, a prostate check, an MRI that takes two months to get and another month to get a followup) and a cortisone shot.  Now, we both spent the same amount of $ (or $ per capita, if you will) but the value of the services we got are different.  You could reverse me and the Swede and the argument that per-capita spending doesn't tell you a lot would still hold.

All I'm saying is that per-capita spending on health care cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  You have to know what consumers are getting for that per-capita spending.

Not a fair sample size, since you get your prostate checked 3 times a week.

Fucking pervert.

I just call that practicing ample preventive medicine.

Your doc calls it "gauging the income elasticity of demand."

Unfortunately, it gets more elastic over time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 18, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 17, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

So what you're saying is that being a higher paid doctor means you're a better doctor?
Intrepid Reader: George Steinbrenner

Exactly. Why would anyone want to play for the Yankees as opposed to the Pirates or Royals? Money?

Intrepid Reader: Fidel Castro
We don't pay our doctors or ballplayers jack shit. And we have no problems of defectors in either field.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 18, 2010, 03:00:07 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 18, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 17, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

So what you're saying is that being a higher paid doctor means you're a better doctor?
Intrepid Reader: George Steinbrenner

Exactly. Why would anyone want to play for the Yankees as opposed to the Pirates or Royals? Money?

Intrepid Reader: Fidel Castro
We don't pay our doctors or ballplayers jack shit. And we have no problems of defectors in either field.

Because you're TJ Brown, I'm going to assume you're joking.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 18, 2010, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 18, 2010, 03:00:07 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 18, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 17, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:38:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:33:41 PM
Is it the quality of care (which I would find hard to believe)...?

Why would you find it hard to believe that quality of medical care might be worse here than in Scandinavia?

BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD.

Because the reward for being a doctor is higher here.  INCENTIVES.

So what you're saying is that being a higher paid doctor means you're a better doctor?
Intrepid Reader: George Steinbrenner

Exactly. Why would anyone want to play for the Yankees as opposed to the Pirates or Royals? Money?

Intrepid Reader: Fidel Castro
We don't pay our doctors or ballplayers jack shit. And we have no problems of defectors in either field.

Because you're TJ Brown, I'm going to assume you're joking.

He's been a dad for a week now.  Lack of REM sleep needs to be considered as a possible factor.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 09:11:55 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 18, 2010, 09:55:30 AM
Stock market up in the last year nearly 30% to over 10,700.

Jorbless claims down.

Leading indicators up a little, but still up.

Interest rates low.

30 million people about to get health insurance.

The deficit projected to be $1.1 trillion lower over the next 20 years.

Spring starts in 3 days.

It's morning in America, kids!

I guess when your pumping out 1.2 trillion in debt in 2009 and 1.56 trillion in debt in 2010, its gonna be pretty cool that in 20 years you get back Obama's first year spending. In 2008, Bush's last year the budget deficit was at a whopping 488 Billion. But one thing Obama continued to campaign on and still talks about today is that he was going to cut spending by 50%, he just never was gonna tell you he was going to triple deficit spending and then cut it. So even if he cuts it by 50% by 2013, he is still at 750 billion dollars a year in the hole, far out stripping what people were complaining about Bush when he left office.

Obama was elected to cut spending from the Bush levels, not tack on trillions more thats why people are in the streets and pissed at this administration. But lets attack a few more myths of Health Care Reform. Part of its going to be paid for through eliminating 100 billion in fraud and waste from Medicaid. Nice dream though, won't happen. Investigating further the 100 billion claim is a bit off due to various factors. It might be closer to 20 billion but its being pimped off into the CBO projections as a method of payment for Health Care Reform. We aren't going to get a 100 billion in cash to use to pay for health care were going to see atleast a 20 billion dollar shortfall or more. So the accounting is gonna be off by a 120+ Billion right off the bat.

One other factor that Democrats don't want to talk about is how taxes will start right away but services wont start till 2013 or 2014. Its the only way to get the bill in under a trillion dollars. But thats not the true cost of the program, i know that you know that, everyone knows that. Its a budget gimmick to make people like Chuck to Chuck go ohhhh wow its awesome! You aren't going to have a 2-3 year head start in taxes every decade to pay for health care. So now your looking at anywhere between 200-500 billion in costs that are being hidden because of a head start in taxes.

Then there is the whole process of counting medicare money twice in Obamas idea of Health Care reform.

QuoteThe president and his advisers always tout one major selling point of the health care reform bills -- that they'll reduce the deficit -- in part by cutting almost $500 billion from Medicare, which the president argued in a speech in Strongville, Ohio will only strengthen the program.

n fact, more than half the total financing for health care reform comes from the $500 billion or so in Medicare cuts ($467 billion), which the president insists will be dedicated to shoring up the programs solvency. "This proposal makes Medicare stronger, makes the coverage better, and makes its finances more secure, he said during a speech in Ohio. "Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed - or is trying to misinform you."
Actually, there are many who say it is the president himself who is misinformed -- and that he is misleading others because the almost 500 billion in cuts from Medicare are counted as helping its survival, even though the money is siphoned off and spent on other programs.

A lot of budget gimmicks, fuzzy math, and bold faced lies with Health Care reform. You can have blind support like Chuck to Chuck and think your going to get some money back in 20 years or look at the facts and how the bill is put together and go, "My god, this thing is going to cost an astronomical amount of money." But for the dead-enders its Health Care or bust to save whatever fleeting image they have of their dear savior Obama whose popularity has sunk to Bush 2008 levels.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on March 19, 2010, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 09:11:55 AM
But for the dead-enders its Health Care or bust to save whatever fleeting image they have of their dear savior Obama whose popularity has sunk to Bush 2008 levels.

I'm on the way out the door, but I just wanted to thank you for making me LOL.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 19, 2010, 09:27:38 AM
Instead of reading MikeC's post, take a look at a couple charts comparing the reconciled bill to the House and Senate bills.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/18/new-cbo-score-recon/

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1737-How-Does-the-Reconciliation-HCR-Bill-Compare-on-the-Numbers-
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on March 19, 2010, 09:30:05 AM
I'm just pissed that MikeC is getting better stuff than I am.  Fucker.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 09:43:26 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 09:11:55 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 18, 2010, 09:55:30 AM
Stock market up in the last year nearly 30% to over 10,700.

Jorbless claims down.

Leading indicators up a little, but still up.

Interest rates low.

30 million people about to get health insurance.

The deficit projected to be $1.1 trillion lower over the next 20 years.

Spring starts in 3 days.

It's morning in America, kids!

I guess when your pumping out 1.2 trillion in debt in 2009 and 1.56 trillion in debt in 2010, its gonna be pretty cool that in 20 years you get back Obama's first year spending.

Well, we know one thing for sure: Morph is smarter than Comar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 19, 2010, 09:44:03 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 09:11:55 AM
A lot of budget gimmicks, fuzzy math, and bold faced lies with Health Care reform. You can have blind support like Chuck to Chuck and think your going to get some money back in 20 years or look at the facts and how the bill is put together and go, "My god, this thing is going to cost an astronomical amount of money." But for the dead-enders its Health Care or bust to save whatever fleeting image they have of their dear savior Obama whose popularity has sunk to Bush 2008 levels.

I'm just happy you'll finally be able to see a doctor, buddy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 09:50:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 09:43:26 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 09:11:55 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 18, 2010, 09:55:30 AM
Stock market up in the last year nearly 30% to over 10,700.

Jorbless claims down.

Leading indicators up a little, but still up.

Interest rates low.

30 million people about to get health insurance.

The deficit projected to be $1.1 trillion lower over the next 20 years.

Spring starts in 3 days.

It's morning in America, kids!

I guess when your pumping out 1.2 trillion in debt in 2009 and 1.56 trillion in debt in 2010, its gonna be pretty cool that in 20 years you get back Obama's first year spending.

Well, we know one thing for sure: Morph is smarter than Comar.

Thanks?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
QuoteWhen Barack Obama tries to convince you to accept a government takeover of the health-care industry, he is making a promise he won't be around to keep. ObamaCare's job-killing taxes are front-loaded, but in order to fool the Congressional Budget Office into giving it a respectable deficit score, its benefits are delayed for years. Even if Obama wins re-election, he would complete his second term long before the program was completely phased in... and no external authority exists to compel either Obama, or his successors, to honor the promises he's been making.

....

It would also be foolish to place such faith in Republicans, or anyone else. Today's Democrats are not unique in their corruption, a cancer that can be driven into remission with electoral chemotherapy in 2010 and 2012. Massive government breeds massive corruption through its very nature – it is the predictable behavior of people who are no less greedy, ambitious, or deceitful that the most rapacious robber baron. They hide their avarice behind masks of finely chiseled sanctimony, but as the final maneuvers toward the passage of ObamaCare illustrate, they're just as quick to bend rules and perpetrate fraud as any white-collar criminal.

It would be a horrible mistake to accept a deal with the creators of history's most staggering natonal debt, based on assurances they will place your interests ahead of theirs, for decades to come. As Darth Vader memorably explained to Lando Calrissian, the State can always alter the terms of the deal, and your only recourse will be praying they don't alter it any further.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 19, 2010, 11:05:36 AM
Damn, and we were actually having a conversation about health care yesterday.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 11:09:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 19, 2010, 11:05:36 AM
Damn, and we were actually having a conversation about health care yesterday.

MikeC is a very angry man. Ruins it all. I actually enjoyed reading that conversation yesterday.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 19, 2010, 11:10:58 AM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 11:09:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 19, 2010, 11:05:36 AM
Damn, and we were actually having a conversation about health care yesterday.

MikeC is a very angry man. Ruins it all. I actually enjoyed reading that conversation yesterday.

He doesn't realize the ridicule he gets isn't because of his views, it's because of the way he presents them. Probably never will. Won't read this either.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 19, 2010, 11:11:20 AM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 11:09:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 19, 2010, 11:05:36 AM
Damn, and we were actually having a conversation about health care yesterday.

MikeC is a very angry man. Ruins it all. I actually enjoyed reading that conversation yesterday.
IT IS VERY HARD TO TYPE AND SCREAM AT THE SAME TIME EXCLAMATION POINT REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES YOU WOULD NO THAT IF U CUOLD GET POL POT OBAMA HUSSEIN HITLERS DONG OUT OF YOUR DRYWALL HOLE PERIOD MOVE MOUSE HIT POST
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:13:52 AM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 11:09:13 AM
MikeC is a very angry man. Ruins it all. I actually enjoyed reading that conversation yesterday.

Bob Sweeney: There was a moment... when I used to blame everything and everyone... for all the pain and suffering and vile things that happened to me, that I saw happen to my people. Used to blame everybody. Blamed white people, blamed society, blamed God. I didn't get no answers 'cause I was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right questions.

Derek Vinyard: Like what?

Bob Sweeney: Has anything you've done made your life better?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 11:14:50 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
QuoteWhen Barack Obama tries to convince you to accept a government takeover of the health-care industry...

Okay... you (or whatever Malkin drone you're quoting) lost me right there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 19, 2010, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AMAs Darth Vader memorably explained to Lando Calrissian, the State can always alter the terms of the deal, and your only recourse will be praying they don't alter it any further.

I think health care reform is more like what Han Solo told Chewie about the Ewoks. Short help is better than no help at all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 19, 2010, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
but in order to fool the Congressional Budget Office

I think this was my favorite part.  It's so easy to just play tricks on the CBO.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 19, 2010, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 19, 2010, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
but in order to fool the Congressional Budget Office

I think this was my favorite part.  It's so easy to just play tricks on the CBO.

I like to imagine the CBO is basically Roscoe P. Coltrane to Obama and Rahm's Duke boys.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 11:42:02 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 19, 2010, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
but in order to fool the Congressional Budget Office

I think this was my favorite part.  It's so easy to just play tricks on the CBO.

I like to imagine the CBO is basically Roscoe P. Coltrane to Obama and Rahm's Duke boys.

Jon won't stop until he's gotten everyone to picture Nancy Pelosi in a pair of ass-tight cut-offs.

He's a mad man, he is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 19, 2010, 11:45:55 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 11:42:02 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 19, 2010, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
but in order to fool the Congressional Budget Office

I think this was my favorite part.  It's so easy to just play tricks on the CBO.

I like to imagine the CBO is basically Roscoe P. Coltrane to Obama and Rahm's Duke boys.

Jon won't stop until he's gotten everyone to picture Nancy Pelosi in a pair of ass-tight cut-offs.

He's a mad man, he is.

And Joe Biden is, of course, Uncle Jesse.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 19, 2010, 11:48:33 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 19, 2010, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
but in order to fool the Congressional Budget Office

I think this was my favorite part.  It's so easy to just play tricks on the CBO.

Here's what I don't get: if the deficit reduction in the first 10 years is a TRICK, what explains the $1.2 trillion deficit reduction in the second decade (a 10-year period where both new revenues and new expenses are fully implemented).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 12:30:52 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 19, 2010, 11:48:33 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 19, 2010, 11:36:20 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 19, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
but in order to fool the Congressional Budget Office

I think this was my favorite part.  It's so easy to just play tricks on the CBO.

Here's what I don't get: if the deficit reduction in the first 10 years is a TRICK, what explains the $1.2 trillion deficit reduction in the second decade (a 10-year period where both new revenues and new expenses are fully implemented).

The CBO basically assumes whatever the bill says it will do, it will do.  So, if they say that Medicare reimbursements for doctors will be cut by 50% in year 18 (numbers I just made up so please don't hold me to it), then that's how they score it.  The problem is, projections more than a year out are bad enough; projections out 10-20 years are almost worthless, which is why the CBO says
QuoteAlthough CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO's analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation's health care and health insurance systems.

Now, as for TRICKS: read this: http://sayanythingblog.com/images/Trust_Fund_Accounting.pdf (note the CBO is the author).  Last line:

QuoteTo describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position.

That's one of the many TRICKS in there.  Along with assuming the "doc fix" stops getting passed every year and doctors just accept payment reductions of 20% as another example.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 19, 2010, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 12:30:52 PMThe CBO basically assumes whatever the bill says it will do, it will do.

According to this guy (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-fiscal-responsibility-looks), the CBO actually takes a conservative view of cost-savings in the second decade:

QuoteYes, the CBO itself notes that projections for the second decade of implementation--that is, 2020 through 2029--have an unusually high margin of error. But the CBO's final judgment takes that uncertainty into account.

Remember, when the CBO makes a projection for how much a program will cost over time, it isn't just spitting out a single number. It's giving a range of numbers. It's typically the midpoint that you hear about, but there's always a chance that the number will be higher or lower, by a certain interval. And, in order to play it safe, CBO decided it would judge health care reform based on the worst possible estimate within that interval.

So suppose, just to use some hypothetical numbers, the CBO ran the numbers and determined that the Democrats' bill would probably save $1 trillion over ten years, but that the range of possible estimates was between saving $2.25 trillion and losing $250 billion. I'd say that's pretty good odds: It's far more likely you'll save money and the possible savings are far bigger than the possible increase in the deficit.

CBO would have disagreed. If there's a statistically significant chance that the bill would cost $250 billion, they would have said they can't declare that the bill won't inflate the deficit. The only way to get CBO approval would have been to modify the bill, so that the CBO determined it was likely to save $1.25 trillion but determined even the worst-case, most pessimistic scenario wouldn't drive up the deficit.

FWIW, I can't find any language in here (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf) that verifies the TNR claim of conservative budgeting of cost savings.

These seem to be pretty even-handed takes on the legitimacy of the CBO scores:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-19/health-cares-fuzzy-math/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-18/do-these-numbers-add-up/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.

I was agreeing...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:31:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.

I was agreeing...

So was I...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:32:31 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:31:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.

I was agreeing...

So was I...

Good.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:32:31 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:31:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.

I was agreeing...

So was I...

Good.

Good.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.

If this dragon was fucking a car (http://thatotherpaper.com/blog/todd_ross_nienkerk/dragons_sex_cars), you deserved much, much more.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 19, 2010, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 12:30:52 PMThe CBO basically assumes whatever the bill says it will do, it will do.

According to this guy (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-fiscal-responsibility-looks), the CBO actually takes a conservative view of cost-savings in the second decade:

QuoteYes, the CBO itself notes that projections for the second decade of implementation--that is, 2020 through 2029--have an unusually high margin of error. But the CBO's final judgment takes that uncertainty into account.

Remember, when the CBO makes a projection for how much a program will cost over time, it isn't just spitting out a single number. It's giving a range of numbers. It's typically the midpoint that you hear about, but there's always a chance that the number will be higher or lower, by a certain interval. And, in order to play it safe, CBO decided it would judge health care reform based on the worst possible estimate within that interval.

So suppose, just to use some hypothetical numbers, the CBO ran the numbers and determined that the Democrats' bill would probably save $1 trillion over ten years, but that the range of possible estimates was between saving $2.25 trillion and losing $250 billion. I'd say that's pretty good odds: It's far more likely you'll save money and the possible savings are far bigger than the possible increase in the deficit.

CBO would have disagreed. If there's a statistically significant chance that the bill would cost $250 billion, they would have said they can't declare that the bill won't inflate the deficit. The only way to get CBO approval would have been to modify the bill, so that the CBO determined it was likely to save $1.25 trillion but determined even the worst-case, most pessimistic scenario wouldn't drive up the deficit.

FWIW, I can't find any language in here (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf) that verifies the TNR claim of conservative budgeting of cost savings.

These seem to be pretty even-handed takes on the legitimacy of the CBO scores:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-19/health-cares-fuzzy-math/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-18/do-these-numbers-add-up/

Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:45:39 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.

If this dragon was fucking a car (http://thatotherpaper.com/blog/todd_ross_nienkerk/dragons_sex_cars), you deserved much, much more.

FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6495.0)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 19, 2010, 01:51:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 01:43:19 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 19, 2010, 01:03:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 12:30:52 PMThe CBO basically assumes whatever the bill says it will do, it will do.

According to this guy (http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/what-fiscal-responsibility-looks), the CBO actually takes a conservative view of cost-savings in the second decade:

QuoteYes, the CBO itself notes that projections for the second decade of implementation--that is, 2020 through 2029--have an unusually high margin of error. But the CBO's final judgment takes that uncertainty into account.

Remember, when the CBO makes a projection for how much a program will cost over time, it isn't just spitting out a single number. It's giving a range of numbers. It's typically the midpoint that you hear about, but there's always a chance that the number will be higher or lower, by a certain interval. And, in order to play it safe, CBO decided it would judge health care reform based on the worst possible estimate within that interval.

So suppose, just to use some hypothetical numbers, the CBO ran the numbers and determined that the Democrats' bill would probably save $1 trillion over ten years, but that the range of possible estimates was between saving $2.25 trillion and losing $250 billion. I'd say that's pretty good odds: It's far more likely you'll save money and the possible savings are far bigger than the possible increase in the deficit.

CBO would have disagreed. If there's a statistically significant chance that the bill would cost $250 billion, they would have said they can't declare that the bill won't inflate the deficit. The only way to get CBO approval would have been to modify the bill, so that the CBO determined it was likely to save $1.25 trillion but determined even the worst-case, most pessimistic scenario wouldn't drive up the deficit.

FWIW, I can't find any language in here (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf) that verifies the TNR claim of conservative budgeting of cost savings.

These seem to be pretty even-handed takes on the legitimacy of the CBO scores:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-19/health-cares-fuzzy-math/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-18/do-these-numbers-add-up/

Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

It's going to be a tough sell for this with whatever Dems were on the fence before the CBO numbers came out. Especially in an election year.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 19, 2010, 01:53:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Line items for "consultants" in this game tend to reflect economizing on full-time staff, if I recall properly. Charitynavigator.org gives them four stars based on 2007. If I were Debbie Schlussel, I'd be savaging the Boys Choir of Harlem instead.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 01:57:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 01:43:19 PM
Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

HOAX (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/health-care-wars-on-capitol-hill-as-dems-cry-doc-fix-memo-is-a-fake.php?ref=fpa) (so they claim)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:45:39 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 01:35:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 19, 2010, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Some guy in DC suffered from PTSD and got $1000 on 10/16/08. Some guy in O'Fallon IL lost a leg to an IED, suffers from TBI (no clue without googling) and has burns to face and hands and got $1000 as well
1000 bucks. Whoop de shit. That pays for an MRI.

Shit, I've gotten that much for drawing a picture of a dragon in a high school art contest.

If this dragon was fucking a car (http://thatotherpaper.com/blog/todd_ross_nienkerk/dragons_sex_cars), you deserved much, much more.

FACE (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6495.0)

Apparently you don't understand what I do around here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 01:57:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 01:43:19 PM
Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

HOAX (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/health-care-wars-on-capitol-hill-as-dems-cry-doc-fix-memo-is-a-fake.php?ref=fpa) (so they claim)

Yep, Politico has retracted until they can verify veracity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 19, 2010, 02:06:56 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 02:01:45 PM
Apparently you don't understand what I do around here.

Men?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 01:57:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 01:43:19 PM
Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

HOAX (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/health-care-wars-on-capitol-hill-as-dems-cry-doc-fix-memo-is-a-fake.php?ref=fpa) (so they claim)

Yep, Politico has retracted until they can verify veracity.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media would do their job first, then report?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 02:10:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 02:04:25 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 01:57:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 19, 2010, 01:43:19 PM
Since I mentioned the doc fix... I just saw this now.  http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

HOAX (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/health-care-wars-on-capitol-hill-as-dems-cry-doc-fix-memo-is-a-fake.php?ref=fpa) (so they claim)

Yep, Politico has retracted until they can verify veracity.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media would do their job first, then report?

To be fair, I'm not sure anyone considers The Politico to be part of the media.

(Or maybe some people do. Which would be part of the problem, I guess.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 19, 2010, 01:53:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 19, 2010, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 19, 2010, 11:52:03 AM
Maybe because the money is being diverted to Sean Hannity (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/)?

QuoteFor the last several years, Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance "charity" have conducted "Freedom Concerts" across America. They've told you that they are raising money to pay for the college tuition of the children of fallen soldiers and to pay severely wounded war vets.  And on Friday Night, Hannity will be honored with an award for this "Outstanding Community Service by a Radio Talk Show Host" at Talkers Magazine's  convention.

But it's all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes.  Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Which preconception should take precedence here: My sense that Sean Hannity is a slimy, opportunistic fucknut with a history of credibility issues, or my conviction that Debbie Schlussel is a clueless, cut-rate Michelle Malkin impersonator with a history of credibility issues?

(Or do I just sit back and enjoy the blood-letting either way?)

You could just read their tax form (non profits are required to file what is known as a form 990, and its public record)

http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/2008_990.pdf

I looked at the 2007 form.  In my slimy opportunistic view, if the government took as much as a percentage of every dollar given as the Freedom Alliance uses, I think I would know what would be leading off every Fox News show for the next month.

EDITED to add :  Did look at the 2008 form, it lists grants for the scholarships as grants to colleges, and the highest grant given to any school was $6,000.  My guess that the maximum grant to any one recipient was some fraction of that.

Line items for "consultants" in this game tend to reflect economizing on full-time staff, if I recall properly. Charitynavigator.org gives them four stars based on 2007. If I were Debbie Schlussel, I'd be savaging the Boys Choir of Harlem instead.

They did, and I'm not sure why.  I believe that in 2007 they had 27 employees, so it seems a bit overhead heavy to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 19, 2010, 04:03:30 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

That was one of the two possible explanations.

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?  Maybe, but I'd like to see more than a theory posited.  Are there lots of U.S. women aborting their babies because they don't think that baby will get medical care?

This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me.  There's a lot more going on there than the simple and reasonable sounding explanation.

Or not. (http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3178&query=TOC)

QuoteMassachusetts is one of 17 states that provide full coverage for abortion under the state Medicaid program (MassHealth) for the poorest residents, and abortion is a covered service under all the Commonwealth Care plans that cover the next tier of income earners. Yet in this midsized, ethnically diverse state, full insurance coverage of abortion services for all lower-income residents did not result in an increase in the number of abortions performed. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of some federal subsidization of overall care, for a fraction of the additional 31 million people who would be covered, would not mean a significant or even a likely increase in the number of abortions performed nationally.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 19, 2010, 04:03:30 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe. 

That was one of the two possible explanations.

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?  Maybe, but I'd like to see more than a theory posited.  Are there lots of U.S. women aborting their babies because they don't think that baby will get medical care?

This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me.  There's a lot more going on there than the simple and reasonable sounding explanation.

Or not. (http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3178&query=TOC)

QuoteMassachusetts is one of 17 states that provide full coverage for abortion under the state Medicaid program (MassHealth) for the poorest residents, and abortion is a covered service under all the Commonwealth Care plans that cover the next tier of income earners. Yet in this midsized, ethnically diverse state, full insurance coverage of abortion services for all lower-income residents did not result in an increase in the number of abortions performed. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of some federal subsidization of overall care, for a fraction of the additional 31 million people who would be covered, would not mean a significant or even a likely increase in the number of abortions performed nationally.

The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:31:20 AM
DPD.  "Hey employees, this is just a recommendation but..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/19/opinion/main6313300.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 21, 2010, 12:25:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 19, 2010, 04:03:30 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2010, 12:56:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 12:53:30 PM
Sounds great.  You're telling me that there isn't enough free contraception in the US?  I find that hard to believe.  

That was one of the two possible explanations.

Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?  Maybe, but I'd like to see more than a theory posited.  Are there lots of U.S. women aborting their babies because they don't think that baby will get medical care?

This sounds an awful lot like the "health outcomes are awful in the US, so clearly the US needs universal health care" argument to me.  There's a lot more going on there than the simple and reasonable sounding explanation.

Or not. (http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3178&query=TOC)

QuoteMassachusetts is one of 17 states that provide full coverage for abortion under the state Medicaid program (MassHealth) for the poorest residents, and abortion is a covered service under all the Commonwealth Care plans that cover the next tier of income earners. Yet in this midsized, ethnically diverse state, full insurance coverage of abortion services for all lower-income residents did not result in an increase in the number of abortions performed. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the possibility of some federal subsidization of overall care, for a fraction of the additional 31 million people who would be covered, would not mean a significant or even a likely increase in the number of abortions performed nationally.

The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

No one is saying it's not a complicated issue.

But, if one is really interested in reducing the number of abortions, one would want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This, in turn, means at least two things: reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in the first place and, when unintended pregnancies do happen, increasing the number that are carried to term.

Increased access to female contraception and quality sex education help towards the former. Decreasing the financial burden of pre- and postnatal care seems like it would help the latter.

Now, you can go on hand-waving with your over-simplified and over-generalized mantra that if you subsidize anything it WILL happen more often. But we'd like to see more than a theory posited, too.

Maybe start by considering this question that I asked up-thread:

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 17, 2010, 01:15:03 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 01:07:38 PM
Ah.  So you're telling me that the proven cause-and effect of "subsidize it and more of it will happen" will be more than counteracted by the "oh, my baby will have 'free' healthcare (paid for by someone else, of course) so I'll carry it to term" phenomenon?

Subsidize what and more of it will happen?

Subsidized abortions? Subsidized childbirth? Subsidized contraception?

All three?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 21, 2010, 12:31:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:31:20 AM
DPD.  "Hey employees, this is just a recommendation but..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/19/opinion/main6313300.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Quoteupdated 7:20 p.m. 3/20/10

Editor's note: The White House is disputing a claim in this article that e-mails are being sent to people who don't want them. The communications director for the Office of Health Reform, Linda Douglass, said Grenell's assertions are "inaccurate."

"Emailed updates about health insurance reform legislation are sent periodically to members of the public who sign up to receive them. No one is sent unsolicited emails. Mr. Grenell would have learned this if he had called the White House to ask who receives the emails, but he did not contact us before writing. The assertions made in his column are inaccurate," Douglass said in a statement.

So, apparently the crime was failing to filter federal email addresses out of their normal e-blast address list.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 21, 2010, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 21, 2010, 12:25:23 PM
But, if one is really interested in reducing the number of abortions, one would want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Relentlessly shitting all over the pro-rubella community would be a good idea, as well.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 21, 2010, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 21, 2010, 01:18:13 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 21, 2010, 12:25:23 PM
But, if one is really interested in reducing the number of abortions, one would want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Relentlessly shitting all over the pro-rubella community would be a good idea, as well.

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on March 21, 2010, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

Discussions are cool, disagreement great, I even think that just hearing opinions and
the thoughts of people with vastly different views is a fantastic thing.  We live in a
society that has so much personalized news (there is are so many options of "news"
sources that cater to specific opinions) that we can all manage to stay involved and
"informed" without actually learning about the different sides of our issues.  However,
in this case morph I feel like you're doing a lot of nuh-uh'ing instead of debating.  The
last few pages seem to consist of you positing your opinion and asking for someone to
provide studies/statistics to the contrary, and then bagging on the studies and statistics
that people are providing w/o providing anything actually contrary.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 21, 2010, 04:02:55 PM
Stupak's in (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/stupak-reaches-abortion-deal-with-dem-leadership.php?ref=fpa), it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray, teabaggers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 21, 2010, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 21, 2010, 04:02:55 PM
Stupak's in (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/stupak-reaches-abortion-deal-with-dem-leadership.php?ref=fpa), it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray, teabaggers.

November's gonna hai too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 21, 2010, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 21, 2010, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 21, 2010, 04:02:55 PM
Stupak's in (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/stupak-reaches-abortion-deal-with-dem-leadership.php?ref=fpa), it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray, teabaggers.

November's gonna hai too.

Yeah, campaigning in favor of preexisting conditions and caps on health insurance spending is going to be amazing.

If the bill is so bad, let the Dems pass it and then shoot themselves in the foot, instead creating controversies and erecting procedural roadblocks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 21, 2010, 05:37:02 PM
DPD, because I like history.

Quote"This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed. The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of "bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and "practical measures" favored by the Republicans.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is pledged to do this."

That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September 1936 campaign speech. He based his bid for the White House on repealing Social Security.

Bad call, Alf. Republicans lost that presidential election in a landslide. By the time they finally regained the White House -- 16 years later -- their nominee, Dwight Eisenhower, had abandoned the party's repeal platform.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 21, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 21, 2010, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 21, 2010, 04:02:55 PM
Stupak's in (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/stupak-reaches-abortion-deal-with-dem-leadership.php?ref=fpa), it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray, teabaggers.

November's gonna hai too.

Cold comfort, according to former Bush speechwriter David Frum (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo).

QuoteThis time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 21, 2010, 08:17:15 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 21, 2010, 04:02:55 PM
Stupak's in, it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray a frothing mug of trichomonadal discharge, teabaggers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317

QuoteHamm insisted before the committee that rescission was a necessary tool for Assurant and other health insurance companies to hold the cost of premiums down for other policyholders. Hamm asserted that rescission was "one of many protections supporting the affordability and viability of individual health insurance in the United States under our present system."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 21, 2010, 08:31:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 21, 2010, 07:23:26 PM
Cold comfort, according to former Bush speechwriter David Frum (http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo).

You blew the lede:

Quote(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

If this bill even works a little bit, it gives 30,000,000 voters medical care.

The GOP held Florida for one election with an open expenditure Medicare D.

How many electoral votes does this have the opportunity to pick up?  If Hispanics love this bill as much as has been said in numerous articles, and Hispanics keep growing in Texas....
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on March 21, 2010, 09:59:49 PM
That Frum article is full of interesting items, here's a third point to consider.

QuoteI've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

Bad weekend for the tea baggers and the loud mouths (would appear that its the Republicans that is now held hostage by its more radical members).  Will be interesting to see if its bad for conservatives or Republicans who have an interest in governing.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 21, 2010, 10:20:36 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 21, 2010, 09:59:49 PM

That Frum article is full of interesting items, here's a third point to consider.

QuoteI've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

Bad weekend for the tea baggers and the loud mouths (would appear that its the Republicans that is know held hostage by its more radical members).  Will be interesting to see if its bad for conservatives or Republicans who have an interest in governing.



I'm going to be selfish for a second and forget the repercussions of this bill and how it will most likely be the death knell of democracy or something like that and ask instead if it's going to benefit me. I'm 21 and a full time student. As it stands, as soon as I turn 22 in September I'm going to be off of my mother's insurance. Someone mentioned that they thought this bill extended coverage to like age 25 or something if you're a full time student. Does anyone know if that's true or how soon it will take effect? I'll still hate it regardless, but I'd like to get mine.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 21, 2010, 10:28:30 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 21, 2010, 10:20:36 PM
I'm going to be selfish for a second and forget the repercussions of this bill and how it will most likely be the death knell of democracy or something like that and ask instead if it's going to benefit me. I'm 21 and a full time student. As it stands, as soon as I turn 22 in September I'm going to be off of my mother's insurance. Someone mentioned that they thought this bill extended coverage to like age 25 or something if you're a full time student. Does anyone know if that's true or how soon it will take effect? I'll still hate it regardless, but I'd like to get mine.

Here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-reform-bill-101-How-long-will-reform-take).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: D. Doluntap on March 21, 2010, 10:36:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHD5nd3QLTg
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 21, 2010, 10:42:27 PM
Quote from: D. Doluntap on March 21, 2010, 10:36:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHD5nd3QLTg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5l7uwtqkqU
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 21, 2010, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

Discussions are cool, disagreement great, I even think that just hearing opinions and
the thoughts of people with vastly different views is a fantastic thing.  We live in a
society that has so much personalized news (there is are so many options of "news"
sources that cater to specific opinions) that we can all manage to stay involved and
"informed" without actually learning about the different sides of our issues.  However,
in this case morph I feel like you're doing a lot of nuh-uh'ing instead of debating.  The
last few pages seem to consist of you positing your opinion and asking for someone to
provide studies/statistics to the contrary, and then bagging on the studies and statistics
that people are providing w/o providing anything actually contrary.

OK.  That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?  Remember... change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing.  It might be, it might not... but you're suggesting that the burden of proof is on those of us who think the proposed changes are worse than doing nothing.  I say it's on those who are working to re-order a large chunk of the economy.

It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 21, 2010, 10:54:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 21, 2010, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

Discussions are cool, disagreement great, I even think that just hearing opinions and
the thoughts of people with vastly different views is a fantastic thing.  We live in a
society that has so much personalized news (there is are so many options of "news"
sources that cater to specific opinions) that we can all manage to stay involved and
"informed" without actually learning about the different sides of our issues.  However,
in this case morph I feel like you're doing a lot of nuh-uh'ing instead of debating.  The
last few pages seem to consist of you positing your opinion and asking for someone to
provide studies/statistics to the contrary, and then bagging on the studies and statistics
that people are providing w/o providing anything actually contrary.

OK.  That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?  Remember... change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing.  It might be, it might not... but you're suggesting that the burden of proof is on those of us who think the proposed changes are worse than doing nothing.  I say it's on those who are working to re-order a large chunk of the economy.

It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in.

You could always move to some other country if you don't love this one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 21, 2010, 10:55:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in.

I hope you said that in 2001.  I sure did.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:05:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 21, 2010, 10:55:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in.

I hope you said that in 2001.  I sure did.

Sure you did.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 21, 2010, 11:15:18 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 21, 2010, 10:54:44 PM
You could always move to some other country if you don't love this one.

Yeah, he can go live in a country WITHOUT socialized medicine.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 21, 2010, 11:41:21 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 21, 2010, 11:15:18 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 21, 2010, 10:54:44 PM
You could always move to some other country if you don't love this one.

Yeah, he can go live in a country WITHOUT socialized medicine.

Freedonia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8aKKF1-f-A)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 12:16:13 AM
The ban on preexisting conditions is, in my opinion, one of the greatest elements of this bill.  I won't bore you with the details of my particular health care situation, but it has been one of the biggest fears that I have had with my - going on three - insurance carriers over the past several years, not to mention the lifetime caps.

It would be pretty easy to demagogue any attempts to overturn this provision.

As for the reality of this bill, the US took a bold step away from the single-payer versions of health care and made us all a little more Swiss in the process.  It may not be an ideal answer, but it is an answer nonetheless, something that Republicans (from 1994 to 2006) had every chance to own and make their own.

Elections have consequences.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 07:42:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:05:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 21, 2010, 10:55:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in.

I hope you said that in 2001.  I sure did.

Sure you did.

My exact words were, "The deficits are coming, Tra La Tra La!"

I'll see if I have the old e-mail from back then.  If not, I can introduce you to the guy I sent it to.  He was my original intro to The Source.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 22, 2010, 07:50:09 AM

Fuck it, it's done.

Let's go bowling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on March 22, 2010, 08:08:41 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 22, 2010, 07:50:09 AM

Fuck it, it's done.

Let's go bowling.

Oh, we're fucked alright.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 08:09:00 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 22, 2010, 07:50:09 AM

Fuck it, it's done.

Let's go bowling.

THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 08:37:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 08:09:00 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 22, 2010, 07:50:09 AM

Fuck it, it's done.

Let's go bowling.

THI

Pinstripes for $8 lunch.  Who's with me?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 08:42:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 08:37:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 08:09:00 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 22, 2010, 07:50:09 AM

Fuck it, it's done.

Let's go bowling.

THI

Pinstripes Polekatz for $8 lunch.  Who's with me?

Gil's already there'd

(Some day this joke will be worn out. But not yet. Not yet.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 22, 2010, 08:47:47 AM
And keep stackin' that cheddar Morph.  I'd hate for you to have your zepplin repoed.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704125804575096392965443342.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704125804575096392965443342.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on March 22, 2010, 08:53:09 AM
http://twitter.com/GOPBoehner/status/10854574117
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 21, 2010, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

Discussions are cool, disagreement great, I even think that just hearing opinions and
the thoughts of people with vastly different views is a fantastic thing.  We live in a
society that has so much personalized news (there is are so many options of "news"
sources that cater to specific opinions) that we can all manage to stay involved and
"informed" without actually learning about the different sides of our issues.  However,
in this case morph I feel like you're doing a lot of nuh-uh'ing instead of debating.  The
last few pages seem to consist of you positing your opinion and asking for someone to
provide studies/statistics to the contrary, and then bagging on the studies and statistics
that people are providing w/o providing anything actually contrary.

OK.  That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?  Remember... change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing.  It might be, it might not... but you're suggesting that the burden of proof is on those of us who think the proposed changes are worse than doing nothing.  I say it's on those who are working to re-order a large chunk of the economy.

It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in. pay for Nebraska's Medicaid, pay for everyone else's, and then retire only to see that because you saved, you're taxed at a rate of oh, 75 percent, even if it was the stuff that was supposed to be protected from taxation like Roth IRAs. You belong to the government, sir. But don't worry. Twenty-five-year-old kids can continue living on the couch at their parents' employers' expense.

And Chuck, it's a little warm in this office. I hope someone else resets the thermostat to a HIGHER temp. Awesome.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 09:22:15 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 21, 2010, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

Discussions are cool, disagreement great, I even think that just hearing opinions and
the thoughts of people with vastly different views is a fantastic thing.  We live in a
society that has so much personalized news (there is are so many options of "news"
sources that cater to specific opinions) that we can all manage to stay involved and
"informed" without actually learning about the different sides of our issues.  However,
in this case morph I feel like you're doing a lot of nuh-uh'ing instead of debating.  The
last few pages seem to consist of you positing your opinion and asking for someone to
provide studies/statistics to the contrary, and then bagging on the studies and statistics
that people are providing w/o providing anything actually contrary.

OK.  That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?  Remember... change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing.  It might be, it might not... but you're suggesting that the burden of proof is on those of us who think the proposed changes are worse than doing nothing.  I say it's on those who are working to re-order a large chunk of the economy.

It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in. pay for Nebraska's Medicaid, pay for everyone else's, and then retire only to see that because you saved, you're taxed at a rate of oh, 75 percent, even if it was the stuff that was supposed to be protected from taxation like Roth IRAs. You belong to the government, sir. But don't worry. Twenty-seven-year-old kids can continue living on the couch at their parents' employers' expense.

And Chuck, it's a little warm in this office. I hope someone else resets the thermostat to a HIGHER temp. Awesome.

Not that you were right to begin with, but actual legislation'd.

Those lazy bum kids.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 21, 2010, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 11:26:43 AM
The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

Discussions are cool, disagreement great, I even think that just hearing opinions and
the thoughts of people with vastly different views is a fantastic thing.  We live in a
society that has so much personalized news (there is are so many options of "news"
sources that cater to specific opinions) that we can all manage to stay involved and
"informed" without actually learning about the different sides of our issues.  However,
in this case morph I feel like you're doing a lot of nuh-uh'ing instead of debating.  The
last few pages seem to consist of you positing your opinion and asking for someone to
provide studies/statistics to the contrary, and then bagging on the studies and statistics
that people are providing w/o providing anything actually contrary.

OK.  That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?  Remember... change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing.  It might be, it might not... but you're suggesting that the burden of proof is on those of us who think the proposed changes are worse than doing nothing.  I say it's on those who are working to re-order a large chunk of the economy.

It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in. pay for Nebraska's Medicaid, pay for everyone else's, and then retire only to see that because you saved, you're taxed at a rate of oh, 75 percent, even if it was the stuff that was supposed to be protected from taxation like Roth IRAs. You belong to the government, sir. But don't worry. Twenty-five-year-old kids can continue living on the couch at their parents' employers' expense.

And Chuck, it's a little warm in this office. I hope someone else resets the thermostat to a HIGHER temp. Awesome.

Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 09:57:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.

This. This. This.

I just fail to see how this bill "controls costs," or "improves the quality of care." I do see how this bill will force my company to keep under 50 employees, drop health care benefits altogether and see larger companies offer shittier health insurance than before if they had been offering very good health insurance.

I also fail to see how this "reduces the deficit."

I hope to God I'm wrong. If I'm right, we're all fucked. Some of you worse than others.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.

That's not entirely fair.  A good portion of the money spent since 1/20/2009 were from programs started the previous year.

And the stimulus money, while not as spent as efficiently as I'd like, needed to be spent.  Moreover, politicians keep their jobs by spending more money, not less.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.

That's not entirely fair.  A good portion of the money spent since 1/20/2009 were from programs started the previous year.

And the stimulus money, while not as spent as efficiently as I'd like, needed to be spent.  Moreover, politicians keep their jobs by spending more money, not less.

And therein lies the rub. Once voters realized that they can vote themselves the treasury, we're cooked. We've been cooked for quite some time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on March 22, 2010, 10:31:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?

I'm not saying that a couple comments on here proved the health care
bill is awesome and will work and save money QED.  It's some of the
specifics like how increased access to birth control can decrease
unwanted pregnancies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 22, 2010, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.

That's not entirely fair.  A good portion of the money spent since 1/20/2009 were from programs started the previous year.

And the stimulus money, while not as spent as efficiently as I'd like, needed to be spent.  Moreover, politicians keep their jobs by spending more money, not less.

And therein lies the rub. Once voters realized that they can vote themselves the treasury, we're cooked. We've been cooked for quite some time.

And its 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn..
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 22, 2010, 11:04:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 22, 2010, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.

That's not entirely fair.  A good portion of the money spent since 1/20/2009 were from programs started the previous year.

And the stimulus money, while not as spent as efficiently as I'd like, needed to be spent.  Moreover, politicians keep their jobs by spending more money, not less.

And therein lies the rub. Once voters realized that they can vote themselves the treasury, we're cooked. We've been cooked for quite some time.

And its 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn..

To answer your earlier question more specifically (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/what_does_the_health-care_refo.html):

QuoteI'm not going to list every quick-acting provision here, because it would be redundant. The most genuinely useful of them will be the ability to keep kids on their parents' insurance until they're 26 (that begins six months after the bill passes), the $250 rebate for Medicare enrollees who fall into the prescription drug benefit's "doughnut hole" (the bill eventually closes the hole altogether), and an end to rescission of coverage or annual limits. At the beginning of 2011, employers in the individual and small-group markets have to spend 80 percent of each premium dollar on actual medical care, or they have to rebate the difference.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 22, 2010, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.

That's not entirely fair.  A good portion of the money spent since 1/20/2009 were from programs started the previous year.

And the stimulus money, while not as spent as efficiently as I'd like, needed to be spent.  Moreover, politicians keep their jobs by spending more money, not less.

And therein lies the rub. Once voters realized that they can vote themselves the treasury, we're cooked. We've been cooked for quite some time.

And its 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn..

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/03/21/come-what-may/

Quote... we pledge our lives, fortunes, and honor to crushing any member of Republican leadership who refuses to get on the full repeal bandwagon.

It ain't no time to wonder why. Yippee, we're all going to die.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 22, 2010, 11:06:55 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 22, 2010, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.

That's not entirely fair.  A good portion of the money spent since 1/20/2009 were from programs started the previous year.

And the stimulus money, while not as spent as efficiently as I'd like, needed to be spent.  Moreover, politicians keep their jobs by spending more money, not less.

And therein lies the rub. Once voters realized that they can vote themselves the treasury, we're cooked. We've been cooked for quite some time.

And its 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn..

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/03/21/come-what-may/

Quote... we pledge our lives, fortunes, and honor to crushing any member of Republican leadership who refuses to get on the full repeal bandwagon.

It ain't no time to wonder why. Yippee, we're all going to die.

Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip Yip
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:09:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 22, 2010, 10:47:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2010, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 09:37:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 09:30:46 AM
Maybe if we'd kept going on the Clinton-Gingrich balance surpluses (the ones Reagan said would pay back the debt we borrowed in the 80's) and kept the 30 year bond retired and didn't do Medicare D, just maybe some of this wouldn't be so nerve wracking.

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress and the lack of the use of a veto pen the last 9 years -- 9 years, not 14 months -- is nauseating.

The kids in my house have such a burden ahead of them, they have no idea.


I agree 100% with the bolded part.  The first part is right too although I think the "surpluses" were built on assuming the tech bubble would last forever and were thus really "smaller deficits."  However, the thought is definitely right, that the last 9 years have seen an explosion of fiscal irresponsibility.  We've just taken it to another order of magnitude in the last 14 months.

That's not entirely fair.  A good portion of the money spent since 1/20/2009 were from programs started the previous year.

And the stimulus money, while not as spent as efficiently as I'd like, needed to be spent.  Moreover, politicians keep their jobs by spending more money, not less.

And therein lies the rub. Once voters realized that they can vote themselves the treasury, we're cooked. We've been cooked for quite some time.

And its 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn..

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/03/21/come-what-may/

Quote... we pledge our lives, fortunes, and honor to crushing any member of Republican leadership who refuses to get on the full repeal bandwagon.

It ain't no time to wonder why. Yippee, we're all going to die.

They do realize the President is a Democrat, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 22, 2010, 11:19:12 AM
Non-sarcastic question for the board: which of these cost controls (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_five_most_promising_cost_c.html) are you skeptical of? Regardless of the validity of the middle 3, I think the combination of the mandate and the exchanges alone is encouraging:

QuoteRepublicans and Democrats both agree that we need more cost control in the health-care system. But politicians don't like to actually cut costs, because those votes reduce benefits and make people angry. So we've played a shameful game: We passively control costs by letting people become and stay uninsured, or by letting their insurance deteriorate and cover less, because those things don't require a vote in Congress.

But because the individual mandate in the bill brings everyone into the insurance market and the subsidies for those who can't afford insurance on their own put Washington on the hook for costs, Congress will have to get serious about holding costs down in the system. The alternatives, for lawmakers, are high costs infuriating constituents who're being forced to buy something they can't afford, or yawning deficits forcing them to vote to take subsidies -- and thus health-care coverage -- away from people who currently have it. The days of letting inertia win the day and watching the system fall apart on its own are over.

I see a lot of dismissive "the bill doesn't do anything to control costs" but the only conservative suggestions I've seen that aren't in the bill to some extent are malpractice reform (which I'm fine with, but which accounts for less than 2 percent (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0) of medical costs) and selling insurance across state lines (which may reduce cost, but would probably lead to a race to the bottom (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/November/06/health-insurance-across-state-lines.aspx) in terms of quality of insurance).

Which cost controls would you have liked to see included, that weren't?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 11:20:12 AM
Quote from: Pre on March 22, 2010, 10:31:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?

I'm not saying that a couple comments on here proved the health care
bill is awesome and will work and save money QED.  It's some of the
specifics like how increased access to birth control can decrease
unwanted pregnancies.

OK.  There is a wealth of information out there that shows that if you subsidize a particular behavior you will get more of it, and if you tax a particular behavior, you will get less of it, ceteris paribus.  You can see this all over the place, in various products and services that the government is involved in.  A great example: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/

This economic rule of thumb is a rule of thumb for a reason.  If you want to say it doesn't apply to a particular situation, fine, but the burden of proof is on you to show that it doesn't apply.  The doctor in that medical journal took 3 years of annual numbers and said, good enough!  I said there's an awful lot of uncertainty around that, because it's a short time period and because there are lots of other things going on there (such as a much longer-term downward trend in the abortion rate that was already there before MassCare).  If I tried to use three data points as a thesis for a contrarian investment I'd get laughed out of the room.

So, tell me again what I did wrong?  I pointed out that such a study, based on its lack of data, is pretty meaningless.  Also... I never said that more access to (i.e. more subsidization of) birth control would not decrease unwanted pregnancies.  The burden of proof would then be on me, clearly.  I said that subsidizing abortions would lead to more of them, which is the intuitive conclusion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:30:52 AM
David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

QuoteSome Republicans talk of repealing the whole bill. That's not very realistic. Even supposing that Republicans miraculously capture both houses of Congress in November, repeal will require a presidential signature.

More relevantly: Do Republicans write a one-sentence bill declaring that the whole thing is repealed? Will they vote to reopen the "doughnut" hole for prescription drugs for seniors? To allow health insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? To kick millions of people off Medicaid?

It's unimaginable, impossible.

He, unlike many (though not all) of his colleagues, proposes a solution:

Quote1) One of the worst things about the Democrats' plan is the method of financing: an increase in income taxes. The top rate of tax was already scheduled to jump to 39.6 percent at the end of this year. Now a surtax of 5.4 percent will be stacked atop that higher rate. At first, the surtax bites only very high incomes: $500,000 for individuals. But that tax will surely be applied to larger and larger portions of the American population over time.

Republicans champion lower taxes and faster economic growth. We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of this surtax -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes.

2) We should quit defending employment-based health care. The leading Republican spokesman in the House on these issues, Rep. Paul Ryan, repeatedly complained during floor debate that the Obama plan would "dump" people out of employer-provided care into the exchanges. He said that as if it were a bad thing.

Yet free-market economists from Milton Friedman onward have identified employer-provided care as the original sin of American health care. Employers choose different policies for employees than those employees would choose for themselves. The cost is concealed.

Wages are depressed without employees understanding why. The day when every employee in America gets his or her insurance through an exchange will be a good day for market economics. It's true that the exchanges are subsidized. So is employer-provided care, to the tune of almost $200 billion a year.

3) We should call for reducing regulation of the policies sold inside the health care exchanges. The Democrats' plans require every policy sold within the exchanges to meet certain strict conditions.

American workers will lose the option of buying more basic but cheaper plans. It will be as if the only cable packages available were those that include all the premium channels. No bargains in that case. Republicans should press for more scope for insurers to cut prices if they think they can offer an attractive product that way.

4) The Democratic plan requires businesses with payrolls more than $500,000 to buy health insurance for their workers or face fines of $2,000 per worker. Could there be a worse time to heap this new mandate on smaller employers? Health insurance comes out of employee wages, plain and simple. Employers who do not offer health insurance must compete for labor against those who do -- and presumably pay equivalent wages for equivalent work.

Uninsured employees have now through the exchanges been provided an easy and even subsidized way to buy their own coverage. There is no justification for the small-business fine: Republicans should press for repeal.

The conclusion:

QuoteNow the overheated talk is about to get worse. Over the past 48 hours, I've heard conservatives compare the House bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- a decisive step on the path to the Civil War. Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished.

For the cause they purport to represent, however, the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:36:57 AM
I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Maybe a relief program for med school debt?  I have no idea.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 22, 2010, 11:39:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:36:57 AM
I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Which ones would these be?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 22, 2010, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 22, 2010, 11:39:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:36:57 AM
I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Which ones would these be?

Fistulaoligists, for one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:30:52 AM
David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 22, 2010, 11:39:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:36:57 AM
I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Which ones would these be?

I should amend my remarks to replace the word "useless" (who I am to judge which medicine is the right kind?) with the phrase "over saturated fields."  Like plastic surgery for one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 22, 2010, 11:47:22 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 22, 2010, 11:39:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:36:57 AM
I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Which ones would these be?

I should amend my remarks to replace the word "useless" (who I am to judge which medicine is the right kind?) with the phrase "over saturated fields."  Like plastic surgery for one.

If they're oversaturated, doesn't Adam Smith's Invisible Dong automatically disincentivize them?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:30:52 AM
David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 22, 2010, 11:50:27 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:30:52 AM
David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

Forget it. As much as they wrap themselves in Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, the modern GOP base would have a shit hemmorage if either of those guys were President today.

Even Nixon would be a Democrat today.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on March 22, 2010, 12:03:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 11:20:12 AM
OK.  There is a wealth of information out there that shows that if you subsidize a particular behavior you will get more of it, and if you tax a particular behavior, you will get less of it, ceteris paribus.  You can see this all over the place, in various products and services that the government is involved in.  A great example: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/

Ok, I misunderstood your point on BC/abortion.

However, you're calling out 3 years of data isn't enough (and I'm not saying it is), but a great example is a
chart with a sensationalist title and basically no other supporting information that includes this quote?
Quote
Of course, there are surely other reasons why burgers are cheaper than salads. These might include
production costs, since harvesting apples is probably more naturally seasonal than slaughtering cows (even
though both are in demand year-round). Transportation and storage costs might also play a role, as it's
probably easier to keep ground beef fresh and edible for extended periods of time, by freezing it, than
cucumbers.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 22, 2010, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:30:52 AM
David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_drUMJ9HF-tQ/RsyND5VLFII/AAAAAAAAAEs/SATCsat8PVQ/s320/Otis.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 22, 2010, 12:06:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 22, 2010, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:30:52 AM
David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_drUMJ9HF-tQ/RsyND5VLFII/AAAAAAAAAEs/SATCsat8PVQ/s320/Otis.jpg)

Somewhere, Jose Guzman shakes his head and goes back to his tv dinner.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on March 22, 2010, 12:11:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 22, 2010, 12:06:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 22, 2010, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:49:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2010, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2010, 11:30:52 AM
David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_drUMJ9HF-tQ/RsyND5VLFII/AAAAAAAAAEs/SATCsat8PVQ/s320/Otis.jpg)

Somewhere, Jose Guzman shakes his head and goes back to his tv dinner.

And subsequently blows out his shoulder.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 11:20:12 AM
Quote from: Pre on March 22, 2010, 10:31:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 21, 2010, 10:47:29 PM
That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?

I'm not saying that a couple comments on here proved the health care
bill is awesome and will work and save money QED.  It's some of the
specifics like how increased access to birth control can decrease
unwanted pregnancies.

OK.  There is a wealth of information out there that shows that if you subsidize a particular behavior you will get more of it, and if you tax a particular behavior, you will get less of it, ceteris paribus.  You can see this all over the place, in various products and services that the government is involved in.  A great example: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/

This economic rule of thumb is a rule of thumb for a reason.  If you want to say it doesn't apply to a particular situation, fine, but the burden of proof is on you to show that it doesn't apply.  The doctor in that medical journal took 3 years of annual numbers and said, good enough!  I said there's an awful lot of uncertainty around that, because it's a short time period and because there are lots of other things going on there (such as a much longer-term downward trend in the abortion rate that was already there before MassCare).  If I tried to use three data points as a thesis for a contrarian investment I'd get laughed out of the room.

So, tell me again what I did wrong?  I pointed out that such a study, based on its lack of data, is pretty meaningless.  Also... I never said that more access to (i.e. more subsidization of) birth control would not decrease unwanted pregnancies.  The burden of proof would then be on me, clearly.  I said that subsidizing abortions would lead to more of them, which is the intuitive conclusion.

The point is that a rule of thumb is only just that: a rule of thumb. It's not something that always holds true, let alone a proof.

It is something that is generally true, ceteris paribus, but doesn't alone suffice for things where ceteris is not paribus or where there are contradicting factors.

Consider again my earlier question to you (twice asked, twice unanswered) (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg209333#msg209333). Let's take this rule of thumb at face value:

If you subsidize abortions... people will have more abortions.

If you subsidize pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care... people will have more babies.

If you subsidize contraceptives... people will use more contraceptives.


Now, let's get pedantic...

The occurrence of abortions is at least partially dependent on that of pregnancies. And, obviously, the number of pregnancies carried to term is also partially dependent on the number of total pregnancies. If we disregard miscarriages, a pregnancy has a binary outcome: childbirth or abortion. If pregnancies that are carried to term and those that are terminated both increase, it's fair to assume the total number of pregnancies would thus also have to increase as well.

Finally, all things being equal, one would think total pregnancies would be inversely correlated with successful use of contraception. If people use more contraception while engaging in the same amount of sex, we would expect the number of pregnancies to decrease.

The only way all three of these things increase at the same time is if people start having a lot more sex (and/or we see both a massive contraceptive failure and a massive decrease in miscarriages, independent of subsidies).

Therefore...

Subsidizing healthcare = Everyone fucking like Irish rabbits?

Or would you say that at least one of the three have to give? If so, which one(s)?

In other words: this simple rule of thumb, while generally useful and true, is on its own insufficient to relieve you of the burden of proof in this case, due to countervailing factors to which it applies just as well. Several of us have made our case. Let's hear you make yours.

Sophistry allowed, natch.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on March 22, 2010, 01:04:03 PM
I'm amazed that TankhovanFalk knows so much about heterosexuality.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 22, 2010, 01:07:19 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on March 22, 2010, 01:04:03 PM
I'm amazed that TankhovanFalk knows so much about herterosexuality.

I thought that about the bible shit he loads the Lost thread up with, but since it's on the internet, he knows it. Therefore, none of this contradicts his fagness
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 22, 2010, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 12:42:37 PM
In other words: this simple rule of thumb, while generally useful and true, is on its own insufficient to relieve you of the burden of proof in this case, due to countervailing factors to which it applies just as well.

This is all well and fine, but a simpler approach to the hydraulic argument would seem to be that any effect of subsidizing abortions relies upon a hypothesis of unmet demand. This is different from offering free car washes with every five abortions.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 01:30:35 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 12:42:37 PM

The point is that a rule of thumb is only just that: a rule of thumb. It's not something that always holds true, let alone a proof.

It is something that is generally true, ceteris paribus, but doesn't alone suffice for things where ceteris is not paribus or where there are contradicting factors.

Consider again my earlier question to you (twice asked, twice unanswered) (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg209333#msg209333). Let's take this rule of thumb at face value:

If you subsidize abortions... people will have more abortions.

If you subsidize pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care... people will have more babies.

If you subsidize contraceptives... people will use more contraceptives.


Now, let's get pedantic...

The occurrence of abortions is at least partially dependent on that of pregnancies. And, obviously, the number of pregnancies carried to term is also partially dependent on the number of total pregnancies. If we disregard miscarriages, a pregnancy has a binary outcome: childbirth or abortion. If pregnancies that are carried to term and those that are terminated both increase, it's fair to assume the total number of pregnancies would thus also have to increase as well.

Finally, all things being equal, one would think total pregnancies would be inversely correlated with successful use of contraception. If people use more contraception while engaging in the same amount of sex, we would expect the number of pregnancies to decrease.

The only way all three of these things increase at the same time is if people start having a lot more sex (and/or we see both a massive contraceptive failure and a massive decrease in miscarriages, independent of subsidies).

Therefore...

Subsidizing healthcare = Everyone fucking like Irish rabbits?

Or would you say that at least one of the three have to give? If so, which one(s)?

In other words: this simple rule of thumb, while generally useful and true, is on its own insufficient to relieve you of the burden of proof in this case, due to countervailing factors to which it applies just as well. Several of us have made our case. Let's hear you make yours.

Sophistry allowed, natch.

Don't take my word for it.  How about Susan Cohen of the (very pro-abortion-rights) Guttmacher Institute?  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/3/gpr120320.html

Or this Literature Review published by that same institution?  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MedicaidLitReview.pdf  Please note that of the 24 studies they look at, 20 of them find a positive relationship between funding and abortion rates.  Why would it be different now?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 22, 2010, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 12:42:37 PM
In other words: this simple rule of thumb, while generally useful and true, is on its own insufficient to relieve you of the burden of proof in this case, due to countervailing factors to which it applies just as well.

This is all well and fine, but a simpler approach to the hydraulic argument would seem to be that any effect of subsidizing abortions relies upon a hypothesis of unmet demand. This is different from offering free car washes with every five abortions.

Abortions are like Big Macs.

Insofar as women will get abortions instead of mammograms if the abortions are cheaper.

Price elasticity of demand: it's the law.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 01:43:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 01:30:35 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 12:42:37 PM

The point is that a rule of thumb is only just that: a rule of thumb. It's not something that always holds true, let alone a proof.

It is something that is generally true, ceteris paribus, but doesn't alone suffice for things where ceteris is not paribus or where there are contradicting factors.

Consider again my earlier question to you (twice asked, twice unanswered) (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg209333#msg209333). Let's take this rule of thumb at face value:

If you subsidize abortions... people will have more abortions.

If you subsidize pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care... people will have more babies.

If you subsidize contraceptives... people will use more contraceptives.


Now, let's get pedantic...

The occurrence of abortions is at least partially dependent on that of pregnancies. And, obviously, the number of pregnancies carried to term is also partially dependent on the number of total pregnancies. If we disregard miscarriages, a pregnancy has a binary outcome: childbirth or abortion. If pregnancies that are carried to term and those that are terminated both increase, it's fair to assume the total number of pregnancies would thus also have to increase as well.

Finally, all things being equal, one would think total pregnancies would be inversely correlated with successful use of contraception. If people use more contraception while engaging in the same amount of sex, we would expect the number of pregnancies to decrease.

The only way all three of these things increase at the same time is if people start having a lot more sex (and/or we see both a massive contraceptive failure and a massive decrease in miscarriages, independent of subsidies).

Therefore...

Subsidizing healthcare = Everyone fucking like Irish rabbits?

Or would you say that at least one of the three have to give? If so, which one(s)?

In other words: this simple rule of thumb, while generally useful and true, is on its own insufficient to relieve you of the burden of proof in this case, due to countervailing factors to which it applies just as well. Several of us have made our case. Let's hear you make yours.

Sophistry allowed, natch.

Don't take my word for it.  How about Susan Cohen of the (very pro-abortion-rights) Guttmacher Institute?  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/3/gpr120320.html

Or this Literature Review published by that same institution?  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MedicaidLitReview.pdf  Please note that of the 24 studies they look at, 20 of them find a positive relationship between funding and abortion rates.  Why would it be different now?

Both of those are looking at the effects of funding or not funding abortion, all other things being equal.

That's not what we're discussing here at all.

We were initially simply talking about the effect that subsidizing contraception and healthcare for infants and pregnant mothers might have on abortion rates (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg208952#msg208952).

We weren't even discussing the question of subsidized abortions (which, as your first link above notes, isn't even happening here) until you inserted that into the conversation (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg208956#msg208956).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 22, 2010, 02:08:13 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 22, 2010, 01:43:04 PM

Both of those are looking at the effects of funding or not funding abortion, all other things being equal.

That's not what we're discussing here at all.

We were initially simply talking about the effect that subsidizing contraception and healthcare for infants and pregnant mothers might have on abortion rates (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg208952#msg208952).

We weren't even discussing the question of subsidized abortions (which, as your first link above notes, isn't even happening here) until you inserted that into the conversation (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg208956#msg208956).

Depends on the the meaning of "initially."  Since, after all, the actual discussion (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg208954#msg208954) started by bifurcating the possible reasons into two cases:

1) Not enough free contraceptives and
2) "free" health care for a scared unwed mother's baby and "free" abortions ----> fewer abortions.

I then used my overly simplistic rule of thumb on the second case.  You then started conflating all three.  Ok, fine.

Now... if you're asking for PROOF that any of these effects are stronger than any of the other ones... Perhaps we can look at the case of Tennessee?  Tennessee had a program to cover the uninsured through expanded Medicaid coverage, much like ObamaCare in many ways; however, much like ObamaCare will down the road, it ran out of money and had to be cut back in 2005.  So, it was in force in full from 1995-2005.  During that period, in which all of the factors in question ("free" contraceptives, "free" abortions, and "free" health care for the poor unwed women's babies) were in force, what do you think happened to the abortion rate in Tennessee?

It fell!

But only by about 3%, as opposed to the national average of 13.8%.  (Source: Guttmann Institute)  Yeah, it's only one case yada yada yada, but the conditions are pretty darn close to what we're talking about here.

I will concede to you that the glib rule of thumb I was using is overly simplistic for such a complicated issue.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 23, 2010, 12:23:44 PM
36 hours isn't 5 days, but i wasn't the one promising that either....

Video of Obama breaking another promise....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/23/flashback_obama_promises_public_5_days_to_view_bills_before_he_signs_them.html

On the bright side the public and the people who voted on it get a chance to finally read it.

Here is a look at what will be kicking in soon.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/03/22/obamacares-immediate-impact/

If you got insurance now, get ready to get slammed with higher premiums. Its going to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised. Wow, another lie.

By December Obama's deficit reduction team will release its recommendations for reducing the deficit, what are the odds a VAT tax will be recommended to help pay for ObamaCare?

But don't worry the Democrats are going to move onto Global Warming and Cap and Trade next, its an effort to spend the mythical 1.2 trillion in health care savings over the next 20 years by the end of 2010.

You got to pay for ObamaCare some how, and that requires taxing the shit out of every single American in every aspect of the economy to do it. But don't worry Obama promised not to raise taxes on 95% of the people. Damn, another lie.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 23, 2010, 12:28:31 PM

Where the fuck were you yesterday? I could have used you then.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 23, 2010, 12:29:02 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 23, 2010, 12:23:44 PM
36 hours isn't 5 days, but i wasn't the one promising that either....

Video of Obama breaking another promise....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/23/flashback_obama_promises_public_5_days_to_view_bills_before_he_signs_them.html

On the bright side the public and the people who voted on it get a chance to finally read it.

Here is a look at what will be kicking in soon.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/03/22/obamacares-immediate-impact/

If you got insurance now, get ready to get slammed with higher premiums. Its going to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised. Wow, another lie.

By December Obama's deficit reduction team will release its recommendations for reducing the deficit, what are the odds a VAT tax will be recommended to help pay for ObamaCare?

But don't worry the Democrats are going to move onto Global Warming and Cap and Trade next, its an effort to spend the mythical 1.2 trillion in health care savings over the next 20 years by the end of 2010.

You got to pay for ObamaCare some how, and that requires taxing the shit out of every single American in every aspect of the economy to do it. But don't worry Obama promised not to raise taxes on 95% of the people. Damn, another lie.

I like your avatar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 23, 2010, 12:37:27 PM
Because health care is passé (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/opec-is-in-the-catbird-seat-again/19407143/?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl4%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2Fstory%2Fopec-is-in-the-catbird-seat-again%2F19407143%2F)...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 23, 2010, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 23, 2010, 12:23:44 PM
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/03/22/obamacares-immediate-impact/
ObamaCare?
ObamaCare

Slak, your point yesterday was valid. My bad.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 23, 2010, 01:07:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 23, 2010, 12:23:44 PM
Here is a look at what will be kicking in soon.

Dammit, I should have known to save the trichomoniasis line.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 23, 2010, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 23, 2010, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 23, 2010, 12:23:44 PM
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/03/22/obamacares-immediate-impact/
ObamaCare?
ObamaCare

Slak, your point yesterday was valid. My bad.

It's just semantics, really.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
So my parents operate a small business and while I was explaining my support of a plan for a plan to cover people with healthcare, but not necessarily this plan since I don't know all the details (log that as a neutral stance as opposed to against), they were saying how worried they are that it'll cripple their business, their premiums will go up etc.

Well, I didn't know what to respond, but I searched and found this: (http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/2010-03-23-smallbusinesshealth23_CV_N.htm)

QuoteFor employers

•By 2014, employers who have more than 50 employees must offer health insurance benefits or pay penalties. Companies with 25 or fewer employees who meet certain wage requirements will also be able to get credits toward health insurance purchases.

•By 2014, small-businesses owners, the self-employed and those who don't get work-provided coverage can get benefits through Small Business Health Options Programs (SHOPs). These state-run marketplace exchanges will work with carriers to pool insurance options, with the hope that costs will be lower for a larger, more powerful, group.

Firms will get a one-stop source to find out about insurance, says Shawn Nowicki, director of public policy at HealthPass, a commercial health insurance exchange.

•By 2018, high-end health plans with premiums of more than $10,200 for an individual policy per individual and $27,500 per family — not including vision and dental — would be subjected to a "Cadillac" tax. (The average cost of a family plan in 2009 was $13,375, with employees on average paying $3,515 and employers paying $9,860, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.)

The excise tax would be paid by employers that self-insure (most large firms do) and insurance companies, but small-business experts expect these costs to be passed along to smaller firms via premium increases.

Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 24, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 24, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.

Pool purchasing? I'm unsure of what that is but my mom kept saying "If they let us join a larger group, we will have lower premiums." Is that essentially what she was talking about?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 24, 2010, 01:27:11 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 24, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.

Pool purchasing? I'm unsure of what that is but my mom kept saying "If they let us join a larger group, we will have lower premiums." Is that essentially what she was talking about?

Yep.  Larger groups (in number, not in the average size of the participant - an important distinction for you) spread the risk around more. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 24, 2010, 01:27:37 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 24, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.

Pool purchasing? I'm unsure of what that is but my mom kept saying "If they let us join a larger group, we will have lower premiums." Is that essentially what she was talking about?

The "pool" is the risk pool.  Theoretically, the more people who are in it, the better, because the general assumption is that there will be more healthy people than sick people, so the premiums paid by the healthy people will be enough to offset the claims paid on the sick ones.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:33:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 24, 2010, 01:27:37 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 24, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.

Pool purchasing? I'm unsure of what that is but my mom kept saying "If they let us join a larger group, we will have lower premiums." Is that essentially what she was talking about?

The "pool" is the risk pool.  Theoretically, the more people who are in it, the better, because the general assumption is that there will be more healthy people than sick people, so the premiums paid by the healthy people will be enough to offset the claims paid on the sick ones.

Ok, I see. I had understood the idea behind larger groups, but I wasn't sure if Fork was meaning that. So, Obama's plan opens the door for them to do this?

EDIT: Nevermind, I stopped being a lazy PANK and looked it up: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 24, 2010, 01:45:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:33:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 24, 2010, 01:27:37 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 24, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.

Pool purchasing? I'm unsure of what that is but my mom kept saying "If they let us join a larger group, we will have lower premiums." Is that essentially what she was talking about?

The "pool" is the risk pool.  Theoretically, the more people who are in it, the better, because the general assumption is that there will be more healthy people than sick people, so the premiums paid by the healthy people will be enough to offset the claims paid on the sick ones.

Ok, I see. I had understood the idea behind larger groups, but I wasn't sure if Fork was meaning that. So, Obama's plan opens the door for them to do this?

EDIT: Nevermind, I stopped being a lazy PANK and looked it up: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/

More on the exchanges here - it's up to the states if they want to set up one big exchange for self-employed people/unemployed people/small business owners OR separate exchanges for individuals and businesses. Additionally, states can join together to form mega-exchanges which would hypothetically result in greater purchasing power (lower premiums). We'll have to see how it plays out in Illinois.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_do_the_exchanges_work.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on March 24, 2010, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 24, 2010, 01:45:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:33:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 24, 2010, 01:27:37 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 24, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.

Pool purchasing? I'm unsure of what that is but my mom kept saying "If they let us join a larger group, we will have lower premiums." Is that essentially what she was talking about?

The "pool" is the risk pool.  Theoretically, the more people who are in it, the better, because the general assumption is that there will be more healthy people than sick people, so the premiums paid by the healthy people will be enough to offset the claims paid on the sick ones.

Ok, I see. I had understood the idea behind larger groups, but I wasn't sure if Fork was meaning that. So, Obama's plan opens the door for them to do this?

EDIT: Nevermind, I stopped being a lazy PANK and looked it up: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/

More on the exchanges here - it's up to the states if they want to set up one big exchange for self-employed people/unemployed people/small business owners OR separate exchanges for individuals and businesses. Additionally, states can join together to form mega-exchanges which would hypothetically result in greater purchasing power (lower premiums). We'll have to see how it plays out in Illinois.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_do_the_exchanges_work.html

Wasn't the group plans something that Bush actually tried to do while in office?  Great idea, I just think it's been bandied about before...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2010, 04:26:10 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 24, 2010, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 24, 2010, 01:45:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:33:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 24, 2010, 01:27:37 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:25:12 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 24, 2010, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Pre on March 24, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 24, 2010, 01:04:32 PM
Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.

Pool purchasing? I'm unsure of what that is but my mom kept saying "If they let us join a larger group, we will have lower premiums." Is that essentially what she was talking about?

The "pool" is the risk pool.  Theoretically, the more people who are in it, the better, because the general assumption is that there will be more healthy people than sick people, so the premiums paid by the healthy people will be enough to offset the claims paid on the sick ones.

Ok, I see. I had understood the idea behind larger groups, but I wasn't sure if Fork was meaning that. So, Obama's plan opens the door for them to do this?

EDIT: Nevermind, I stopped being a lazy PANK and looked it up: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/smallbusiness/small_business_health_reform/

More on the exchanges here - it's up to the states if they want to set up one big exchange for self-employed people/unemployed people/small business owners OR separate exchanges for individuals and businesses. Additionally, states can join together to form mega-exchanges which would hypothetically result in greater purchasing power (lower premiums). We'll have to see how it plays out in Illinois.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/how_do_the_exchanges_work.html

Wasn't the group plans something that Bush actually tried to do while in office?  Great idea, I just think it's been bandied about before...

The whole health care bill was essentially the Republican response to Hillarycare in 1993.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 24, 2010, 04:44:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2010, 04:26:10 PM
The whole health care bill was essentially the Republican response to Hillarycare in 1993.

[Frum]If there'd been a Republican response this year, perhaps we'd have a better law.[/Frum]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 24, 2010, 06:05:37 PM
Cool, guys.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34964.html

QuoteDemocratic senators ripped their Republican counterparts for forcing cancellations of hearings throughout the Senate on Wednesday, claiming that the GOP is needlessly blocking essential national security business.

Either party in the Senate is allowed to object to holding hearings, as Senate rules require a unanimous consent request for hearings to be held after 2 p.m. Most of these unanimous consent requests aren't even noticed on any given day, but Republicans have been objecting to these requests, essentially shutting down committee work.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2010, 06:29:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 24, 2010, 06:05:37 PM
Cool, guys.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34964.html

QuoteDemocratic senators ripped their Republican counterparts for forcing cancellations of hearings throughout the Senate on Wednesday, claiming that the GOP is needlessly blocking essential national security business.

Either party in the Senate is allowed to object to holding hearings, as Senate rules require a unanimous consent request for hearings to be held after 2 p.m. Most of these unanimous consent requests aren't even noticed on any given day, but Republicans have been objecting to these requests, essentially shutting down committee work.


I just think they're lazy and don't want to work.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on March 24, 2010, 06:39:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2010, 06:29:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 24, 2010, 06:05:37 PM
Cool, guys.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34964.html

QuoteDemocratic senators ripped their Republican counterparts for forcing cancellations of hearings throughout the Senate on Wednesday, claiming that the GOP is needlessly blocking essential national security business.

Either party in the Senate is allowed to object to holding hearings, as Senate rules require a unanimous consent request for hearings to be held after 2 p.m. Most of these unanimous consent requests aren't even noticed on any given day, but Republicans have been objecting to these requests, essentially shutting down committee work.


I just think they're lazy and don't want to work.

Racist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 24, 2010, 06:55:08 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2010, 06:29:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 24, 2010, 06:05:37 PM
Cool, guys.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34964.html

QuoteDemocratic senators ripped their Republican counterparts for forcing cancellations of hearings throughout the Senate on Wednesday, claiming that the GOP is needlessly blocking essential national security business.

Either party in the Senate is allowed to object to holding hearings, as Senate rules require a unanimous consent request for hearings to be held after 2 p.m. Most of these unanimous consent requests aren't even noticed on any given day, but Republicans have been objecting to these requests, essentially shutting down committee work.


I just think they're lazy and don't want to work.

I wish we could do this at my office.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2010, 07:20:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2010, 06:55:08 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2010, 06:29:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 24, 2010, 06:05:37 PM
Cool, guys.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34964.html

QuoteDemocratic senators ripped their Republican counterparts for forcing cancellations of hearings throughout the Senate on Wednesday, claiming that the GOP is needlessly blocking essential national security business.

Either party in the Senate is allowed to object to holding hearings, as Senate rules require a unanimous consent request for hearings to be held after 2 p.m. Most of these unanimous consent requests aren't even noticed on any given day, but Republicans have been objecting to these requests, essentially shutting down committee work.


I just think they're lazy and don't want to work.

I wish we could do this at my office.

SLAK FOR SENATE!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 24, 2010, 07:32:22 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 24, 2010, 06:05:37 PM
Cool, guys.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34964.html

QuoteDemocratic senators ripped their Republican counterparts for forcing cancellations of hearings throughout the Senate on Wednesday, claiming that the GOP is needlessly blocking essential national security business.

Either party in the Senate is allowed to object to holding hearings, as Senate rules require a unanimous consent request for hearings to be held after 2 p.m. Most of these unanimous consent requests aren't even noticed on any given day, but Republicans have been objecting to these requests, essentially shutting down committee work.


Apparently it's all part of the GOP's new Operation Take Ball Go Home...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88285-mccain-dont-expect-gop-cooperation-the-rest-of-this-year

Quote"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Which appears to be run out of the GOP Special Office for Having Cake While Also Eating That Cake...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/24/90994/republican-senator-derails-armed.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — With a few simple words – "I would have to object" -- Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina derailed a Senate Armed Services hearing today in which generals had traveled from Korea and Hawaii to testify about the Pentagon's needs for the next year.

Burr, joining his GOP colleagues' outrage at the new health reform law, used an obscure Senate rule to prevent the Armed Services committee from meeting this afternoon – even though he said he personally wanted the hearing to occur.

Republicans are angry over the signing Tuesday of the health reform law that President Barack Obama and Democrats have been working toward for the past year.

They have pledged to "repeal and replace" the law, as their slogan goes, and GOP House members are calling on state attorneys general to file lawsuits challenging the law's constitutionality.

...

Speaking on the Senate floor, Levin said that both he and U.S. Sen. John McCain, the committee's top Republican, wanted to go forward with the meeting.

The hearing would allow senators to hear testimony on the fiscal year 2011 Defense Authorization Bill from three military leaders: Navy Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii; Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command; and Army Gen. Walter Sharpe, commander of the U.S. forces in Korea.

"They've been scheduled a long time," Levin said. "They have come a long, long distance."

Burr, already on the Senate floor for an unrelated health care debate, came forward.

"As a member of the committee, and I side myself with the chairman and the ranking member, that I have no personal objection to continuing," Burr announced.

"There is objection on our side of the aisle. Therefore, I would have to object."

Seems like a tough needle to be threading in the midst of a tough reelection campaign.

Did Burr volunteer to be the one to take this bullet?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 09:51:03 AM
Well i am glad everyone read the bill.

So let me get this straight sex offenders can get a pill to make their dick hard, but children with pre-existing conditions and young adults got left of the bill after Obama said it was in.

How do you fuck that up? Just proof that Nancy Pelosi was right. We had to pass it to find out whats in it.

As for businesses and coverage of employee's an interesting thing might take shape. The fines and such for not covering your workers is not all that high, the same for individuals. If the cost of insuring someone is more expensive than paying the fine then what do you think will happen? Business will not offer health insurance to its workers. Big corporations like Microsoft probably won't do this because they have an image to maintain, but smaller places out of the public spotlight and future start up business would likely do away with health coverage of their workers entirely.

The same goes for individuals, why pay a premium every month when you could just pay a small fine when the medical emergency pops up and still get the same level of service as the poor sucker paying hundreds a month?

QuoteThe penalties for not having insurance would be as follows: $750 for individuals and $1,500 for families per year. While households making three times the federal poverty level – about $66,000 for a family of four – would face maximum fines up to $3,800 for families and $950 for individuals.

We will see how it plays out now, but the CBO estimate is based off individuals and businesses being good little citizens paying for their health coverage.


Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on March 25, 2010, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 09:51:03 AM
Well i am glad everyone read the bill.

So let me get this straight sex offenders can get a pill to make their dick hard, but children with pre-existing conditions and young adults got left of the bill after Obama said it was in.

How do you fuck that up? Just proof that Nancy Pelosi was right. We had to pass it to find out whats in it.

As for businesses and coverage of employee's an interesting thing might take shape. The fines and such for not covering your workers is not all that high, the same for individuals. If the cost of insuring someone is more expensive than paying the fine then what do you think will happen? Business will not offer health insurance to its workers. Big corporations like Microsoft probably won't do this because they have an image to maintain, but smaller places out of the public spotlight and future start up business would likely do away with health coverage of their workers entirely.

The same goes for individuals, why pay a premium every month when you could just pay a small fine when the medical emergency pops up and still get the same level of service as the poor sucker paying hundreds a month?

QuoteThe penalties for not having insurance would be as follows: $750 for individuals and $1,500 for families per year. While households making three times the federal poverty level – about $66,000 for a family of four – would face maximum fines up to $3,800 for families and $950 for individuals.

We will see how it plays out now, but the CBO estimate is based off individuals and businesses being good little citizens paying for their health coverage.

Why bother?  You seem to have it all figured out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 25, 2010, 09:55:25 AM
Why bother?  You seem to have it all figured out.

He doesn't have to go to a hospital if he gets sick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 25, 2010, 10:10:49 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 09:51:03 AM


So let me get this straight sex offenders can get a pill to make their dick hard



Sweet Weeping Christ.

You listen to that asshole Hannity?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 25, 2010, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 25, 2010, 10:10:49 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 09:51:03 AM


So let me get this straight sex offenders can get a pill to make their dick hard



Sweet Weeping Christ.

You listen to that asshole Hannity?

This surprises you why?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 10:21:44 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 09:51:03 AM
So let me get this straight sex offenders can get a pill to make their dick hard...

Yes, yes... The GOP is getting very creative with their poison pill amendments (so to speak).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001033-503544.html

Cynical abuse of the legislative process defined.

And way to buy right into the latest script, Comar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 09:51:03 AM
So let me get this straight sex offenders can get a pill to make their dick hard

[Fork]Get it straight?  Looks like you need the pill, too.[/Fork]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 10:25:54 AM
You mean the whole point of the bill was for sex offenders to take boner pills? OUTRAGE!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 25, 2010, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 25, 2010, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 25, 2010, 10:10:49 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 09:51:03 AM


So let me get this straight sex offenders can get a pill to make their dick hard



Sweet Weeping Christ.

You listen to that asshole Hannity?

This surprises you why?

It doesn't. The worst part of having my car break down yesterday was this drivel was on the towtruck's radio...Hannity bloviating about boner pills for inmates.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 10:41:19 AM
Really, shouldn't Comar be off faxing pictures of nooses to Democratic lawmakers right now?

They sure as hell aren't gonna threaten themselves, patriot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 25, 2010, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 10:41:19 AM
Really, shouldn't Comar be off faxing pictures of nooses to Democratic lawmakers right now?

I think MikeC's more of a coffin-on-the-lawn sort of guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 10:52:05 AM
Stock market up in the last year nearly 30% to over 10,900.

Jorbless claims down even more.

Leading indicators up a little, but still up.

Interest rates staying low.

30 million people got health insurance.

The deficit projected to be $1.1 trillion lower over the next 20 years.

Greece getting bailed out by the rest of the EU.

Best Buy bullish on selling more TVs and gadgets as they think people are going to start spending.

Jack Welsh bullish on the economy based on orders at Sally Beauty and ServiceMaster.

Fewer nukes in the USA and Russia.

It's morning in America, kids!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 11:01:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 10:41:19 AM
Really, shouldn't Comar be off faxing pictures of nooses to Democratic lawmakers right now?

I think MikeC's more of a coffin-on-the-lawn sort of guy.

At least he's not quite a cut-a-propane-gas-line-at-the-wrong-address kind of guy, though, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 11:02:34 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 11:01:49 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 10:41:19 AM
Really, shouldn't Comar be off faxing pictures of nooses to Democratic lawmakers right now?

I think MikeC's more of a coffin-on-the-lawn sort of guy.

At least he's not quite a cut-a-propane-gas-line-at-the-wrong-address kind of guy, though, right?

One can never be sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 25, 2010, 11:24:39 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 10:52:05 AM
Stock market up in the last year nearly 30% to over 10,900.

Jorbless claims down even more.

Leading indicators up a little, but still up.

Interest rates staying low.

30 million people got health insurance.

The deficit projected to be $1.1 trillion lower over the next 20 years.

Greece getting bailed out by the rest of the EU.

Best Buy bullish on selling more TVs and gadgets as they think people are going to start spending.

Jack Welsh bullish on the economy based on orders at Sally Beauty and ServiceMaster.

Fewer nukes in the USA and Russia.

It's morning in America, kids!

Did he change his last name to throw the fuzz off his trail for the mysterious death of Don Geiss?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 25, 2010, 11:31:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 09:58:13 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 25, 2010, 09:55:25 AM
Why bother?  You seem to have it all figured out.

He doesn't have to go to a hospital if he gets sick.

I think the perittoma has to flow back out of the head before disease manifests, in any event.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH

All of this shit needs to end. What is wrong with people?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on March 25, 2010, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH

All of this shit needs to end. What is wrong with people?

It's on both sides. 

People need to calm the fuck down.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 25, 2010, 12:01:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH

The Republicans started it!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 12:04:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 12:01:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH

The Republicans started it!

I'm rubber, you're glue...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 25, 2010, 12:05:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 12:04:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 12:01:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH

The Republicans started it!

I'm rubber, you're glue...

I bet that it was a Republican who shot at Cantor's office to make it LOOK like a Democrat did it.  Libruls don't own guns, people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 25, 2010, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 25, 2010, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH

All of this shit needs to end. What is wrong with people?

It's on both sides. 

People need to calm the fuck down.

There's a big difference between enemy and opponent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 12:35:09 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 25, 2010, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 25, 2010, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH

All of this shit needs to end. What is wrong with people?

It's on both sides. 

People need to calm the fuck down.

There's a big difference between enemy and opponent.

Tell that to Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, et. al.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on March 25, 2010, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 12:35:09 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 25, 2010, 12:12:25 PM
Quote from: MAD on March 25, 2010, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 11:59:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2010, 11:51:30 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/house-gop-leader-reports-threats-after-health-care-vote/?fbid=VbnPLtvYJuH

All of this shit needs to end. What is wrong with people?

It's on both sides. 

People need to calm the fuck down.

There's a big difference between enemy and opponent.

Tell that to Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, et. al.

I said STOP IT!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 25, 2010, 12:51:23 PM
I miss the days when Congressional violence was limited to periodic canings that took place during sessions.  It's a sad reflection on today's politicians that the constituency has to take this stuff into its own hands.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 12:52:32 PM
I suppose it's good timing that I'm reading about the late 60s when every major city feared that it would go up in flames at any given second. Can we re-live that? That sounded fun.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 12:57:33 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 12:52:32 PM
I suppose it's good timing that I'm reading about the late 60s when every major city feared that it would go up in flames at any given second. Can we re-live that? That sounded fun.

It was all a set piece for the greatest president of all-time.  1968, ogdens.  Never forget.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 12:59:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 12:57:33 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 12:52:32 PM
I suppose it's good timing that I'm reading about the late 60s when every major city feared that it would go up in flames at any given second. Can we re-live that? That sounded fun.

It was all a set piece for the greatest president of all-time.  1968, ogdens.  Never forget.

I'm loving this book.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 01:03:06 PM
(http://www.quicktopic.com/blog/archives/NixonNowMoreThanEverSmall.jpg)

I hope everyone here by now knows that I am being completely serious about this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 25, 2010, 01:45:08 PM
Now the socialistical brownshirts are really screwed (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/03/orly-taitz-challenges-health-care-bill-32210.php?page=1).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 25, 2010, 01:58:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 25, 2010, 01:45:08 PM
Now the socialistical brownshirts are really screwed (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/03/orly-taitz-challenges-health-care-bill-32210.php?page=1).

(http://vogons.zetafleet.com/files/orly.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 10:41:19 AM
Really, shouldn't Comar be off faxing pictures of nooses to Democratic lawmakers right now?

I think MikeC's more of a coffin-on-the-lawn sort of guy.

Cool Eli, gets his news from the Democrats themselves. The coffin story was debunked already, The Politico and Democratic Underground have gone into damage control mode for reporting that as fact. For those that don't know, damage control for Dem's is changing the original article with the new updated (and correct) information without ever letting the readers know it was wrong in the first place. Nor explaining why it was wrong, and how it slipped past their fact checkers and editors. It helps to not get your political hit pieces from Carnahan and the Democrats themselves.

But hey lets move onto what the Health Care bill is not going to do. You see our new health care bill changes a pretty important law dealing with Medicare part D prescription coverage. It also allows the Obama administration to how should we say.....fudge the numbers?

QuoteHere's the skinny: The government used to offer corporations a subsidy to provide Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage plans to their employees. Why? Well, because businesses could offer the plans more cheaply -- it would cost a business only $665 per person to provide the coverage, whereas if those people were getting that coverage through Medicare, it would cost nearly double that.

So the subsidy was in fact a net-cash-winner -- by shelling out some money to induce businesses to provide the coverage, we avoided the additional costs of Medicare having to provide it.

So: Obama and the Democrats need some fake "savings" to claim their bill is "reduces the deficit." What do they do? They cut the subsidy.

On paper, gee, that saves money. But in the real world, that induces corporations to stop playing ball, stop offering Medicare Part D coverage, and dump those employees and retirees into Medicare again, costing the government even more money. Verizon just signaled it will likely be doing just that.

The Verizon Memo...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTk1OWNjNGNmYWJiOTIzY2E4YjYyYmJjOTJhMGQwZDg=

QuoteBut surely the Congressional Budget Office, in scoring the Democrats' bill, accounted for the possibility that employers would drop their retiree drug plans, thus increasing Medicare Part D outlays and canceling out — or even exceeding — that extra $5.4 billion in revenue, right? No, the CBO did not. "We tried to get them to score it," says a spokesperson for the American Benefits Council, which recently put out a study warning that the tax change would encourage employers to cut back on their retiree plans. "But CBO can only score what's in front of them, and we couldn't get them to account for retirees that would be added to Part D."

Chalk it up as another budgetary gimmick in a bill full of them: A provision that is likely to increase government spending got scored as $5.4 billion in revenue.

That mythical 1.2 trillion in savings is quickly drying up, no matter how many times Chuck to Chuck reprints it he can't make it true.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 03:49:10 PM
I'M GOING TO DISPROVE YOUR PARTISAN TALKING POINTS WITH MY PARTISAN TALKING POINTS AND MINE WILL BE RIGHT BECAUSE I AM A REAL AMERICAN, YOU LIBTARD HOMOCRAT!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 25, 2010, 03:51:47 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
But hey lets move onto what the Health Care bill is not going to do.

Slice Glenn Beck's dick lengthwise for you to reduce the choking hazard of the macaroni and cheese?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 03:56:21 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
It helps to not get your political hit pieces from Carnahan and the Democrats themselves.

Please tell us where you get yours.  It'll save a lot of time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 03:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 25, 2010, 03:51:47 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
But hey lets move onto what the Health Care bill is not going to do.

Slice Glenn Beck's dick lengthwise for you to reduce the choking hazard of the macaroni and cheese?


While I did love this post, it did make me think of Glenn Beck's dong, which I did not want to do...ever.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 03:57:38 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 10:41:19 AM
Really, shouldn't Comar be off faxing pictures of nooses to Democratic lawmakers right now?

I think MikeC's more of a coffin-on-the-lawn sort of guy.

Cool Eli, gets his news from the Democrats themselves. The coffin story was debunked already, The Politico and Democratic Underground have gone into damage control mode for reporting that as fact. For those that don't know, damage control for Dem's is changing the original article with the new updated (and correct) information without ever letting the readers know it was wrong in the first place.

Damage control for Dem's what?

Dem's Politico internets?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 04:13:15 PM
As long as we're still in debunking-particular-incidents-to-prove-that-it's-my-side-that's-being-victimized mode, this...

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/richmond-police-statement-on-cantor-office-vandalism.php

QuoteRichmond Police Investigate Cantor Building Vandalism

March 25, 2010

The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism at the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., Richmond, Virginia. A first floor window was struck by a bullet at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Congressman Eric Cantor, was unoccupied at the time.

A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.

The Richmond Police Department is sharing information about the incident with appropriate law enforcement agencies.

At this time there are no suspects.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 04:45:38 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 03:57:38 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 10:41:19 AM
Really, shouldn't Comar be off faxing pictures of nooses to Democratic lawmakers right now?

I think MikeC's more of a coffin-on-the-lawn sort of guy.

Cool Eli, gets his news from the Democrats themselves. The coffin story was debunked already, The Politico and Democratic Underground have gone into damage control mode for reporting that as fact. For those that don't know, damage control for Dem's is changing the original article with the new updated (and correct) information without ever letting the readers know it was wrong in the first place.

Damage control for Dem's what?

Dem's Politico internets?

Dem's Hearty Garlic Bread. In your local grocer's freezer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 05:01:31 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

How do we know it was related to Cantor?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 25, 2010, 05:02:05 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

Maybe they don't like his singing?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 05:01:31 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

How do we know it was related to Cantor?

How do we know it wasn't actually Cantor himself that did it?  Huh?  Hmm?  What about the reverse vampires?

Save me, Glenn Beck.  Save me from myself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 05:04:17 PM
I don't know, but if we're asking these questions we should ask the same questions about the attacks on Democrats, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 25, 2010, 05:07:19 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2010, 05:04:17 PM
I don't know, but if we're asking these questions we should ask the same questions about the attacks on Democrats, right?
You know good and well that they were all debunked by reliable news sources, troublemaker!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 25, 2010, 05:09:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 05:01:31 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

How do we know it was related to Cantor?

How do we know it wasn't actually Cantor himself that did it?  Huh?  Hmm?  What about the reverse vampires?

Save me, Glenn Beck.  Save me from myself.

OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people under the supervision of the reverse vampires are threatening politicians on both sides and forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. 

We're through the looking glass, here, people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 25, 2010, 05:12:08 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 25, 2010, 05:09:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 25, 2010, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2010, 05:01:31 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

How do we know it was related to Cantor?

How do we know it wasn't actually Cantor himself that did it?  Huh?  Hmm?  What about the reverse vampires?

Save me, Glenn Beck.  Save me from myself.

OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people under the supervision of the reverse vampires are threatening politicians on both sides and forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner.

We're through the looking glass, here, people.

Not without a soundtrack (http://www.dinosaurgardens.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/rabbi_abulafia_-_misirlou.mp3).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 05:25:47 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

Re-read the police report I quoted above.

It doesn't seem like it was an attack at all:

QuoteA preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on March 25, 2010, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 05:25:47 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

Re-read the police report I quoted above.

It doesn't seem like it was an attack at all:

QuoteA preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window.

That's precisely how I read it.  I just all of you were mocking stuff.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenFoe on March 25, 2010, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 25, 2010, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 05:25:47 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

Re-read the police report I quoted above.

It doesn't seem like it was an attack at all:

QuoteA preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window.

That's precisely how I read it.  I just all of you were mocking stuff.

The whole all?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 25, 2010, 05:55:58 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 25, 2010, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 25, 2010, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 25, 2010, 05:25:47 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 25, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
How do we know that the "attack" on Cantor's unoccupied office was related to his political party and not to his religion?

Re-read the police report I quoted above.

It doesn't seem like it was an attack at all:

QuoteA preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window.

That's precisely how I read it.  I just all of you were mocking stuff.

The whole all?

Frankly, I just most of us.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 25, 2010, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
Cool Eli, gets his news from the Democrats themselves.

Busted. (http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3861/iconredface.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 07:24:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
Cool Eli, gets his news from the Democrats themselves.

Busted. (http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3861/iconredface.gif)

MikeC thinks you are "Cool Eli" for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 26, 2010, 07:41:53 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 07:24:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 25, 2010, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 25, 2010, 03:42:06 PM
Cool Eli, gets his news from the Democrats themselves.

Busted. (http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3861/iconredface.gif)

MikeC thinks you are "Cool Eli" for what it's worth.

That guy is wrong about everything.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 08:20:27 AM
Bart Stupak reported threatening calls wishing him ill last week before he changed his mind. Then he heard similar vile the following week.

Congressmen John L. Lewis and Barney Frank had epithets shouted at them. The persons who did that are wrong. However, it doesn't make them any more right any more than racist fan mail made Milton Bradley, Jacque Jones, LaTroy Hawkins and Dusty Baker people you want on your baseball team.

Again, people have to learn that there's a big difference between opponent and enemy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 08:29:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 08:20:27 AM
Bart Stupak reported threatening calls wishing him ill last week before he changed his mind. Then he heard similar vile the following week.

Congressmen John L. Lewis and Barney Frank had epithets shouted at them. The persons who did that are wrong. However, it doesn't make them any more right any more than racist fan mail made Milton Bradley, Jacque Jones, LaTroy Hawkins and Dusty Baker people you want on your baseball team.

Again, people have to learn that there's a big difference between opponent and enemy.

Agreed.  Further, it only inflames the situation when a guy goes on the radio and says, "we have to defeat these bastards" and a former VP candidate uses gun imagery for seated congressmen whom she wants to see defeated.

And I'd rather have Bart Stupak, Barney Frank and John Lewis than Milton Bradley, Jacque Jones, LaTroy Hawkins and Dusty Baker on the Cubs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 26, 2010, 08:36:53 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 08:20:27 AM
Bart Stupak reported threatening calls wishing him ill last week before he changed his mind. Then he heard similar vile the following week.

Congressmen John L. Lewis and Barney Frank had epithets shouted at them. The persons who did that are wrong. However, it doesn't make them any more right any more than racist fan mail made Milton Bradley, Jacque Jones, LaTroy Hawkins and Dusty Baker people you want on your baseball team.

Again, people have to learn that there's a big difference between opponent and enemy.

Steele's gaffe from earlier this week points out the big problem here...

People are being Democrats and Republicans first, and Americans second.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 08:48:01 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 08:36:53 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 08:20:27 AM
Bart Stupak reported threatening calls wishing him ill last week before he changed his mind. Then he heard similar vile the following week.

Congressmen John L. Lewis and Barney Frank had epithets shouted at them. The persons who did that are wrong. However, it doesn't make them any more right any more than racist fan mail made Milton Bradley, Jacque Jones, LaTroy Hawkins and Dusty Baker people you want on your baseball team.

Again, people have to learn that there's a big difference between opponent and enemy.

Steele's gaffe from earlier this week points out the big problem here...

People are being Democrats and Republicans first, and Americans second.

TJ and Fork coming together. I love it.

America!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 08:59:09 AM
Road rage

http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=12208009
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on March 26, 2010, 09:37:51 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 08:36:53 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 08:20:27 AM
Bart Stupak reported threatening calls wishing him ill last week before he changed his mind. Then he heard similar vile the following week.

Congressmen John L. Lewis and Barney Frank had epithets shouted at them. The persons who did that are wrong. However, it doesn't make them any more right any more than racist fan mail made Milton Bradley, Jacque Jones, LaTroy Hawkins and Dusty Baker people you want on your baseball team.

Again, people have to learn that there's a big difference between opponent and enemy.

Steele's gaffe from earlier this week points out the big problem here...

People are being Democrats and Republicans first, and Americans second.

I LIKE THIS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
I think we can all agree, threats of violence and acts of violence are unacceptable. But why are some of you getting outraged now? You thought it was cool and funny when it was done to Bush and the Republicans for 8 years. Its not funny anymore when your on the receiving end huh? I wish there was some civil discourse but that was thrown out the window in the last 8 years by the way you Democrats acted and treated people. Hell you still treat people like shit, calling them racists and teabaggers because they disagree with you. Atleast when we called out groups like Code Pink as socialist communists we were right because they actually joined forces with groups like A.N.S.W.E.R who culled its leadership from the Workers World Party, and are members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

But my point of posting today is for Chuck to Chuck and addressing his 1.2 trillion in savings in the next 20 years....

QuotePresident Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

QuoteThe federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.

Where are we saving money again? Thats on top if you truly believe were going to save any money on Health Care. It hasn't happened anywhere else health care has been put in place. Not even in Cuba where ObamaCare got a glowing endorsement from Fidel Castro.

Anyone see a problem with this administrations policies? Massive crushing debt? We were supposed to pull back from the Bush years, not step on the gas and fly over the cliff....

(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg)

People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.

I am more in the camp of throwing them all out and starting from scratch, vote out every single Republican and Democrat. Because if the Republicans get back in power, the gloves are off and they might go after their wet dream. But 20 trillion by 2020? Something has to get cut, Democrats will want the military, Republicans will want social security or federal school funding cut. If your a Democrat and can't stand the amount of funding the military gets whats your best course of action to finally cut that spending? Run up the deficit so much that you paint the Republicans into a corner and make them cut money to social programs that people now depend on. The only logical, least politically damaging route, is cutting military spending. Its a nice way to finally gut our military and make it more like Europe's, which is virtually non-existent. Their only saving grace is the power our military projects over Europe. But if America is in retreat, like it looks like now with throwing Israel under the bus and softening sanctions on Iran, two countries who are going in the opposite direction with military spending will advance. Russia and China are in the midst of total overhauls of their armed forces. Russia is already probing Eastern Europe, as we saw with the Georgia Invasion.

These policies have consequences and ramifications for decades beyond. Most of you just look at it and go weee Free Health Care! Who pays for it? Fuck it who cares its free!

Spending has to get under control, and its pretty clear you Democrats are in no position to make that possible. Its going to be left to the Republicans to slash programs, and for that they will be cast as the devil. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, but living in a blissful fantasy world where you keep adding and adding and never taking away isn't sustainable. The Republicans are going to need strong leaders if they want to cut the budget, they won't be able to do crap with RINO's who like to spend. Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care, now they need to win seats and start hacking this bill apart, stopping stimulus money, and cutting crap out of the budget. You can raise taxes, keep taxes the same i don't know, but do some real paying down off the debt, not budget gimmicks where you spend trillions and make believe your actually saving money. Because if your going to add 10 trillion in debt but claim your going to save 1.2 trillion, your still 8.8 trillion in the hole, you haven't saved the country a dime.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 26, 2010, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
You thought it was cool and funny when it was done to Bush and the Republicans for 8 years.

{{citation needed}}
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 26, 2010, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
You thought it was cool and funny when it was done to Bush and the Republicans for 8 years.

{{citation needed}}

Like when Cheney shot a (I can assume) Republican in the face? That was pretty funny. I laughed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 26, 2010, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
I wish there was some civil discourse but that was thrown out the window in the last 8 years by the way you Democrats acted and treated people. Hell you still treat people like shit, calling them racists and teabaggers because they disagree with you.

How do you type with Ayn Rand's balls in your mouth?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:09:50 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
But my point of posting today is for Chuck to Chuck and addressing his 1.2 trillion in savings in the next 20 years....

A) I'm stunned you think you have a point.

B) I guess the CBO stands for Chuck's Budget Office.

C)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j_Bcf_6uMS4/Rt7dT9rSzDI/AAAAAAAABXM/KIPpT4iEk-k/s400/dead_shark_update.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 26, 2010, 11:10:20 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 26, 2010, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
I wish there was some civil discourse but that was thrown out the window in the last 8 years by the way you Democrats acted and treated people. Hell you still treat people like shit, calling them racists and teabaggers because they disagree with you.

How do you type with Ayn Rand's balls in your mouth?


Hehe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 26, 2010, 11:13:11 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 26, 2010, 11:10:20 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 26, 2010, 11:04:02 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
I wish there was some civil discourse but that was thrown out the window in the last 8 years by the way you Democrats acted and treated people. Hell you still treat people like shit, calling them racists and teabaggers because they disagree with you.

How do you type with Ayn Rand's balls in your mouth?


Hehe.

Who does MikeC think he is? Alan Greenspan?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:32:02 AM
To be fair to MikeC, this is mostly the afterbirth from Drudge this time.  Malkin can get a pass today, boys.

Also, discretionary spending in the federal budget: 1.37 trillion, of which nearly 700 billion plus is going to the military.

Mandatory spending is the rest.  Where would you like to cut?  The military?  Seems pretty obvious.

Sorry TEC.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:35:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:32:02 AM
To be fair to MikeC, this is mostly the afterbirth from Drudge this time.  Malkin can get a pass today, boys.

Also, discretionary spending in the federal budget: 1.37 trillion, of which nearly 700 billion plus is going to the military.

Mandatory spending is the rest.  Where would you like to cut?  The military?  Seems pretty obvious.

Sorry TEC.

How about some "entitlements"?  That seems pretty more obvious.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 26, 2010, 11:36:42 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:32:02 AM
To be fair to MikeC, this is mostly the afterbirth from Drudge this time.  Malkin can get a pass today, boys.

Also, discretionary spending in the federal budget: 1.37 trillion, of which nearly 700 billion plus is going to the military.

Mandatory spending is the rest.  Where would you like to cut?  The military?  Seems pretty obvious.

Sorry TEC.

Leave it to the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS to cut funding to the people who can blow their shit way up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 26, 2010, 11:37:12 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AMBecause if the Republicans get back in power, the gloves are off and they might go after their wet dream.

What's the Republican wet dream?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:35:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:32:02 AM
To be fair to MikeC, this is mostly the afterbirth from Drudge this time.  Malkin can get a pass today, boys.

Also, discretionary spending in the federal budget: 1.37 trillion, of which nearly 700 billion plus is going to the military.

Mandatory spending is the rest.  Where would you like to cut?  The military?  Seems pretty obvious.

Sorry TEC.

How about some "entitlements"?  That seems pretty more obvious.

Obvious =/= politically feasible.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 26, 2010, 11:39:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 26, 2010, 11:37:12 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AMBecause if the Republicans get back in power, the gloves are off and they might go after their wet dream.

What's the Republican wet dream?

I can only assume it involves only the finest imported imitation crabmeat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:35:52 AM
How about some "entitlements"?  That seems pretty more obvious.

Obvious =/= politically feasible.

He who goes after entitlements is he who is honest and a leader and serving the public interest.  Anyone else is just protecting their job.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:43:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:35:52 AM
How about some "entitlements"?  That seems pretty more obvious.

Obvious =/= politically feasible.

He who goes after entitlements is he who is honest and a leader and serving the public interest.  Anyone else is just protecting their job.

What alternate reality, Bizzaro-land, America do you live in?  They are all protecting their jobs.

Can you foresee another Reagan/Tip O'Neill confab on Social Security happening again?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 26, 2010, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:35:52 AM
How about some "entitlements"?  That seems pretty more obvious.

Obvious =/= politically feasible.

He who goes after entitlements is he who is honest and a leader and serving the public interest.  Anyone else is just protecting their job.

Chuck is once again showing his support for the Platitude Party.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 11:45:02 AM
Why isn't anyone addressing the latest NewsMax cover story?

(http://content.eaglepub.com/images/498/0409_300.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:46:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 11:45:02 AM
Why isn't anyone addressing the latest NewsMax cover story?

(http://content.eaglepub.com/images/498/0409_300.jpg)

The best argument against organized religion is organized religion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 26, 2010, 11:58:00 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 11:35:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 11:32:02 AM
To be fair to MikeC, this is mostly the afterbirth from Drudge this time.  Malkin can get a pass today, boys.

Also, discretionary spending in the federal budget: 1.37 trillion, of which nearly 700 billion plus is going to the military.

Mandatory spending is the rest.  Where would you like to cut?  The military?  Seems pretty obvious.

Sorry TEC.

How about some "entitlements"?  That seems pretty more obvious.

Obvious =/= politically feasible.

We spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending) We spend 4 times as much as China and Russia combined. How about we just spend twice as much as China & Russia combined? That'd free up $400 billion a year.

Next, we subject all wages to the Social Security portion of FICA (currently it's capped at $102,000). I'll figure that at $100 billion a year. (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/6/13/3743272.html)

There's half a trillion towards the deficit. And we haven't even gotten into real tax reform (increase the standard deduction and phase out itemized deductions/home-ownership incentives - why should the government care if I own or rent a home? (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/11/19/4384926.html))
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

Sigh.  That's why I said WHATEVER THEIR ACTUAL TRACK RECORD MAY BE.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

Sigh.  That's why I said WHATEVER THEIR ACTUAL TRACK RECORD MAY BE.

So, facts be damned, this is what they supposedly stand for, therefore, they should go for it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:16:43 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

Sigh.  That's why I said WHATEVER THEIR ACTUAL TRACK RECORD MAY BE.

So, facts be damned, this is what they supposedly stand for, therefore, they should go for it?

"Facts?"  I think you misspelled "votes on previous stuff."  Look, I know that during the Bush years the party was anything but "limited government."  That doesn't mean that they can't attempt to stand for that now.  Why should forward-looking policy be 100% constrained by prior actions?

And in 2012, or 2016, if/when a GOP President gets elected, they should stand for it then, too.  Why shouldn't they?  Because Bush and the Trent Lotts of the world never met a spending bill they didn't like, that means that going forward it should be the same?

I read somewhere once (paraphrasing) that "some future Congress/Administration will do the country a great service by spending its entire term repealing stuff that the government shouldn't be doing."  I hope that happens one day.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 26, 2010, 12:20:46 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:16:43 PM
I read somewhere once (paraphrasing) that "some future Congress/Administration will do the country a great service by spending its entire term repealing stuff that the government shouldn't be doing."  I hope that happens one day.

There's a difference between "reasoning from first principles," "reasoning from ideology," and having the good sense to see what's right in front of your nose.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 26, 2010, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

So you opposed the GOP health care proposal in 1994?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:25:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 26, 2010, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

So you opposed the GOP health care proposal in 1994?

In 1994 I was in the process of converting from a bleeding-heart liberal to an orphan-exploiting conservative.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:16:43 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 11:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 26, 2010, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 10:51:51 AM
People are mad because this isn't what they voted for, and they are going to do their best to change that by voting the idiots who like these policies out of office.


Actually, this is exactly what people voted for. Obama was pretty damn clear about health care reform throughout the election.

Quote
Its a good first step that the entire party voted against Health Care,

Policy aside, the GOP's stance through the whole process was pretty bad politics. They were invited into the process over and over, and decided they'd let the Dems sink on their own - figuring Obama and Pelosi would never be able to whip the votes needed for passage (truth is, I didn't think Pelosi could get it done either), and they could pick the corpse in November.

Instead, it passed, and any modifications they propose during the Congressional campaign will be met with, "Where was this when the bill was being written?"

They threw a Hail Mary, and the ball got batted away.

This is an argument I've seen in a few places.  The problem is that the whole concept of having the government play such a large role in the allocation of scarce resources is (or damn well should be) anathema to what the GOP is supposed to stand for.  At some point you have to simply oppose an idea at its most fundamental level... adding in a few $billions of tweaks to a multi-trillion dollar spending bill/underfunded entitlement while giving the majority party political cover for the sake of "bipartisanship" was something that the GOP couldn't stomach doing.

And the only "modification" that the GOP should be proposing is repeal.  I'm not saying that from a "political strategy" point of view, but rather from a "first principles" point of view.  No party that claims to stand for limited government (whatever its actual track record may be) should support the idea of such a bill.

Finally, I tire of the incorrect assertion that there weren't other ideas out there.  Paul Ryan, for one, has had his roadmap idea out there for a few years.  The problem is that it relied heavily on spending cuts which no one on either side of the aisle was really willing to make.

Even Part D and NCLB?

My problem with this Morph, is that you are saying that the GOP, since it represents the party of "limited government," should advocate these principles.  Fine.  Great.  Do so when they are the occupants of the White House and they'll have a point.  Otherwise it's shallow hypocrisy. 

Sigh.  That's why I said WHATEVER THEIR ACTUAL TRACK RECORD MAY BE.

So, facts be damned, this is what they supposedly stand for, therefore, they should go for it?

"Facts?"  I think you misspelled "votes on previous stuff."  Look, I know that during the Bush years the party was anything but "limited government."  That doesn't mean that they can't attempt to stand for that now.  Why should forward-looking policy be 100% constrained by prior actions?

And in 2012, or 2016, if/when a GOP President gets elected, they should stand for it then, too.  Why shouldn't they?  Because Bush and the Trent Lotts of the world never met a spending bill they didn't like, that means that going forward it should be the same?

I read somewhere once (paraphrasing) that "some future Congress/Administration will do the country a great service by spending its entire term repealing stuff that the government shouldn't be doing."  I hope that happens one day.

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

An accord has been reached in the SBox.  Any further appearance of disagreement is incorrect.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:52:53 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

An accord has been reached in the SBox.  Any further appearance of disagreement is incorrect.

I agree with Gil's agreement.  Sink the Bismarcks all around!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I have been let down by politicians more than I have been let down by Cubs' prospects, Cubs' free agent signings, July 31 trades, the Cubs' bullpen, the Bears' QBs, Indiana Hoosiers' recruiting classes, and IU basketball's postseason performances over the past 15 years combined.

Meanwhile, the Nork's sunk a South Korean boat today. Let's hope the President and his people (including the Bush appointee Robert Gates) don't let us down should this turn into a shitfest of biblical proportions.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 12:58:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?

A) You can hope for this, but favoring one party to do so just because they say they want to do it when their actions show they don't is silly; and

B) If you really have this hope, can I ask if you bring baloney sandwiches into the voting booth with you?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:58:45 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I have been let down by politicians more than I have been let down by Cubs' prospects, Cubs' free agent signings, July 31 trades, the Cubs' bullpen, the Bears' QBs, Indiana Hoosiers' recruiting classes, and IU basketball's postseason performances over the past 15 years combined.

Meanwhile, the Nork's sunk a South Korean boat today. Let's hope the President and his people (including the Bush appointee Robert Gates) don't let us down should this turn into a shitfest of biblical proportions.

THIS
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 01:00:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I have been let down by politicians more than I have been let down by Cubs' prospects, Cubs' free agent signings, July 31 trades, the Cubs' bullpen, the Bears' QBs, Indiana Hoosiers' recruiting classes, and IU basketball's postseason performances over the past 15 years combined.

Meanwhile, the Nork's sunk a South Korean boat today. Let's hope the President and his people (including the Bush appointee Robert Gates) don't let us down should this turn into a shitfest of biblical proportions.

You had me at Cubs prospects.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 26, 2010, 03:02:12 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

Ass slappin' feels good any time of the day. Doesn't have to be night time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 26, 2010, 03:04:12 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

You come off as an angry mother who can do nothing but scream and yell at the other side, which really seems what most of the Republican party has turned into. I have no real positive feelings towards them. I seem to remember that during 2001-2009 Republicans would kind of give Dems shit because they just sounded like a shrill crowd who wouldn't be pleased with anything and were a bunch of pissy fucks. Now that the tables are turned, that's what I see my Republican Party as, and you seem to just add fuel to the fire. Sure, there are some Morphs and TJs out there, but not as many as we need, and the ones who get the press, sure as hell aren't those guys. It's the MikeC's of this side. I would think Republicans should be smarter than this. You can post how you want but until you seem to want to actually have intelligent discussion about the matter, no one will take your shit seriously, nor will they stop mocking the posts and grammatical issues.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 03:07:38 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 26, 2010, 03:04:12 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

You come off as an angry mother who can do nothing but scream and yell at the other side, which really seems what most of the Republican party has turned into. I have no real positive feelings towards them. I seem to remember that during 2001-2009 Republicans would kind of give Dems shit because they just sounded like a shrill crowd who wouldn't be pleased with anything and were a bunch of pissy fucks. Now that the tables are turned, that's what I see my Republican Party as, and you seem to just add fuel to the fire. Sure, there are some Morphs and TJs out there, but not as many as we need, and the ones who get the press, sure as hell aren't those guys. It's the MikeC's of this side. I would think Republicans should be smarter than this. You can post how you want but until you seem to want to actually have intelligent discussion about the matter, no one will take your shit seriously, nor will they stop mocking the posts and grammatical issues.

You got more than a sympathy hanj coming to you now, friend.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2010, 03:08:41 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

I notice that no where in there is anything about having an actual conversation.

In other words, you like to call people names and run away.

Moron or coward.  Which are you?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 26, 2010, 03:08:58 PM
The problem with MikeC is that he just parrots whichever blog got his blood boiling that day, and rarely, if ever, addresses the counterpoint.

Unlike the other Conservatives on The Only Site You'll Ever Need, I think he'd be sunk in actual dialogue.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 26, 2010, 03:14:04 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it.

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_FMJL5bTjQnM/SJEgtXeT7rI/AAAAAAAAKMo/nhIh5T2WgHY/383870-R1-E020_020.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 03:20:27 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

Speaking of which ... An open letter to conservatives (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php). 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 03:20:27 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

Speaking of which ... An open letter to conservatives (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php). 

Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 03:20:27 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

Speaking of which ... An open letter to conservatives (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php).  

Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 03:20:27 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

Speaking of which ... An open letter to conservatives (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/an-open-letter-to-conservative.php). 

Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed. 

Totally agree.

I was thinking of what you said earlier actually.  I'm just tired of the tactics both parties use to corral their respective media outlets to get across their talking points...  It's all marketing; keywords and phrases to appeal to an individual's values and morals...  and unfortunately, it works. 

Political discourse in this country might as well be run by Vince McMahon:  "Can you smell what I'm cooking Cheney?" or

(http://images3.makefive.com/images/200827/56fb65d5120f8a35.jpg)

"Oh yeahhhhhhhhh, homos not gonna get the old ball and chain in this country!!!  Yeahhhhhhhhhh!"

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.

I also agree.  Washington was warning us about a party system of government way back in 1776, saying (among other things (http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/)) "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Generally speaking, with a few ideological exceptions, members of both parties tend to serve the same corporate masters and represent the same billion-dollar interests.  Sad as it sounds, maybe we're best off when they're locked in a stalemate, because if "nothing is getting accomplished," then perhaps they aren't lube-free fucking us quite as hard.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 26, 2010, 06:06:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.

I also agree.  Washington was warning us about a party system of government way back in 1776, saying (among other things (http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/)) "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Generally speaking, with a few ideological exceptions, members of both parties tend to serve the same corporate masters and represent the same billion-dollar interests.  Sad as it sounds, maybe we're best off when they're locked in a stalemate, because if "nothing is getting accomplished," then perhaps they aren't lube-free fucking us quite as hard.

George Washington is OUR guy.  You fucking Canadians don't get to claim him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 06:17:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 26, 2010, 06:06:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.

I also agree.  Washington was warning us about a party system of government way back in 1776, saying (among other things (http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/)) "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Generally speaking, with a few ideological exceptions, members of both parties tend to serve the same corporate masters and represent the same billion-dollar interests.  Sad as it sounds, maybe we're best off when they're locked in a stalemate, because if "nothing is getting accomplished," then perhaps they aren't lube-free fucking us quite as hard.

George Washington is OUR guy.  You fucking Canadians don't get to claim him.

I'm like the dentist from Seinfeld who converted from Catholicism to Judaism for the jokes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 26, 2010, 06:34:06 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 06:17:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 26, 2010, 06:06:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.

I also agree.  Washington was warning us about a party system of government way back in 1776, saying (among other things (http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/)) "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Generally speaking, with a few ideological exceptions, members of both parties tend to serve the same corporate masters and represent the same billion-dollar interests.  Sad as it sounds, maybe we're best off when they're locked in a stalemate, because if "nothing is getting accomplished," then perhaps they aren't lube-free fucking us quite as hard.

George Washington is OUR guy.  You fucking Canadians don't get to claim him.

I'm like the dentist from Seinfeld who converted from Catholicism to Judaism for the jokes.

Better to have stayed Catholic and quoted de Tocqueville.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 26, 2010, 10:50:20 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 06:17:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 26, 2010, 06:06:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.

I also agree.  Washington was warning us about a party system of government way back in 1776, saying (among other things (http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/)) "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Generally speaking, with a few ideological exceptions, members of both parties tend to serve the same corporate masters and represent the same billion-dollar interests.  Sad as it sounds, maybe we're best off when they're locked in a stalemate, because if "nothing is getting accomplished," then perhaps they aren't lube-free fucking us quite as hard.

George Washington is OUR guy.  You fucking Canadians don't get to claim him.

I'm like the dentist from Seinfeld who converted from Catholicism to Judaism for the jokes.

But that guy was kind of funny.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 26, 2010, 11:09:37 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 06:17:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 26, 2010, 06:06:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.

I also agree.  Washington was warning us about a party system of government way back in 1776, saying (among other things (http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/)) "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Generally speaking, with a few ideological exceptions, members of both parties tend to serve the same corporate masters and represent the same billion-dollar interests.  Sad as it sounds, maybe we're best off when they're locked in a stalemate, because if "nothing is getting accomplished," then perhaps they aren't lube-free fucking us quite as hard.

George Washington is OUR guy.  You fucking Canadians don't get to claim him.

I'm like the dentist from Seinfeld who converted from Catholicism to Judaism for the jokes.

He outed Seinfeld as an anti-dentite.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 27, 2010, 08:02:39 AM
Whatley's come a long way.

(http://whatsontv.co.uk/blogs/tvspy/files/2008/09/breaking-bad.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 27, 2010, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 06:17:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 26, 2010, 06:06:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.

I also agree.  Washington was warning us about a party system of government way back in 1776, saying (among other things (http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/)) "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Generally speaking, with a few ideological exceptions, members of both parties tend to serve the same corporate masters and represent the same billion-dollar interests.  Sad as it sounds, maybe we're best off when they're locked in a stalemate, because if "nothing is getting accomplished," then perhaps they aren't lube-free fucking us quite as hard.

George Washington is OUR guy.  You fucking Canadians don't get to claim him.

I'm like the dentist from Seinfeld who converted from Catholicism to Judaism for the jokes.

Ahem.  http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6963.0
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on March 27, 2010, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 27, 2010, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 06:17:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 26, 2010, 06:06:59 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 26, 2010, 05:52:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on March 26, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
Nice letter, not enough time in the day to follow all of those links, but it made its point.  I suppose some of the points could be taken by both parties...  The behavior seems pretty similar from both sides when the roles are reversed.  

Totally agree.

Problem is most of the whining and crying seems to be from the politicians themselves. That's what makes me most upset. Or apathetic. I don't know which.

I also agree.  Washington was warning us about a party system of government way back in 1776, saying (among other things (http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/washington-warned-against-political-parties/)) "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Generally speaking, with a few ideological exceptions, members of both parties tend to serve the same corporate masters and represent the same billion-dollar interests.  Sad as it sounds, maybe we're best off when they're locked in a stalemate, because if "nothing is getting accomplished," then perhaps they aren't lube-free fucking us quite as hard.

George Washington is OUR guy.  You fucking Canadians don't get to claim him.

I'm like the dentist from Seinfeld who converted from Catholicism to Judaism for the jokes.

Ahem.  http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6963.0

Ahem, ahem.  http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg210023#msg210023
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on March 28, 2010, 08:24:59 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

And, there's the rub.  Chuck always likes to talk about what politicians do to get elected; and then he's constantly surprised that they sometimes back off their promises once in office.  I think it's all about expectations.

I voted for Obama because there were things that were in the Democrat platform that I agreed with.  Health care reform being one thing; ending the wars another.  I think something needs to be done about climate change.  I think we need to have an honest conversation about reforming our judicial system, including a major reform of our drug laws and the death penalty.  I believe in heavier regulation of the banking industry (and of business as a whole) to protect consumers because I think it's the people who understand those industries the best who are most able and willing to exploit the consumer's misunderstandings of such things.  There is nothing in what I believe (other than some environmental conservation ideas from some of the western republicans) that jive with anything Republican.

However, does that mean that I have to be disappointed in this administration?

Well, so far, we still have two wars.  We have a health care reform law that's missing some major pieces that I'd want.  It looks like any banking regulation reforms will end up being gutted by the banks' lobbyists who have a shitload if influence among the committee-people from both sides of the aisle.  There's been some preliminary talk about doing something about climate change and at least we have an administration that has at least recognized that there's such thing as a Kyoto Treaty and maybe it could be a good idea.  We've had talk of closing Gitmo.  If Jim Webb gets his way, at least we may soon get some sort of a commission that may look at some judicial reforms sometime in the next few years.

All of this is disappointing; but I also understand that getting elected on certain promises also means that you have to actually govern and that may mean that you have discard certain promises in order to make sure others are kept (realty dictated that we were not going to get to see this health care bill for 5 days before the president signed it, get over it).

It certainly doesn't mean that anyone should give up on the democratic process.  You bet your ass I'm voting Green Party or some other third party for the Senate and, probably, for governor.  I would challenge Morph and TJ to do the same and vote Libertarian, but I know that's not realistic because it would be asking someone to throw away their vote because our Democratic system sucks.

Oh fuck.  I have now spent 10 minutes writing this thing and i don't just want to delete it; but I don't think this really says anything either.

Do you guys notice that we have the best discussion here when we talk about ideas and policies rather than about politicians and people?  And, that Mike C always prefers to talk about politicians and people rather than about ideas or policy?  I mean, I'm still not sure what he believes in.  Maybe that's for the best.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 28, 2010, 09:03:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 28, 2010, 08:24:59 AM
And, there's the rub.  Chuck always likes to talk about what politicians do to get elected; and then he's constantly surprised that they sometimes back off their promises once in office.  

On the contrary.  I'm not surprised they back off their promises.  I'm surprised they even attempt to follow through with any of them unless those promises help them get re-elected.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on March 28, 2010, 09:19:33 AM
Something I find pretty disappointing is that, even with a super majority, it took more than a year to accomplish one big goal.  If it takes that long with that SM, how can they possibly do anything once they've lost control of Congress?

If the next big target is something like Tort Reform -- a popular platform among Conservatives that no Liberal should disagree with -- then I'll be pretty happy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BC on March 28, 2010, 10:03:22 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 28, 2010, 09:19:33 AM
Something I find pretty disappointing is that, even with a super majority, it took more than a year to accomplish one big goal.  If it takes that long with that SM, how can they possibly do anything once they've lost control of Congress?

It is the Democratic Party, what were you expecting?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 28, 2010, 10:26:12 AM
QuoteDo you guys notice that we have the best discussion here when we talk about ideas and policies rather than about politicians and people?  And, that Mike C always prefers to talk about politicians and people rather than about ideas or policy?  I mean, I'm still not sure what he believes in.  Maybe that's for the best.

I am more than willing to talk about ideas and policies, but when i bring up something uncomfortable it devolves into an insult a Republican-a-thon, rather than talking about why that current decision is being made and what are the consequences. On the same note you have to talk about the people and the politicians because they are the ones driving their ideas and policy. They both go hand in hand.

This should get a chuckle from everyone as it revisits an old point of disagreement with media bias.

CNN reported, "hundreds of people at least dozens" showed up for the SearchLight Tea Party, check out the photos, then try and figure out how a network with dismal ratings can't get people to watch them. 

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/cnn-on-size-of-todays-searchlight-tea-party-rally-hundreds-of-people-at-least-dozens/

Nope no media bias there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 28, 2010, 11:08:29 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 28, 2010, 10:26:12 AM
I am more than willing to talk about ideas and policies, but when i bring up something uncomfortable it devolves into an insult a Republican-a-thon, rather than talking about why that current decision is being made and what are the consequences. On the same note you have to talk about the people and the politicians because they are the ones driving their ideas and policy. They both go hand in hand.

This should get a chuckle from everyone as it revisits an old point of disagreement with media bias.

CNN reported, "hundreds of people at least dozens" showed up for the SearchLight Tea Party, check out the photos, then try and figure out how a network with dismal ratings can't get people to watch them.

So, you're "willing to talk about ideas," and the first thing you do to demonstrate this is start hee-hawing over fucking cable TV news ratings?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 28, 2010, 05:53:27 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 28, 2010, 11:08:29 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 28, 2010, 10:26:12 AM
I am more than willing to talk about ideas and policies, but when i bring up something uncomfortable it devolves into an insult a Republican-a-thon, rather than talking about why that current decision is being made and what are the consequences. On the same note you have to talk about the people and the politicians because they are the ones driving their ideas and policy. They both go hand in hand.

This should get a chuckle from everyone as it revisits an old point of disagreement with media bias.

CNN reported, "hundreds of people at least dozens" showed up for the SearchLight Tea Party, check out the photos, then try and figure out how a network with dismal ratings can't get people to watch them.

So, you're "willing to talk about ideas," and the first thing you do to demonstrate this is start hee-hawing over fucking cable TV news ratings?

It's a build-up. I'm sure next he'll offer conjecture as to how the Tea Partiers will feel once they figure out they've been had by the likes of Dick Armey - how their platform of "keeping Government out of our lives" will devolve into the usual talking points, such as "protecting marriage".

Then maybe he'll also add the cruel irony of how the TPers will react once they've been preached to about the size and wastefulness of Government by...John Boehner?

Perhaps he'll add how cutting taxes while increasing defense spending (http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/answerxml.cfm?selectedurl=/2000/0011.html) leads to skyrocketing National debt.

Let's see how it all plays out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 29, 2010, 04:06:27 PM
I know what this thread is missing: religion (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html)!

Quote"Should the pope resign?"

No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.

No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 04:15:25 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 29, 2010, 04:06:27 PM
I know what this thread is missing: religion (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html)!

The only thing more irritating than Richard "Memes" Dawkins is his traveling sycophantic choir.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 29, 2010, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 29, 2010, 04:06:27 PM
I know what this thread is missing: religion (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html)!

Quote"Should the pope resign?"

No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.

No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.

Yes. This is what will bring down the Papacy and the Catholic Church. Not the Iron Curtain, not the whole "Holocaust, What Holocaust?" stance, not the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, not the fall of the Papal States, not the Inquisition or the Reformation. This. Thank you, Richard Dawkins.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 04:15:25 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 29, 2010, 04:06:27 PM
I know what this thread is missing: religion (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html)!

The only thing more irritating than Richard "Memes" Dawkins is his traveling sycophantic choir.

This.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?

Adding...

Just read this line:

QuoteThe RNC's declaration of spending at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur. Under "purpose of disbursement," Republican officials put: "Meals".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?

Adding...

Just read this line:

QuoteThe RNC's declaration of spending at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur. Under "purpose of disbursement," Republican officials put: "Meals".

I could learn a thing or two from these fiscally conservative, family friendly, Republicans.

I could learn a great deal...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?

Adding...

Just read this line:

QuoteThe RNC's declaration of spending at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur. Under "purpose of disbursement," Republican officials put: "Meals".

I could learn a thing or two from these fiscally conservative, family friendly, Republicans.

I could learn a great deal...

Courses included banana(tit)s, peperoni (nipples), (ass)cheese, and the ever-popular serving of meat (curtains). 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?

Adding...

Just read this line:

QuoteThe RNC's declaration of spending at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur. Under "purpose of disbursement," Republican officials put: "Meals".

I could learn a thing or two from these fiscally conservative, family friendly, Republicans.

I could learn a great deal...

Courses included banana(tit)s, peperoni (nipples), (ass)cheese, and the ever-popular serving of meat (curtains). 

Ahem (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6963.0).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:39:33 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?

Adding...

Just read this line:

QuoteThe RNC's declaration of spending at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur. Under "purpose of disbursement," Republican officials put: "Meals".

I could learn a thing or two from these fiscally conservative, family friendly, Republicans.

I could learn a great deal...

Courses included banana(tit)s, peperoni (nipples), (ass)cheese, and the ever-popular serving of meat (curtains). 

Ahem (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6963.0).

Relevant how?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 09:03:12 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:39:33 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?

Adding...

Just read this line:

QuoteThe RNC's declaration of spending at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur. Under "purpose of disbursement," Republican officials put: "Meals".

I could learn a thing or two from these fiscally conservative, family friendly, Republicans.

I could learn a great deal...

Courses included banana(tit)s, peperoni (nipples), (ass)cheese, and the ever-popular serving of meat (curtains). 

Ahem (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6963.0).

Relevant how?

(http://feefeern.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/koko_and_mr_rogers2.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on March 29, 2010, 09:32:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:39:33 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?

Adding...

Just read this line:

QuoteThe RNC's declaration of spending at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur. Under "purpose of disbursement," Republican officials put: "Meals".

I could learn a thing or two from these fiscally conservative, family friendly, Republicans.

I could learn a great deal...

Courses included banana(tit)s, peperoni (nipples), (ass)cheese, and the ever-popular serving of meat (curtains). 

Ahem (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6963.0).

Relevant how?

Gesundheit. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6424.0)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 29, 2010, 09:36:21 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 29, 2010, 09:32:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:39:33 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 08:26:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 29, 2010, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 06:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 05:10:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 02:26:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2010, 01:59:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 29, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 29, 2010, 01:20:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 29, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
DPD.

Damn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/mar/29/michael-steele-voyeur-club-republican), I'm gonna miss this guy.

You pissed he didn't bring you along?

Does Voyeur have lunch specials?

This is going to lead to a joke about me, I know it.

Lead to?

Adding...

Just read this line:

QuoteThe RNC's declaration of spending at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur. Under "purpose of disbursement," Republican officials put: "Meals".

I could learn a thing or two from these fiscally conservative, family friendly, Republicans.

I could learn a great deal...

Courses included banana(tit)s, peperoni (nipples), (ass)cheese, and the ever-popular serving of meat (curtains). 

Ahem (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6963.0).

Relevant how?

Gesundheit. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6424.0)

Are they ever going to bring back Fire Jor Morgan?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on March 29, 2010, 10:35:14 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 04:15:25 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 29, 2010, 04:06:27 PM
I know what this thread is missing: religion (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html)!

The only thing more irritating than Richard "Memes" Dawkins is his traveling sycophantic choir.


To be fair, I don't do THAT much traveling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 29, 2010, 10:43:21 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 29, 2010, 10:35:14 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 04:15:25 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 29, 2010, 04:06:27 PM
I know what this thread is missing: religion (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html)!

The only thing more irritating than Richard "Memes" Dawkins is his traveling sycophantic choir.


To be fair, I don't do THAT much traveling.
Yeah.

And we really only get the whole choir together on Christmas and Easter...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 11:00:18 PM
Bumped for Hutaree...

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175820#msg175820

QuoteHas this Homeland Security Secretary gone absolutely stark raving mad?

(The original report, as a refresher: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf).)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 11:00:18 PM
Bumped for Hutaree...

They have their own fringe message board (http://www.hutaree.com/forum/read.php?12,356).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 30, 2010, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 11:00:18 PM
Bumped for Hutaree...

They have their own fringe message board (http://www.hutaree.com/forum/read.php?12,356).

Now look here, Herr Doktor Merkwürdigliebe, if that really is your name...

Also: beware of page two. Though, somehow, page three is worse.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 30, 2010, 01:37:20 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 30, 2010, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 29, 2010, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on March 29, 2010, 11:00:18 PM
Bumped for Hutaree...

They have their own fringe message board (http://www.hutaree.com/forum/read.php?12,356).

Now look here, Herr Doktor Merkwürdigliebe, if that really is your name...

Also: beware of page two. Though, somehow, page three is worse.

Sorry about that. I stopped after the bunkers in the woods and the evil Jews.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 30, 2010, 06:11:46 PM
DPD, but the wavin' wheat sure can smell sweet (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/29/oklahoma-hate-crimes/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 30, 2010, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 30, 2010, 06:11:46 PM
DPD, but the wavin' wheat sure can smell sweet (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/29/oklahoma-hate-crimes/).


Is it just me or has Wheezer been a bit more of a "normal" desipiot since Shitty's.. I mean, he just dropped a "DPD" and I understand a larger percentage of his posts.. What the fuck is going on here?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 30, 2010, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 30, 2010, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 30, 2010, 06:11:46 PM
DPD, but the wavin' wheat sure can smell sweet (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/29/oklahoma-hate-crimes/).


Is it just me or has Wheezer been a bit more of a "normal" desipiot since Shitty's.. I mean, he just dropped a "DPD" and I understand a larger percentage of his posts.. What the fuck is going on here?

Maybe you're though the looking glass?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 30, 2010, 08:10:19 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 30, 2010, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 30, 2010, 07:44:26 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 30, 2010, 06:11:46 PM
DPD, but the wavin' wheat sure can smell sweet (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/29/oklahoma-hate-crimes/).


Is it just me or has Wheezer been a bit more of a "normal" desipiot since Shitty's.. I mean, he just dropped a "DPD" and I understand a larger percentage of his posts.. What the fuck is going on here?

Maybe you're though the looking glass?

Would that I were (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0e5g13QB5U).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 01, 2010, 09:03:15 AM
Whatever you want to talk about is cool with me.....

But i am going to continue on destroying Chuck to Chuck's reality that Health Care is going to save any money at all.

April 1st, which is today, Medicare Reimbursement cuts were supposed to go in effect. Thats not going to be happening and it's going to start eating away at the myth that Health Care will be a deficit reducer instantly.....

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/30/cms-suspends-doctor-reimbursement-cuts-used-to-calculate-obamacare/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/cbo-confirms-obamacare-with-doctor-fix-will-actually-add-billions-to-the-deficit/

QuoteYou asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

Under current law, Medicare's payment rates for physicians' services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO's estimate of November 4, 2009.)...

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government's payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.

So even if the Democrats pass this additional crap its going to cost $208 billion more than they said, instead of saving $118 billion. But those numbers grow astronomically if Medicare Reimbursement cuts don't start happening.

Any fool willing to believe Health Care Reform is gonna save this country one red cent, just needs to be reminded that a major cost reduction measure was suspended on April Fools day. I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck for believing anything his party says about this bill and how they are going to pay for it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 01, 2010, 09:15:07 AM

This day wouldn't be complete without you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 01, 2010, 09:18:20 AM
What do you guys like to put on your myths before eating them away? I like Grey Poupon. Because I'm a big gay big city liberal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 01, 2010, 09:20:15 AM
Should Congressman Johnson be worried about Long Island capsizing as well? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 01, 2010, 09:43:49 AM
I should mention that "Continue on Destroying" is my favorite Corrosion of Conformity album.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 01, 2010, 10:32:16 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 01, 2010, 09:03:15 AM
Whatever you want to talk about is cool with me.....

But i am going to continue on destroying Chuck to Chuck's reality that Health Care is going to save any money at all.

April 1st, which is today, Medicare Reimbursement cuts were supposed to go in effect. Thats not going to be happening and it's going to start eating away at the myth that Health Care will be a deficit reducer instantly.....

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/30/cms-suspends-doctor-reimbursement-cuts-used-to-calculate-obamacare/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/cbo-confirms-obamacare-with-doctor-fix-will-actually-add-billions-to-the-deficit/

QuoteYou asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

Under current law, Medicare's payment rates for physicians' services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO's estimate of November 4, 2009.)...

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government's payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.

So even if the Democrats pass this additional crap its going to cost $208 billion more than they said, instead of saving $118 billion. But those numbers grow astronomically if Medicare Reimbursement cuts don't start happening.

Any fool willing to believe Health Care Reform is gonna save this country one red cent, just needs to be reminded that a major cost reduction measure was suspended on April Fools day. I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck for believing anything his party says about this bill and how they are going to pay for it.

You know it's just Chuck, right? Yet you choose to call him Chuck to Chuck. I don't understand this. Is it to dehumanize him? He does a good job of that on his own.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 01, 2010, 10:54:45 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 01, 2010, 10:32:16 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 01, 2010, 09:03:15 AM
Whatever you want to talk about is cool with me.....

But i am going to continue on destroying Chuck to Chuck's reality that Health Care is going to save any money at all.

April 1st, which is today, Medicare Reimbursement cuts were supposed to go in effect. Thats not going to be happening and it's going to start eating away at the myth that Health Care will be a deficit reducer instantly.....

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/30/cms-suspends-doctor-reimbursement-cuts-used-to-calculate-obamacare/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/19/cbo-confirms-obamacare-with-doctor-fix-will-actually-add-billions-to-the-deficit/

QuoteYou asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

Under current law, Medicare's payment rates for physicians' services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO's estimate of November 4, 2009.)...

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government's payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.

So even if the Democrats pass this additional crap its going to cost $208 billion more than they said, instead of saving $118 billion. But those numbers grow astronomically if Medicare Reimbursement cuts don't start happening.

Any fool willing to believe Health Care Reform is gonna save this country one red cent, just needs to be reminded that a major cost reduction measure was suspended on April Fools day. I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck for believing anything his party says about this bill and how they are going to pay for it.

You know it's just Chuck, right? Yet you choose to call him Chuck to Chuck. I don't understand this. Is it to dehumanize him? He does a good job of that on his own.



I just think he doesn't know who Chuck is, so just went purely off his handle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 01, 2010, 10:55:21 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 01, 2010, 09:03:15 AM
I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck for believing anything his party says about this bill and how they are going to pay for it.

Is that where the joke is?  Guess again.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 01, 2010, 11:02:40 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 01, 2010, 10:55:21 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 01, 2010, 09:03:15 AM
I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck for believing anything his party says about this bill and how they are going to pay for it.

Is that where the joke is?  Guess again.

Thanks for your feedback Chuck to Chuck - if that is your real name.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 01, 2010, 11:05:17 AM
Chuck to Chuck is my second favorite Corrosion of Conformity album.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 01, 2010, 07:28:42 PM
Representative Hank Johnson is RIGHT! (http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize)

QuoteRep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is afraid that the U.S. Territory of Guam is going to "tip over and capsize" due to overpopulation.

Johnson expressed his worries during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the defense budget Thursday.

Wait, no. No he isn't.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 02, 2010, 08:11:38 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 01, 2010, 07:28:42 PM
Representative Hank Johnson is RIGHT! (http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize)

QuoteRep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is afraid that the U.S. Territory of Guam is going to "tip over and capsize" due to overpopulation.

Johnson expressed his worries during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the defense budget Thursday.

Wait, no. No he isn't.

Ahem. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg210388#msg210388)

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 02, 2010, 08:13:41 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 02, 2010, 08:11:38 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 01, 2010, 07:28:42 PM
Representative Hank Johnson is RIGHT! (http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize)

QuoteRep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is afraid that the U.S. Territory of Guam is going to "tip over and capsize" due to overpopulation.

Johnson expressed his worries during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the defense budget Thursday.

Wait, no. No he isn't.

Ahem. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg210388#msg210388)



That's a FACE...that's a FACE.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 02, 2010, 08:21:48 AM
Quote from: CT III on April 02, 2010, 08:13:41 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 02, 2010, 08:11:38 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 01, 2010, 07:28:42 PM
Representative Hank Johnson is RIGHT! (http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize)

QuoteRep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) is afraid that the U.S. Territory of Guam is going to "tip over and capsize" due to overpopulation.

Johnson expressed his worries during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the defense budget Thursday.

Wait, no. No he isn't.

Ahem. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg210388#msg210388)



That's a FACE...that's a FACE.

I've got some major burn marks on my internetFACE.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on April 02, 2010, 08:32:34 AM
Well well Chuck to Chuck, how do you all feel now not real good I bet of course you arent going to mention it thou?

QuoteQuote From: RightWingTeaPartyBlog.Com
All Democrats are Fascists!

For 8 years you made fun of Republicans for being facists and Nazis but when it happens in youre own party do you say anything no of course not!

Either way im going to continue on destroying Chuck to Chucks notion that the Democrat Party isnt trying to reinstute the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Any fool willing to believe the Democrats are gonna save this country just needs to be reminded that the germans thought Hitler was going to save them too. I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck because hes Jewish.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 02, 2010, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 02, 2010, 08:32:34 AM
Well well Chuck to Chuck, how do you all feel now not real good I bet of course you arent going to mention it thou?

QuoteQuote From: RightWingTeaPartyBlog.Com
All Democrats are Fascists!

For 8 years you made fun of Republicans for being facists and Nazis but when it happens in youre own party do you say anything no of course not!

Either way im going to continue on destroying Chuck to Chucks notion that the Democrat Party isnt trying to reinstute the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Any fool willing to believe the Democrats are gonna save this country just needs to be reminded that the germans  Dusty Baker thought Hitler Neifi Perez was going to save them too. I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck because hes Jewish still scarred from 2004 and 2005.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 08:46:55 AM
I'm not sure I understand where SKO and Teej are going, but did anyone see the Trib today?  Looks like about 40pt above the fold.

Broadway Bank loaned $20M to felons (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-giannoulias-bank-loans-20100401,0,5574130.story)

Where the fuck was this reporting during the primary?  None of this is new news.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 02, 2010, 09:28:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 02, 2010, 08:32:34 AM
Well well Chuck to Chuck, how do you all feel now not real good I bet of course you arent going to mention it thou?

QuoteQuote From: RightWingTeaPartyBlog.Com
All Democrats are Fascists!

For 8 years you made fun of Republicans for being facists and Nazis but when it happens in youre own party do you say anything no of course not!


Damn! I was just getting used to being a Socialist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 02, 2010, 09:50:19 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 08:46:55 AM
I'm not sure I understand where SKO and Teej are going, but did anyone see the Trib today?  Looks like about 40pt above the fold.

Broadway Bank loaned $20M to felons (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-giannoulias-bank-loans-20100401,0,5574130.story)

Where the fuck was this reporting during the primary?  None of this is new news.

They were busy digging up dirt on Jason Plummer and Scott Lee Cohen.

I think SKO was doing a MikeC impersonation. I just hear of anyone suggesting someone will "save" something and I think of Neifi. I don't think Neifi has been mentioned in this awful, awful thread yet, so I thought it was time to complete it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on April 02, 2010, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 02, 2010, 08:32:34 AM
Well well Chuck to Chuck, how do you all feel now not real good I bet of course you arent going to mention it thou?

QuoteQuote From: RightWingTeaPartyBlog.Com
All Democrats are Fascists!

For 8 years you made fun of Republicans for being facists and Nazis but when it happens in youre own party do you say anything no of course not!

Either way im going to continue on destroying Chuck to Chucks notion that the Democrat Party isnt trying to reinstute the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Any fool willing to believe the Democrats are gonna save this country just needs to be reminded that the germans thought Hitler was going to save them too. I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck because hes Jewish.

You could have just used my hastily-constructed MikeC mad lib. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg169562#msg169562)  But this was fun, too, because it talked about Jews.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on April 02, 2010, 10:18:31 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 08:46:55 AM
I'm not sure I understand where SKO and Teej are going, but did anyone see the Trib today?  Looks like about 40pt above the fold.

Broadway Bank loaned $20M to felons (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-giannoulias-bank-loans-20100401,0,5574130.story)

Where the fuck was this reporting during the primary?  None of this is new news.

I just read that article, there does not appear to be a lot of there there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 02, 2010, 10:20:58 AM
Quote from: Eli on April 02, 2010, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 02, 2010, 08:32:34 AM
Well well Chuck to Chuck, how do you all feel now not real good I bet of course you arent going to mention it thou?

QuoteQuote From: RightWingTeaPartyBlog.Com
All Democrats are Fascists!

For 8 years you made fun of Republicans for being facists and Nazis but when it happens in youre own party do you say anything no of course not!

Either way im going to continue on destroying Chuck to Chucks notion that the Democrat Party isnt trying to reinstute the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Any fool willing to believe the Democrats are gonna save this country just needs to be reminded that the germans thought Hitler was going to save them too. I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck because hes Jewish.

You could have just used my hastily-constructed MikeC mad lib. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg169562#msg169562)  But this was fun, too, because it talked about Jews.


That was hall-of-fame bump-worthy, Eli.

EDIT:  For replay's sake

QuoteHmmm, of course all you (negative adjective) Libs think that (recent political disaster) was Bush's fault.  Big suprise.  Well, if you weren't so busy sucking Obama's (phallic noun) maybe you'd get your facts strait.

If (previously cited disaster) was Bushs fault, why did (Democratic politician) come out and say this?  Maybe if people would of actually listend to Bush, we wouldn't be in this current mess.

(Michelle Malkin link)

(Rhetorical question) (Rhetorical question) (Rhetorical question) Fuckers.

Ohhh right, that's right, go ahead and blame Bush for everything, you stupid (plural negative adjective).  And you can all look the other way like a bunch of (slang term for feces)heads and ignore what I say and pretend that history didn't happen.

Oh yeah also while I'm here what do you all have to say about this?

(Hot Air link)

(Unattributed quote)

Yeah, thats what I thought, you (synonym for vagina). You'll never own up to anything, no matter how many times I show you the facts about (current political issue) or (any random stimulus spending program).  But noooo, your boy Obama, the (one of the many Biblical names for Jesus) will continue to get a pass all the way from (media outlet) to (media outlet).  It never changes.  

(Obama campaign slogan), my ass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on April 02, 2010, 10:22:04 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 08:46:55 AM
I'm not sure I understand where SKO and Teej are going, but did anyone see the Trib today?  Looks like about 40pt above the fold.

Broadway Bank loaned $20M to felons (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-giannoulias-bank-loans-20100401,0,5574130.story)

Where the fuck was this reporting during the primary?  None of this is new news.

There have been a ton of articles about allegations and details of who loans were given to.  Are you
only talking about the front page aspect?  Because it seems like that article has pretty much no new
details as far as I can tell and still fails to actually tie the bad loans to the candidate.  I mean, compared
to all the actual insider trading and other shady business deals that politicians get close to free passes on
(I'll mention both G W Bush and Clinton for fairness), working at a bank which gave out some bad loans
isn't exactly a big deal.  There's been not a shred of evidence that he was actually bribed or even
personally interacted with the dudes:

QuotePublic records do not show which bank officials negotiated or approved any of the loans.
Giannoulias declined to be interviewed by the Tribune or to review public records outlining the bank's loans.

QuoteIn July 2004, records show, Broadway gave Giorango and Stavropoulos a $1.1 million loan, and they
used that money to pay $1.5 million for an office building at 88th Street and Ashland Avenue.

But the South Side businessman who owned the property at the time told the Tribune he was not selling
the building to Giorango and Stavropoulos but rather was using it as collateral to borrow money from them.

So the bank loaned someone money to purchase an office building, and they bought the office building,
but the bank was supposed to know that it was a hand shake deal instead of investment?  How the hell
would the bank know that?  Everything I've read shows that they didn't have police records when the
loans were approved.  I think there's plenty of room to take the bank to task for loaning so much money
without any significant oversight, but I don't see how you can claim that this is under reported.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on April 02, 2010, 10:22:45 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 02, 2010, 10:20:58 AM
Quote from: Eli on April 02, 2010, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 02, 2010, 08:32:34 AM
Well well Chuck to Chuck, how do you all feel now not real good I bet of course you arent going to mention it thou?

QuoteQuote From: RightWingTeaPartyBlog.Com
All Democrats are Fascists!

For 8 years you made fun of Republicans for being facists and Nazis but when it happens in youre own party do you say anything no of course not!

Either way im going to continue on destroying Chuck to Chucks notion that the Democrat Party isnt trying to reinstute the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Any fool willing to believe the Democrats are gonna save this country just needs to be reminded that the germans thought Hitler was going to save them too. I guess the joke is on Chuck to Chuck because hes Jewish.

You could have just used my hastily-constructed MikeC mad lib. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg169562#msg169562)  But this was fun, too, because it talked about Jews.

That was hall-of-fame bump-worthy, Eli.

Agreed. I am humbled by your clearly better effort. His consistency is still remarkable, though.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 10:23:17 AM
Quote from: thehawk on April 02, 2010, 10:18:31 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 08:46:55 AM
I'm not sure I understand where SKO and Teej are going, but did anyone see the Trib today?  Looks like about 40pt above the fold.

Broadway Bank loaned $20M to felons (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-giannoulias-bank-loans-20100401,0,5574130.story)

Where the fuck was this reporting during the primary?  None of this is new news.

I just read that article, there does not appear to be a lot of there there.

Well, the bank made loans to mobsters while Alexi had a senior position with the bank where he knew nothing about those loans.  That means some combination of:

1) Alexi's position wasn't so senior and really was a "Give your brother a desk and a salary" job because he's really skill-less.
2) Alexi's job was senior and he's lying about not knowing.
3) Alexi's job was senior and he didn't do his due diligence which means he's incompetent.

So, is he stupid, a liar or incompetent? Or is he all three?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 02, 2010, 10:24:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 10:23:17 AM
Quote from: thehawk on April 02, 2010, 10:18:31 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 08:46:55 AM
I'm not sure I understand where SKO and Teej are going, but did anyone see the Trib today?  Looks like about 40pt above the fold.

Broadway Bank loaned $20M to felons (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-giannoulias-bank-loans-20100401,0,5574130.story)

Where the fuck was this reporting during the primary?  None of this is new news.

I just read that article, there does not appear to be a lot of there there.

Well, the bank made loans to mobsters while Alexi had a senior position with the bank where he knew nothing about those loans.  That means some combination of:

1) Alexi's position wasn't so senior and really was a "Give your brother a desk and a salary" job because he's really skill-less.
2) Alexi's job was senior and he's lying about not knowing.
3) Alexi's job was senior and he didn't do his due diligence which means he's incompetent.

So, is he stupid, a liar or incompetent? Or is he all three?

Well, he's in politics now, so probably all three.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: Pre on April 02, 2010, 10:22:04 AM
So the bank loaned someone money to purchase an office building, and they bought the office building, but the bank was supposed to know that it was a hand shake deal instead of investment?  How the hell would the bank know that? 

By asking their client.  "What are you going to use the money for?"

"Rehab the building."

"OK, show me contractor's statements."

"Oh, contractor's statements?  Heh.  We really meant we are using the building as collateral to use the money elsewhere."

In my job, my next line is, "No thanks.  I want my loan repaid by income generated by the asset I'm lending against."

We ask those questions.  That's why my employer didn't take TARP and isn't on the Watch List.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 02, 2010, 11:44:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: Pre on April 02, 2010, 10:22:04 AM
So the bank loaned someone money to purchase an office building, and they bought the office building, but the bank was supposed to know that it was a hand shake deal instead of investment?  How the hell would the bank know that? 

By asking their client.  "What are you going to use the money for?"

"Rehab the building."

"OK, show me contractor's statements."

"Oh, contractor's statements?  Heh.  We really meant we are using the building as collateral to use the money elsewhere."

In my job, my next line is, "No thanks.  I want my loan repaid by income generated by the asset I'm lending against."

We ask those questions.  That's why my employer didn't take TARP and isn't on the Watch List.

We get it, your bank doesn't suck. But lots of banks did suck. Especially in the early 2000s. And lots of politicians are morons who were born with silver spoons up their arse.

It looks to me like Alexi is a simpleton who went into politics because his family had money and he played basketball with Obama. Doesn't make him a crook.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 11:56:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 02, 2010, 11:44:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: Pre on April 02, 2010, 10:22:04 AM
So the bank loaned someone money to purchase an office building, and they bought the office building, but the bank was supposed to know that it was a hand shake deal instead of investment?  How the hell would the bank know that? 

By asking their client.  "What are you going to use the money for?"

"Rehab the building."

"OK, show me contractor's statements."

"Oh, contractor's statements?  Heh.  We really meant we are using the building as collateral to use the money elsewhere."

In my job, my next line is, "No thanks.  I want my loan repaid by income generated by the asset I'm lending against."

We ask those questions.  That's why my employer didn't take TARP and isn't on the Watch List.

We get it, your bank doesn't suck. But lots of banks did suck. Especially in the early 2000s. And lots of politicians are morons who were born with silver spoons up their arse.

It looks to me like Alexi is a simpleton who went into politics because his family had money and he played basketball with Obama. Doesn't make him a crook.

Let's say you are right and he's just stupid.  This makes him look really stupid.  And too stupid to get my vote for US Senate.

Especially when that stupidity is likely going to cost the taxpayers money to cover his failed mob bank.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 02, 2010, 11:59:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 11:56:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 02, 2010, 11:44:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: Pre on April 02, 2010, 10:22:04 AM
So the bank loaned someone money to purchase an office building, and they bought the office building, but the bank was supposed to know that it was a hand shake deal instead of investment?  How the hell would the bank know that? 

By asking their client.  "What are you going to use the money for?"

"Rehab the building."

"OK, show me contractor's statements."

"Oh, contractor's statements?  Heh.  We really meant we are using the building as collateral to use the money elsewhere."

In my job, my next line is, "No thanks.  I want my loan repaid by income generated by the asset I'm lending against."

We ask those questions.  That's why my employer didn't take TARP and isn't on the Watch List.

We get it, your bank doesn't suck. But lots of banks did suck. Especially in the early 2000s. And lots of politicians are morons who were born with silver spoons up their arse.

It looks to me like Alexi is a simpleton who went into politics because his family had money and he played basketball with Obama. Doesn't make him a crook.

Let's say you are right and he's just stupid.  This makes him look really stupid.  And too stupid to get my vote for US Senate.

That's totally fine. As Pre said, until the Trib has any actual new details on the situation, why not just write some articles about how dumb he is?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on April 02, 2010, 04:45:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 10:23:17 AM
Well, the bank made loans to mobsters while Alexi had a senior position with the bank where he knew nothing about those loans.  That means some combination of:

1) Alexi's position wasn't so senior and really was a "Give your brother a desk and a salary" job because he's really skill-less.
2) Alexi's job was senior and he's lying about not knowing.
3) Alexi's job was senior and he didn't do his due diligence which means he's incompetent.

So, is he stupid, a liar or incompetent? Or is he all three?

There's plenty of other options if you want to go that route, employees not following company policy,
Alexi not establishing a policy, Alexi or his boss not allowing policies to be put in place because they
cost money.  There's a boatload of specific reasons why that bank sucked.  I'm sure Alexi shared some
level of responsibility, but none of us or the media investigators seem to know if it's .0001% or 50% of
the blame.  Hell, I have no idea.  I don't even like the guy.  But to claim that he somehow got a media
free pass on this stuff when it's been all over the news for at least a month is crazy talk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2010, 05:13:58 PM
Quote from: Pre on April 02, 2010, 04:45:55 PM
But to claim that he somehow got a media free pass on this stuff when it's been all over the news for at least a month is crazy talk.

It was huge, above the fold in January?

Oh yeah. That's more than a month ago.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 06, 2010, 08:46:54 AM

Huh (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/06/mccain-says-hes-no-maverick-2/?fbid=BlWS7bWzljJ#more-98302)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Saul Goodman on April 06, 2010, 01:05:14 PM
Cominsky Park was so beautiful it makes it hard to remember any of the players. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX0PSoCTFas)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 06, 2010, 01:50:08 PM
Thats what you get when the teleprompter isn't handy. You forget all childhood memories unless someone types it in for you to read.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 06, 2010, 01:54:54 PM
You know one thing I learned recently: apparently, Obama is the first politician in history to use a teleprompter. I never would have thought that...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 06, 2010, 02:00:08 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 06, 2010, 01:54:54 PM
You know one thing I learned recently: apparently, Obama is the first politician in history to use a teleprompter. I never would have of thought that...

Let's speak in a language he understands's.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 06, 2010, 02:01:24 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 06, 2010, 01:50:08 PM
Thats what you get when the teleprompter isn't handy. You forget all childhood memories unless someone types it in for you to read.

There were too many names for him to write in his hand.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on April 06, 2010, 04:51:01 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 06, 2010, 01:50:08 PM
Thats what you get when the teleprompter isn't handy. You forget all childhood memories unless someone types it in for you to read.


BANG!  Take that, Libtards!  You just been Palin'd! Natch!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 07, 2010, 02:47:40 PM
It's tax time! Some good mythbusting here (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901335), including this one:

Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.
In 2007, federal, state and local taxes claimed about $3.8 trillion, or 27 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. That's nearly $13,000 for every American. Two-thirds of tax revenues went to the federal government.

It may sound like a lot, but other developed countries collect even more. In 2006, taxes in 30 of the world's richest countries averaged 36 percent of GDP; only Mexico, Turkey, South Korea and Japan had tax rates lower than ours. And taxes in many European countries exceeded 40 percent of GDP because these nations offer more extensive government services than the United States does.

Americans do pay far more in individual income taxes than residents of other wealthy nations. Nearly 37 percent of U.S. tax revenue came from personal income taxes in 2006, about 10 percentage points more, on average, than in other industrialized countries. But we pay much less in sales taxes; 17 percent of 2006 U.S. tax receipts were from taxes on goods and services, or about half the 32 percent average for rich countries.

Bottom line: We may hate our taxes, but we pay far less than people in other wealthy countries.

And some taxfaggotry in response to the latest blatherings of Jonah Goldberg here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/jonah-goldberg-anti-maldistributionist.html):

QuoteAs shown in the second figure, which reports after-tax-and-transfer income distribution, of the 26 OECD countries the United States has the most maldistributed income of all 26. This doesn't mean that tax and transfer policies don't redistribute; they do, which is why the after-t+t coefficient of .38 is lower than the pre-t+t coefficient of .46.

But that's not particularly redistributive. In effect, Jonah Goldberg is complaining about the dangers of redistribution in the least redistributive first world nation. Tax-wise, he would be doing much worse as a columnist/author/speaker in almost any other country. But why let that stop him from complaining?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.

We are not overttaxed.  How do we know this?  There is a budget deficit.

We are either undertaxed, over-serviced, or some combination thereof.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 07, 2010, 02:58:47 PM

Nobody wants to pay taxes.

Everyone wants the trash picked up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on April 07, 2010, 02:59:57 PM
You guys and your comparisons to other countries are stupid. We are Americans. We are better then those other countries.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 07, 2010, 05:21:15 PM
Daybreak, Jakarta. The proud men and women of the Navy are protecting America's interests overseas, but you're in Lubbock, Texas hosing down a statue, because your in the Naval Reserve. Once you complete basic training, you only work one weekend a month, and most of that time your drunk of your ass. The Naval Reserve: America's 17th line of defense, between the Mississippi National Guard, and the American League of Women Voters.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/party-sub-crash-costing-t_n_528521.html)

I didn't know where else to put this, Admiral Stupid.

PINHOLE LEAK!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: air2300 on April 07, 2010, 08:20:48 PM
EVIL ACORN!!!!


http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-exposes-foxs-bogus-coverage-of-acorn/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Armchair_QB on April 07, 2010, 08:37:58 PM
Pimps need financial advice too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 07, 2010, 10:21:28 PM
Is there someone who is supposed to have given ACORN the time of day in the first place? They always came off as a bunch of wetheads in Hyde Park.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 07, 2010, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on April 07, 2010, 10:21:28 PM
Is there someone who is supposed to have given ACORN the time of day in the first place? They always came off as a bunch of wetheads in Hyde Park.

They stole a damn presidential election, Wheezer. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 08, 2010, 09:14:23 AM
Quote from: air2300 on April 07, 2010, 08:20:48 PM
EVIL ACORN!!!!


http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-exposes-foxs-bogus-coverage-of-acorn/

Intrepid Reader:  Mike C.

Oh rite as if Jerry brown doesn't have an agenda to clear up comrade Obama's shenanigans lol.   You liberals will believe anything.  I would of taken that more seriously if everyone involved wasn't part of the liberal media empire.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.

We are not overttaxed.  How do we know this?  There is a budget deficit.

We are either undertaxed, over-serviced, or some combination thereof.

The IRS has a good solution for all of you who feel undertaxed. (http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)

I feel overtaxed. Of course, I'm part of the 53% of the households that pays income taxes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1).

Intrepid Reader: Lee Elia
The other 47% come here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on April 08, 2010, 09:28:49 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.

We are not overttaxed.  How do we know this?  There is a budget deficit.

We are either undertaxed, over-serviced, or some combination thereof.

The IRS has a good solution for all of you who feel undertaxed. (http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)

I feel overtaxed. Of course, I'm part of the 53% of the households that pays income taxes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1).

Intrepid Reader: Lee Elia
The other 47% come here.

I can tell you that I have not "paid" income taxes for two years. Housing credit in 08 and American Recovery (Education) and Energy Tax credit have helped me escape it. In fact, I think I have made a profit from the government, as well. Although, it creates an additional burden on the government, I don't feel too bad about it. I wouldn't have gotten the house if the credit wasn't out there. Plus, I gave the seller additional income on which they had to pay taxes (it wasn't their personal residence. They flip houses) and I'm pretty sure they're in a higher bracket than I am. The Energy Credit was used on a furnace, of which the business has to pay taxes on, and I would think their rate is higher than mine. I guess, in summary, it's not all bad.. Yes, having the burden on 53% of the population is not advisable, but I think there were quite a few people in a similar situation as me: giving the richer people more money so they can pay more taxes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 09:29:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:18:00 AM

Intrepid Reader: Lee Elia
The other 47% come here.

Okay, I laughed rather heartily at that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 09:34:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.

We are not overttaxed.  How do we know this?  There is a budget deficit.

We are either undertaxed, over-serviced, or some combination thereof.

The IRS has a good solution for all of you who feel undertaxed. (http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)

I feel overtaxed. Of course, I'm part of the 53% of the households that pays income taxes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1).

Intrepid Reader: Lee Elia
The other 47% come here.

I'm not gifting anything until they cut stuff.  I don't believe I am undertaxed so much as I am over-serviced.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 08, 2010, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.

We are not overttaxed.  How do we know this?  There is a budget deficit.

We are either undertaxed, over-serviced, or some combination thereof.

The IRS has a good solution for all of you who feel undertaxed. (http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)

I feel overtaxed. Of course, I'm part of the 53% of the households that pays income taxes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1).

Intrepid Reader: Lee Elia
The other 47% come here.

That Yahoo article pretty much restates my original link. I guess it does add in a misleading quote from that Curtis guy at the Heritage Foundation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on April 08, 2010, 09:41:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 09:34:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.

We are not overttaxed.  How do we know this?  There is a budget deficit.

We are either undertaxed, over-serviced, or some combination thereof.

The IRS has a good solution for all of you who feel undertaxed. (http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)

I feel overtaxed. Of course, I'm part of the 53% of the households that pays income taxes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1).

Intrepid Reader: Lee Elia
The other 47% come here.

I'm not gifting anything until they cut stuff.  I don't believe I am undertaxed so much as I am over-serviced.

I'd love to feel over-serviced
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 09:47:37 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 08, 2010, 09:41:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 09:34:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.

We are not overttaxed.  How do we know this?  There is a budget deficit.

We are either undertaxed, over-serviced, or some combination thereof.

The IRS has a good solution for all of you who feel undertaxed. (http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)

I feel overtaxed. Of course, I'm part of the 53% of the households that pays income taxes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1).

Intrepid Reader: Lee Elia
The other 47% come here.

I'm not gifting anything until they cut stuff.  I don't believe I am undertaxed so much as I am over-serviced.

I'd love to feel over-serviced

Wait? The government is offering services now? Maybe I ought to reconsider this whole anarchism thing...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
Quote from: air2300 on April 07, 2010, 08:20:48 PM
EVIL ACORN!!!!


http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-exposes-foxs-bogus-coverage-of-acorn/

Rachel Maddows damning evidence was a sleeve! A dress shirt sleeve!

(http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/hannah_giles-300x3001.jpg)

Wait he was wearing a suit with a dress shirt in his pimp costume.

She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 08, 2010, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
Quote2. Americans are overtaxed.

We are not overttaxed.  How do we know this?  There is a budget deficit.

We are either undertaxed, over-serviced, or some combination thereof.

The IRS has a good solution for all of you who feel undertaxed. (http://fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html)

I feel overtaxed. Of course, I'm part of the 53% of the households that pays income taxes (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1).

Intrepid Reader: Lee Elia
The other 47% come here.

That Yahoo article pretty much restates my original link. I guess it does add in a misleading quote from that Curtis guy at the Heritage Foundation.

If only 53% of households are paying taxes, do you sense a problem if that number drops any more?

Simplifying the tax code (and dropping tax rates across the board) would make everyone pay a "share" of taxes. You could even have a progressive income tax.

Chuck, as to your saying you're overserviced, I can agree with you there. But that's why Congress (and the GOP-led Congress wasn guilty here) needs to pay more than lip-service into reducing the scope of the federal government.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:55:45 AM
Chuck, as to your saying you're overserviced, I can agree with you there. But that's why Congress (and the GOP-led Congress wasn guilty here) needs to pay more than lip-service into reducing the scope of the federal government.

Perhaps a president who would use a veto pen would be nice instead of spending $750 billion of our money on a drug benefit to win Florida in 2004 be compassionately conservative to seniors would also help.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:55:45 AM
Chuck, as to your saying you're overserviced, I can agree with you there. But that's why Congress (and the GOP-led Congress wasn guilty here) needs to pay more than lip-service into reducing the scope of the federal government.

Perhaps a president who would use a veto pen would be nice instead of spending $750 billion of our money on a drug benefit to win Florida in 2004 be compassionately conservative to seniors would also help.

This!

Where do I send my check for Americans for Chuck Gitles for President?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 08, 2010, 10:10:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:55:45 AMIf only 53% of households are paying taxes, do you sense a problem if that number drops any more?

Again, to say that only 53% of households are paying taxes is misleading. You can't just look at income taxes - you have to look at federal taxes overall, including SS and Medicare taxes. If you look at this table (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2417), you'll see that people earning between 20k and 30k pay a 6% average effective rate. Which I'm fine with. These rates should be progressive.

Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:55:45 AMSimplifying the tax code (and dropping tax rates across the board) would make everyone pay a "share" of taxes. You could even have a progressive income tax.

I'm totally fine with this. Get rid of all the skewed INCENTIVES (aka home ownership) and exemptions built into the system, and you can lower the rates.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 08, 2010, 11:02:45 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:55:45 AM
Chuck, as to your saying you're overserviced, I can agree with you there. But that's why Congress (and the GOP-led Congress wasn guilty here) needs to pay more than lip-service into reducing the scope of the federal government.

Perhaps a president who would use a veto pen would be nice instead of spending $750 billion of our money on a drug benefit to win Florida in 2004 be compassionately conservative to seniors would also help.

This!

Where do I send my check for Americans for Chuck Gitles for President?

Make it out to "ZIONIST CONSPIRACY"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2010, 11:22:29 AM
I'd be in favor of the Nixon plan (go figure).  A guaranteed minimum income for all Americans and a flat rate of taxation there after, no exceptions.  Everyone pays something.  Milton Friedman agrees too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2010, 12:05:35 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

In the final analysis, THIS is probably true.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenFoe on April 08, 2010, 12:12:17 PM
God, I hate this Cubs team.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 08, 2010, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2010, 12:05:35 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

In the final analysis, THIS is probably true.

If he was upset about that, how does he feel about a Kenyan being President?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 12:14:38 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on April 08, 2010, 12:12:17 PM
God, I hate this Cubs team.
THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 12:37:01 PM
Quote from: CBStew on April 08, 2010, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2010, 12:05:35 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

In the final analysis, THIS is probably true.

If he was upset about that, how does he feel about a Kenyan being President?

I think you can follow his posts and actually see his head exploding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 08, 2010, 01:04:57 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 19, 2010, 01:53:59 PM
Line items for "consultants" in this game tend to reflect economizing on full-time staff, if I recall properly. Charitynavigator.org gives them four stars based on 2007. If I were Debbie Schlussel, I'd be savaging the Boys Choir of Harlem instead.

They did, and I'm not sure why.  I believe that in 2007 they had 27 employees, so it seems a bit overhead heavy to me.

Downgraded to two stars (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6590).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 01:11:49 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on April 08, 2010, 01:04:57 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 19, 2010, 01:53:59 PM
Line items for "consultants" in this game tend to reflect economizing on full-time staff, if I recall properly. Charitynavigator.org gives them four stars based on 2007. If I were Debbie Schlussel, I'd be savaging the Boys Choir of Harlem instead.

They did, and I'm not sure why.  I believe that in 2007 they had 27 employees, so it seems a bit overhead heavy to me.

Downgraded to two stars (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6590).

Which is exactly why I hate this Cubs team.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

Here is the 20,000 documents that were recovered. Hell they got pictures of it in case you don't believe it.

http://biggovernment.com/droach/2009/11/23/breaking-san-diego-acorn-document-dump-scandal/

But you wouldn't know about the documents trying to be hidden from investigators because Maddow didn't tell you any of that. Shredding part is purely speculation on my part but, the most sensitive and damaging data would have been shredded and then burned. But who knows what happened because ACORN had plenty of time to clean out its offices and cover up any evidence before investigators showed up, why else start dumping your files in the trash? Guilty people do that sort of thing. You sure as hell don't do it before investigators show up, it kinda looks like your trying to cover up evidence of wrong doing.

Try again MAD.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 08, 2010, 01:17:06 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 08, 2010, 01:11:49 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on April 08, 2010, 01:04:57 PM
Quote from: thehawk on March 19, 2010, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 19, 2010, 01:53:59 PM
Line items for "consultants" in this game tend to reflect economizing on full-time staff, if I recall properly. Charitynavigator.org gives them four stars based on 2007. If I were Debbie Schlussel, I'd be savaging the Boys Choir of Harlem instead.

They did, and I'm not sure why.  I believe that in 2007 they had 27 employees, so it seems a bit overhead heavy to me.

Downgraded to two stars (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6590).

Which is exactly why I hate this Cubs team.

THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.

I am a racist.  I hate running.  And I hate NASCAR.  I don't particularly like horse racing, either.   Rat race?  Fuck that, too.  I do enjoy those cute crawfish races.  But that's about it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 08, 2010, 01:24:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.

I am a racist.  I hate running.  And I hate NASCAR.  I don't particularly like horse racing, either.   Rat race?  Fuck that, too.  I do enjoy those cute crawfish races.  But that's about it.

Shut up you Cossack.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 08, 2010, 01:24:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.

I am a racist.  I hate running.  And I hate NASCAR.  I don't particularly like horse racing, either.   Rat race?  Fuck that, too.  I do enjoy those cute crawfish races.  But that's about it.

Shut up you Cossack.

It was the NASCAR thing, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 08, 2010, 01:27:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.

You're never going to get elected Stage Nigger that way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on April 08, 2010, 01:33:10 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
But you wouldn't know about the documents trying to be hidden from investigators because Maddow didn't tell you any of that.

That's because she'd sound ridiculous if she suggested that documents could attempt to hide themselves.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on April 08, 2010, 01:36:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on April 08, 2010, 01:33:10 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
But you wouldn't know about the documents trying to be hidden from investigators because Maddow didn't tell you any of that.

That's because she'd sound ridiculous if she suggested that documents could attempt to hide themselves.

Then again, I guess it's not unprecedented to find personified pieces of paper.

(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/files/bill.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 01:40:09 PM
Where did you get that 99.9% number, by the way? Just curious, because I assumed it was closer to 78.3%, but I've only got race-baiting numbers through the 2000 Census.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 08, 2010, 01:42:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:55:45 AM
Chuck, as to your saying you're overserviced, I can agree with you there. But that's why Congress (and the GOP-led Congress wasn guilty here) needs to pay more than lip-service into reducing the scope of the federal government.

Perhaps a president who would use a veto pen would be nice instead of spending $750 billion of our money on a drug benefit to win Florida in 2004 be compassionately conservative to seniors would also help.

On the topic of reducing the scope of gubment:

QuoteThe only program that more than a third of the public wants to see cut is foreign aid. Bummer, then, that it accounts for less than a single percent of the budget.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/cutting_defense_spending_more.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 01:43:39 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 08, 2010, 01:40:09 PM
Where did you get that 99.9% number, by the way? Just curious, because I assumed it was closer to 78.3%, but I've only got race-baiting numbers through the 2000 Census.

What are you, daft?

Fact = 100% of Democrats are Democrats
Fact = .1% are Zell Miller
Fact = Leaves 99.9%
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2010, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 08, 2010, 01:42:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 08, 2010, 09:55:45 AM
Chuck, as to your saying you're overserviced, I can agree with you there. But that's why Congress (and the GOP-led Congress wasn guilty here) needs to pay more than lip-service into reducing the scope of the federal government.

Perhaps a president who would use a veto pen would be nice instead of spending $750 billion of our money on a drug benefit to win Florida in 2004 be compassionately conservative to seniors would also help.

On the topic of reducing the scope of gubment:

QuoteThe only program that more than a third of the public wants to see cut is foreign aid. Bummer, then, that it accounts for less than a single percent of the budget.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/cutting_defense_spending_more.html

America = California.  Get used to it, people.  Citizens want services, but don't want to pay for them.

SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 08, 2010, 01:46:26 PM
Intrepid Reader: Mike C

DANCE PUPPETS, DANCE!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 08, 2010, 01:47:48 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.

Finally, someone on this board describes Oleg as big at something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 08, 2010, 01:49:01 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

Here is the 20,000 documents that were recovered. Hell they got pictures of it in case you don't believe it.

http://biggovernment.com/droach/2009/11/23/breaking-san-diego-acorn-document-dump-scandal/

But you wouldn't know about the documents trying to be hidden from investigators because Maddow didn't tell you any of that. Shredding part is purely speculation on my part but, the most sensitive and damaging data would have been shredded and then burned. But who knows what happened because ACORN had plenty of time to clean out its offices and cover up any evidence before investigators showed up, why else start dumping your files in the trash? Guilty people do that sort of thing. You sure as hell don't do it before investigators show up, it kinda looks like your trying to cover up evidence of wrong doing.

Try again MAD.

So their crime was sloppily tossing out paperwork that may have contained sensitive information instead of shredding it?  I'll freely admit that that is poor procedure, but it's also about 9 football fields from being anything remotely felonious.  But then the documents they did shred were only shredded because they had incriminating evidence?  Which you conclude based on nothing but equal parts deranged specualtion and wishful thinking.  Do I have that right?  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 08, 2010, 01:50:20 PM
100% of TECs are pissed that Samardzija is on the 25-man roster.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 01:51:24 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 08, 2010, 01:50:20 PM
100% of TECs are pissed that Samardzija is on the 25-man roster.

Now that's a statistic I can set my watch by.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 08, 2010, 01:52:59 PM
FREE ESMAILITIN CARIBAD!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 01:55:06 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 08, 2010, 01:52:59 PM
FREE ESMAILITIN CARIBAD!
I'll get the Specials on the line.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 08, 2010, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.

I am a racist.  I hate running.  And I hate NASCAR.  I don't particularly like horse racing, either.   Rat race?  Fuck that, too.  I do enjoy those cute crawfish races.  But that's about it.

The Duck Races are nice.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 08, 2010, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on April 08, 2010, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.

I am a racist.  I hate running.  And I hate NASCAR.  I don't particularly like horse racing, either.   Rat race?  Fuck that, too.  I do enjoy those cute crawfish races.  But that's about it.

The Duck Races are nice.

Harley Race was pretty cool.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 08, 2010, 02:04:00 PM
Quote from: CT III on April 08, 2010, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 01:22:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 01:18:55 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 08, 2010, 09:51:33 AM
She really cracked that case wide open. It's already been noted that the poor innocent San Diego office that was expecting investigators to show up any day, did what any good little innocent organization would do to defend its name. They quietly organized their paper work so that state officials could quickly look it over and find no wrong doing. Nooo wait, i am fucking with you, they went into full document destruction mode, shredding and throwing out paperwork at a furious pace. 20,000 documents were recovered but that was likely the least important of the material. See so innocent they destroyed evidence like any normal innocent person would do.

Even for you this is utterly incomprehensible.  What are you yelling about?  I can't understand it.  Do you have anything to back up the assertion about these 20,000 documents being shredded or is that simply coming from the voices within your head?  

Face it, the horse you've been beating to death has turned out to be a red herring.  Go eat a bag of shit, drone.

He's just pissed that black people get to vote now.

And here comes the racist remark. If you have to drop to that level maybe your the real racist. Why is it its Democrats 99.9% of the time are the biggest race baiters in politics? I will just refer to Oleg as this boards token Racist from now on, thanks for exposing yourself.

I am a racist.  I hate running.  And I hate NASCAR.  I don't particularly like horse racing, either.   Rat race?  Fuck that, too.  I do enjoy those cute crawfish races.  But that's about it.

The Duck Races are nice.

Hell yeah. (http://www.demingduckrace.com/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 08, 2010, 02:14:50 PM
You want to see some racism?

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100407/NEWS02/4070349/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 08, 2010, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 08, 2010, 02:14:50 PM
You want to see some racism?

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100407/NEWS02/4070349/

Big deal. Everyone's batshit in Yonkers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 02:29:01 PM
Quote from: Fork on April 08, 2010, 02:22:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 08, 2010, 02:14:50 PM
You want to see some racism?

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100407/NEWS02/4070349/

Big deal. Everyone's batshit Lost in Yonkers.

Theatre Fhag'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 08, 2010, 03:45:08 PM
Just wanted to get this up quickly so MikeC can get back to criticizing all of us Fartbama sycophants: he has been godawful on civil liberties.

QuoteFrom a civil libertarian point of view, we're in a much worse place than we were during the Bush administration, when Democrats were willing to oppose Bush's expansive claims of executive authority. Now we have only muted criticism from Democratic legislators and hysterical cries from Republicans that Obama isn't going far enough.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2010&base_name=civil_liberties_coaltion_dont

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 03:51:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 08, 2010, 03:45:08 PM
Just wanted to get this up quickly so MikeC can get back to criticizing all of us Fartbama sycophants: he has been godawful on civil liberties.

QuoteFrom a civil libertarian point of view, we're in a much worse place than we were during the Bush administration, when Democrats were willing to oppose Bush's expansive claims of executive authority. Now we have only muted criticism from Democratic legislators and hysterical cries from Republicans that Obama isn't going far enough.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2010&base_name=civil_liberties_coaltion_dont

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Much like Clinton, I find so many reasons to be disappointed in Obama that have nothing to do with right-wing hack punditry.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenFoe on April 08, 2010, 04:02:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 08, 2010, 03:51:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 08, 2010, 03:45:08 PM
Just wanted to get this up quickly so MikeC can get back to criticizing all of us Fartbama sycophants: he has been godawful on civil liberties.

QuoteFrom a civil libertarian point of view, we're in a much worse place than we were during the Bush administration, when Democrats were willing to oppose Bush's expansive claims of executive authority. Now we have only muted criticism from Democratic legislators and hysterical cries from Republicans that Obama isn't going far enough.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2010&base_name=civil_liberties_coaltion_dont

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Much like Clinton, I find so many reasons to be disappointed in Obama that have nothing to do with right-wing hack punditry.

Like the fact that he continues to sit idly by as Commander in Chief while Mike Fontenot remains gainfully employed?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 08, 2010, 04:27:29 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on April 08, 2010, 04:02:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 08, 2010, 03:51:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 08, 2010, 03:45:08 PM
Just wanted to get this up quickly so MikeC can get back to criticizing all of us Fartbama sycophants: he has been godawful on civil liberties.

QuoteFrom a civil libertarian point of view, we're in a much worse place than we were during the Bush administration, when Democrats were willing to oppose Bush's expansive claims of executive authority. Now we have only muted criticism from Democratic legislators and hysterical cries from Republicans that Obama isn't going far enough.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2010&base_name=civil_liberties_coaltion_dont

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Much like Clinton, I find so many reasons to be disappointed in Obama that have nothing to do with right-wing hack punditry.

Like the fact that he continues to sit idly by as Commander in Chief while Mike Fontenot remains gainfully employed?

I hate this team.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on April 08, 2010, 04:32:15 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on April 08, 2010, 04:02:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 08, 2010, 03:51:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 08, 2010, 03:45:08 PM
Just wanted to get this up quickly so MikeC can get back to criticizing all of us Fartbama sycophants: he has been godawful on civil liberties.

QuoteFrom a civil libertarian point of view, we're in a much worse place than we were during the Bush administration, when Democrats were willing to oppose Bush's expansive claims of executive authority. Now we have only muted criticism from Democratic legislators and hysterical cries from Republicans that Obama isn't going far enough.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2010&base_name=civil_liberties_coaltion_dont

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

Much like Clinton, I find so many reasons to be disappointed in Obama that have nothing to do with right-wing hack punditry.

Like the fact that he continues to sit idly by as Commander in Chief while Mike Fontenot remains gainfully employed?

If we had a real American, who understands our national pastime, as president as opposed to some Kenyan, he find a way to rid us of Mike Fontenot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2010, 04:42:15 PM
Why cutting the federal budget is hard, AKA, Americans are dumb.

(http://www.themonkeycage.org/budgetpoll.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 04:53:26 PM
Needs a bigger chart.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2010, 05:46:50 PM
Quote from: Oleg on April 08, 2010, 04:53:26 PM
Needs a bigger chart.

Don't test me, shortstack; it can be done.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 05:48:31 PM
The obvious one to cut is Social Security.  There's no reason not to raise the retirement age (at least for those who have yet to pay into the system) and means test it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 08, 2010, 05:51:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 05:48:31 PM
The obvious one to cut is Social Security.  There's no reason not to raise the retirement age (at least for those who have yet to pay into the system) and means test it.

THIS.

Our life expectancy's grown.  It's silly to keep the minimum age at 62.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on April 08, 2010, 06:24:41 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 05:51:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 05:48:31 PM
The obvious one to cut is Social Security.  There's no reason not to raise the retirement age (at least for those who have yet to pay into the system) and means test it.

THIS.

Our life expectancy's grown.  It's silly to keep the minimum age at 62.

That's a bit optimistic. Are you aware of how much you I drink?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 07:12:54 PM
Quote from: flannj on April 08, 2010, 06:24:41 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 08, 2010, 05:51:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 08, 2010, 05:48:31 PM
The obvious one to cut is Social Security.  There's no reason not to raise the retirement age (at least for those who have yet to pay into the system) and means test it.

THIS.

Our life expectancy's grown.  It's silly to keep the minimum age at 62.

That's a bit optimistic. Are you aware of how much you I drink?

Then, thanks in advance for paying and not collecting.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 09, 2010, 10:52:51 AM
John Paul Stevens is available. Leon Trostsky with a gavel. (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/justice-stevens-will-retire-this-summer.php)

And the court will continue to shift to the right, as Obama is too 'pragmatic' to appoint a dyed-in-the-wool librul to Stevens' seat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 09, 2010, 11:20:32 AM

this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/09/obama-brushes-of-palin-on-nuclear-deal/?fbid=BlWS7bWzljJ#more-98751) = this (http://bitchmakemeasandwich.com/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 10, 2010, 05:47:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 26, 2010, 03:02:12 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 26, 2010, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2010, 12:48:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2010, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 26, 2010, 12:25:44 PM

So, if Obama wants to run in 2012 as a fiscal conservative, can he, by your statement, not be constrained by his prior actions?  What is to prevent him from campaigning as this, per your articulation?  Can't he just say, "that was the old Obama, this is the new Obama."  

Principles only mean something when they are inconvenient to yourself.  If someone in your party, either the President or some school board member in Bumfuck, Mississippi, isn't abiding by your principles, then call them out.  Same goes for the Democrats.  If principles mean anything, stand by them, not just when the locks changes on the White House doors.  

Actions mean more than words.

What do you want?  Do you want me to just agree that everyone in government is always going to increase spending?  Or can I hope that at least one of the parties can control itself at some future point?  I don't understand what you are getting at, other than saying "those guys voted for entitlements back in 2004 or whenever, therefore they cannot be against increased entitlements now."

I was against Part D in 2004.  Does that make my views today acceptable?

Honest question, do you ever get sick of having the politicians you are given the choice to elect let you down? I suppose this could be addressed to anyone, not just Morph.

I know I lean left but I don't consider myself a democrat by any means. In that vein, I'm continually annoyed with/disappointed in/fed up with people from all parties. I realize the only way to shape the country the way you'd like to see it is to be active and vote and that's great. It just seems to me that if your guys get in office they don't do what they promised/what you voted for. If the other guys get in, they don't help you either.

Seems like there's never a winner in this stuff. Hence, disillusionment. I really enjoy reading about history and how things got to be the way they are. With that, you'd think I'd be more interested in helping shape current policy. Truth is, it's just too frustrating to get over involved.

I will finish this misplaced mini-rant by saying that I appreciate you and TJ and anyone else who isn't Mike C or his alter-ego Freakmaster giving your differing point of views without resorting to...well...the shit Mike C posts.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote.

I post the way i do now because its fun to be on the other end nit picking the shit out of your party like you guys did to Republicans over the last 8 years. I love posting stuff that shows your politicians as scumbags, liars, and portrays them as corrupt as shit. You guys got the ball, you guys can now do it way you said you were going to do it. Be the Democrats haven't done jack shit about corruption, they just have doubled down and been twice a sneaky and corrupt.

I will keep flinging the mud, because its fun to expose the hypocrisy of your views and stances when you decry a Republican, but let a Democrat slip by. I get amusement out of it, you guys just get pissy and moan and attack me instead of addressing why Mr. Obama is saying one thing and doing another. Slap each other on the ass some more, if it makes you feel better at night.

Ass slappin' feels good any time of the day. Doesn't have to be night time.

There's a suspicious remark if ever I've heard one (http://deadspin.com/5513569/the-curious-case-of-the-ball-state-ass-slapper).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 11, 2010, 04:53:09 PM
Watch out for that snake-oil science stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSxz4mTzSI0).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 12, 2010, 07:08:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 08, 2010, 02:14:50 PM
You want to see some racism?

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100407/NEWS02/4070349/

(http://i40.tinypic.com/153a5qv.jpg)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084899/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Dog
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 13, 2010, 01:48:28 PM

No way this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_militia) goes wrong, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: RedBeard on April 13, 2010, 06:09:11 PM
Let them secede.  What will we lose?  Pecans?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Indolent Reader on April 14, 2010, 11:06:08 AM
Quote from: RedBeard on April 13, 2010, 06:09:11 PM
Let them secede.  What will we lose?  Pecans?

The Flaming Lips.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Whole lotta teabaggers running around the loop today. Pretty entertaining. They've got signs and everything. It's nice to be able to see what real Americans look like. I've been living in a fantasy land.

Anyway, what's up with people waiting until the last minute to pay their taxes? Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Ditto.  My refund's already been dispersed and spent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 15, 2010, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Whole lotta teabaggers running around the loop today. Pretty entertaining. They've got signs and everything. It's nice to be able to see what real Americans look like. I've been living in a fantasy land.

Old white guys? (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/teabag-nation.html)

QuoteThe 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

How many Bacci slices you get back?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Ditto.  My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

Some people don't get refunds, so they wait until the last minute to file.

/not sayin'
//just sayin'
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:47:39 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2010, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Whole lotta teabaggers running around the loop today. Pretty entertaining. They've got signs and everything. It's nice to be able to see what real Americans look like. I've been living in a fantasy land.

Old white guys? (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/teabag-nation.html)

QuoteThe 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

How many Bacci slices you get back?

RV, he's already folded them and put them in his pockets. Don't make him count them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:48:05 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Ditto.  My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

Some people don't get refunds, so they wait until the last minute to file.

/not sayin'
//just sayin'

THI

Those bastards get my money at the last minute, and not before.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:48:05 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Ditto.  My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

Some people don't get refunds, so they wait until the last minute to file.

/not sayin'
//just sayin'

THI

Those bastards get my money at the last minute, and not before.

Consider me learned.

Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2010, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Whole lotta teabaggers running around the loop today. Pretty entertaining. They've got signs and everything. It's nice to be able to see what real Americans look like. I've been living in a fantasy land.

Old white guys? (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/teabag-nation.html)

The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.

Unsurprisingly, the five people I saw were older gentlemen of the Caucasian persuasion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 15, 2010, 02:00:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:48:05 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Ditto.  My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

Some people don't get refunds, so they wait until the last minute to file.

/not sayin'
//just sayin'

THI

Those bastards get my money at the last minute, and not before.

You could always overpay and earn 4% interest on the overage.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 15, 2010, 02:06:20 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on April 15, 2010, 02:00:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:48:05 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Ditto.  My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

Some people don't get refunds, so they wait until the last minute to file.

/not sayin'
//just sayin'

THI

Those bastards get my money at the last minute, and not before.

You could always overpay and earn 4% interest on the overage.


I was thinking of underpaying and hoping for the best. My tax attorneys at Snipes, Nelson, and Foxx recommended it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 15, 2010, 02:10:24 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:48:05 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Ditto.  My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

Some people don't get refunds, so they wait until the last minute to file.

/not sayin'
//just sayin'

THI

Those bastards get my money at the last minute, and not before.

Consider me learned.

Me, I was just a combination of lazy and on vacation. That's how I found myself stuck in this spot...

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Illinois-Tax-Web-Site-Down-On-Tax-Day-90951509.html

QuoteIllinois residents who waited until the last minute to file their taxes are going to have a difficult time doing so on-line because the Illinois Department of Revenue's pin application site is currently down and will likely remain so throughout the day, officials say.

That means anyone who hasn't filed online before will need to call an 800 number in order to get their pin so they can file online.

But here's the rub: the provided 800 numbers give a perpetual busy signal because so many frantic tax filers are calling.

Fucking Illinois.

Enjoy that extra 6 bucks you just wrung out of me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 02:18:29 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on April 15, 2010, 02:00:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:48:05 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 15, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Ditto.  My refund's already been dispersed and spent.

Some people don't get refunds, so they wait until the last minute to file.

/not sayin'
//just sayin'

THI

Those bastards get my money at the last minute, and not before.

You could always overpay and earn 4% interest on the overage.


When did the IRS start paying interest on refunds before April 15th?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 15, 2010, 02:29:50 PM
For Bort...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/lunch_break_153.html

I'll let Wikipedia describe: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_%2743)

QuoteIn the film, Donald Duck is portrayed as an everyman who has just received his weekly pay. He is met by two physical manifestations of his personality — the classic "good angel on one shoulder, bad devil on the other shoulder" dilemma common to cartoons of the time — identified as the "thrifty saver" and the "spendthrift."

The "good duck" appears as a slightly elderly duck with a Scottish accent who wears a kilt and Scottish cap and urges Donald to be thrifty with his money so he can be sure to pay his taxes for the war effort. The "bad duck" appears as a zoot suit-wearing hipster who urges Donald to spend his duly earned money on idle pleasures such as "good dates". The good angel reminds of other "dates" - the dates when his taxes are due. (In the 1940s, income taxes were paid directly by workers every three months and not directly removed from employee paychecks as is done today.) The narrator explains that Americans should "gladly and proudly" pay their income taxes which are higher that year "thanks to Hitler and Hirohito."

A tug-of-war ensues between "spend" and "save" with Donald caught in the middle. Eventually the two sides give way and crash on opposite ends of Donald to reveal the "true" selves: the doors of the bad duck's club are revealed to be swastikas and the bad duck himself turns out to bear a resemblance to Hitler (his bow tie is now a swastika and he has grown Hitler's characteristic mustache) while the wall the good duck has crashed up against resembles the flag of the United States. The narrator then asks the audience if they are going to "spend for the Axis" or "save for taxes." Having made the seemingly obvious choice, Donald is assumed to shake hands with the bad duck, but it is revealed that he heads over to the bad duck to punch him out at the last second. He then goes to proudly pay his taxes with the good duck.

Looks like you even have a category set aside for this one (http://hitlergettingpunched.blogspot.com/search/label/Donald%20Duck%20Punching%20Hitler).

The relevant moment comes a bit after the 2:00 mark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ69X1qt4sQ#t=2m).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 15, 2010, 02:37:53 PM
Adding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iumEGAUceDg
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 15, 2010, 08:14:27 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 15, 2010, 02:29:50 PM
For Bort...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/lunch_break_153.html

I'll let Wikipedia describe: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_%2743)

QuoteIn the film, Donald Duck is portrayed as an everyman who has just received his weekly pay. He is met by two physical manifestations of his personality — the classic "good angel on one shoulder, bad devil on the other shoulder" dilemma common to cartoons of the time — identified as the "thrifty saver" and the "spendthrift."

The "good duck" appears as a slightly elderly duck with a Scottish accent who wears a kilt and Scottish cap and urges Donald to be thrifty with his money so he can be sure to pay his taxes for the war effort. The "bad duck" appears as a zoot suit-wearing hipster who urges Donald to spend his duly earned money on idle pleasures such as "good dates". The good angel reminds of other "dates" - the dates when his taxes are due. (In the 1940s, income taxes were paid directly by workers every three months and not directly removed from employee paychecks as is done today.) The narrator explains that Americans should "gladly and proudly" pay their income taxes which are higher that year "thanks to Hitler and Hirohito."

A tug-of-war ensues between "spend" and "save" with Donald caught in the middle. Eventually the two sides give way and crash on opposite ends of Donald to reveal the "true" selves: the doors of the bad duck's club are revealed to be swastikas and the bad duck himself turns out to bear a resemblance to Hitler (his bow tie is now a swastika and he has grown Hitler's characteristic mustache) while the wall the good duck has crashed up against resembles the flag of the United States. The narrator then asks the audience if they are going to "spend for the Axis" or "save for taxes." Having made the seemingly obvious choice, Donald is assumed to shake hands with the bad duck, but it is revealed that he heads over to the bad duck to punch him out at the last second. He then goes to proudly pay his taxes with the good duck.

Looks like you even have a category set aside for this one (http://hitlergettingpunched.blogspot.com/search/label/Donald%20Duck%20Punching%20Hitler).

The relevant moment comes a bit after the 2:00 mark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ69X1qt4sQ#t=2m).

Solid.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 15, 2010, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 15, 2010, 02:29:50 PM

Quote
The "good duck" appears as a slightly elderly duck with a Scottish accent who wears a kilt and Scottish cap and urges Donald to be thrifty with his money so he can be sure to pay his taxes for the war effort. The "bad duck" appears as a zoot suit-wearing hipster who urges Donald to spend his duly earned money on idle pleasures such as "good dates".

I'd buy a zoot suit in an instant. Reminds me of the good old days when the fantastically queer "Briarhouse" used to be a men's vintage store just north of the Loop. I don't think I even want cufflinks that aren't enamel on copper any more.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 15, 2010, 08:29:59 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on April 15, 2010, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 15, 2010, 02:29:50 PM

Quote
The "good duck" appears as a slightly elderly duck with a Scottish accent who wears a kilt and Scottish cap and urges Donald to be thrifty with his money so he can be sure to pay his taxes for the war effort. The "bad duck" appears as a zoot suit-wearing hipster who urges Donald to spend his duly earned money on idle pleasures such as "good dates".

I'd buy a zoot suit in an instant. Reminds me of the good old days when the fantastically queer "Briarhouse" used to be a men's vintage store just north of the Loop. I don't think I even want cufflinks that aren't enamel on copper any more.

I'm saving up for a drape coat (http://www.covertcandy.co.uk/covertblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/teds1962.jpg) myself. Then I can give that Johnny Rotten what for.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on April 15, 2010, 08:40:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Whole lotta teabaggers running around the loop today. Pretty entertaining. They've got signs and everything. It's nice to be able to see what real Americans look like. I've been living in a fantasy land.

Anyway, what's up with people waiting until the last minute to pay their taxes? Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Some people couldn't e-file* because of some ridiculous laws that prohibit new residents from e-filing so they actually had to print their return out and actually go drop it off in the mailbox because the mailman doesn't pick up outgoing mail from their apartment and they forgot because they've been hellas busy ok.

/not sayin
//just sayin

* just in wisconsin (but it's not me per se).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2010, 11:01:57 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on April 15, 2010, 08:40:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 11:40:40 AM
Whole lotta teabaggers running around the loop today. Pretty entertaining. They've got signs and everything. It's nice to be able to see what real Americans look like. I've been living in a fantasy land.

Anyway, what's up with people waiting until the last minute to pay their taxes? Am I just lucky to have an accountant for a father or what?

Some people couldn't e-file* because of some ridiculous laws that prohibit new residents from e-filing so they actually had to print their return out and actually go drop it off in the mailbox because the mailman doesn't pick up outgoing mail from their apartment and they forgot because they've been hellas busy ok.

/not sayin
//just sayin

* just in wisconsin (but it's not me per se).

There are other reasons that one cannot e-file.  I made an 83(b) election this year, for example (connected with the new cheddar-stacking gig) and as it turns out if you do an 83(b) you cannot e-file.  //just sayin
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 19, 2010, 07:45:56 PM
Some guy on some motorcycle messageboard...

http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=565866
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 19, 2010, 08:46:41 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 19, 2010, 07:45:56 PM
Some guy on some motorcycle messageboard...

http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=565866

Good read - how did find that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 19, 2010, 11:37:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 19, 2010, 08:46:41 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 19, 2010, 07:45:56 PM
Some guy on some motorcycle messageboard...

http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=565866

Good read - how did find that?

Same place I first read about John Tesh banging Oprah Winfrey: The Poor Man (http://thepoorman.net/2010/04/06/well-all-take-turns-ill-get-mine-too/) (via some commenter at Balloon Juice (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/05/tea-is-the-new-black/#comment-1675644)).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 20, 2010, 08:45:49 AM
This is amusing. (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/tea_party_financiers_owe_their_fortune_to_joseph_stalin_20100418/)

QuoteThe Tea Party movement's dirty little secret is that its chief financial backers owe their family fortune to the granddaddy of all their hatred: Stalin's godless empire of the USSR. The secretive oil billionaires of the Koch family, the main supporters of the right-wing groups that orchestrated the Tea Party movement, would not have the means to bankroll their favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 23, 2010, 08:22:34 AM
More analysis on Health Care Reform and the news isn't good...

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/numbers-were-lie-all-along.html

QuotePresident Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

What is crushing financial debt on an unsustainable entitlement going to do to this nation? We are about to find out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 23, 2010, 08:24:25 AM
(http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/cf/27/ssennom/folder/15/img_15_20_4?1263418055.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 23, 2010, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 23, 2010, 08:24:25 AM
(http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/cf/27/ssennom/folder/15/img_15_20_4?1263418055.jpg)

Wait...what.....what....what were we talking about.......
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 27, 2010, 09:20:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

I have seen that ad and wondered if it was true but haven't bothered to research it. I know GM's sales were down by over 30% since the bailout, so i kinda wondered where they came up with the cash when they clearly weren't selling cars. A car company owned by the Obama Administration telling lies now? Unpossible!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

According to a news source and not "Reason":

Quotethe Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

So, GM paid back the loan portion of the US bail out funds.  This totaled $6.7 billion.  But, they still owe Canada $8.1 billion.

It would be just as accurate to say that GM paid back the US with Canadian funds as it would be to say that they used "TARP" funds to pay back the loan.

Bottom line: GM has paid back a loan quicker than they were supposed to.  That's good, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 27, 2010, 09:59:21 AM
My latest outrage is with Chris Dodd. But first a refresher course.....this is a man who was neck deep in the housing crisis, and fought George Bush's attempts at regulatory overhaul by exclaiming nothing was wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also helped write the massive stimulus bill, that did nothing it promised. His little fingers also dabbled in helping write the Health Care Reform bill that is so badly written with budget gimmicks, and flat out false hoods, it can't possible do anything its promised to do.

Now Senator Dodd, who will choose retirement rather than face the voters (who will likely vote his ass out), has moved onto Financial Reform. Basically everything this guy touches is a crap sandwich smothered in a fat philly fans vomit.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/chris_dodd_carve_outs_for_cronies_MT1U7GBEPvzX3QXProqC9L

QuoteThe Senate bill, sponsored by Democrat Chris Dodd, claims to subject all "too big to fail" institutions to greater federal supervision, but in fact it only mandates such regulation for bank-holding companies. Regulators would have to make a case-by-case decision on whether to apply it to other financial companies.

That's no minor oversight, because insurance companies, like AIG, tend to have thrift charters rather than bank charters. So, as the bill stands now, AIG and other insurers that accepted massive bailout funds, such as The Hartford, would not be automatically covered. That's a head-scratcher only if you forget that most insurance companies reside in Dodd's home state, Connecticut.

QuoteRemember the mortgage crisis? Well, the primary consumer-protection law for homebuyers is the 1974 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The law requires the timely, accurate disclosure of relevant closing costs and prohibits "kickbacks" for the steering of settlement services.

For example, your real-estate agent cannot, under RESPA, be paid a fee for steering you toward a certain home inspector, title company or other closing service. Yet, under the Dodd bill, real-estate agents would be exempted from RESPA. If that weren't bad enough, the Dodd bill exempts insurers and attorneys -- both now subject to RESPA -- from its consumer protections, too

I almost forgot, Chris Dodd was leading the charge in the Auto Bailout as well, I believe him and Barney Frank helped craft that as well.. He was also the one that wanted then GM CEO Rick Wagoner removed and replaced with the someone that never ran a car company, but he is apparently pretty good at smoke and mirrors budgeting.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 27, 2010, 10:02:54 AM

Interesting.

Mainly because the whole time I was reading that, I was thinking about titties.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 27, 2010, 10:08:38 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 27, 2010, 10:02:54 AM

Interesting.

Mainly because the whole time I was reading that, I was thinking about titties.

I assume that's the reason for his Reon Kadena avatar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 27, 2010, 10:34:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on April 27, 2010, 09:59:21 AM

Now Senator Dodd, who will choose retirement rather than face the voters (who will likely vote his ass out), has moved onto Financial Reform. Basically everything this guy touches is a crap sandwich smothered in a fat philly fans vomit.



Regardless of what I think of Mike's politics, this is a great line.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

According to a news source and not "Reason":

Quotethe Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

So, GM paid back the loan portion of the US bail out funds.  This totaled $6.7 billion.  But, they still owe Canada $8.1 billion.

It would be just as accurate to say that GM paid back the US with Canadian funds as it would be to say that they used "TARP" funds to pay back the loan.

Bottom line: GM has paid back a loan quicker than they were supposed to.  That's good, right?

They simply swapped debt for more equity.

So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 27, 2010, 11:43:06 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

According to a news source and not "Reason":

Quotethe Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

So, GM paid back the loan portion of the US bail out funds.  This totaled $6.7 billion.  But, they still owe Canada $8.1 billion.

It would be just as accurate to say that GM paid back the US with Canadian funds as it would be to say that they used "TARP" funds to pay back the loan.

Bottom line: GM has paid back a loan quicker than they were supposed to.  That's good, right?

They simply swapped debt for more equity.

So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

SELL!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

According to a news source and not "Reason":

Quotethe Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

So, GM paid back the loan portion of the US bail out funds.  This totaled $6.7 billion.  But, they still owe Canada $8.1 billion.

It would be just as accurate to say that GM paid back the US with Canadian funds as it would be to say that they used "TARP" funds to pay back the loan.

Bottom line: GM has paid back a loan quicker than they were supposed to.  That's good, right?

They simply swapped debt for more equity.

So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

GM would probably help themselves out if they just made better cars.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 27, 2010, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

According to a news source and not "Reason":

Quotethe Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

So, GM paid back the loan portion of the US bail out funds.  This totaled $6.7 billion.  But, they still owe Canada $8.1 billion.

It would be just as accurate to say that GM paid back the US with Canadian funds as it would be to say that they used "TARP" funds to pay back the loan.

Bottom line: GM has paid back a loan quicker than they were supposed to.  That's good, right?

They simply swapped debt for more equity.

So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

GM would probably help themselves out if they just made better cars.

As I recall it, the year they sold the most cars they ever have (2007?) they also posted their biggest loss.  That cannot be a sound business model.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

According to a news source and not "Reason":

Quotethe Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

So, GM paid back the loan portion of the US bail out funds.  This totaled $6.7 billion.  But, they still owe Canada $8.1 billion.

It would be just as accurate to say that GM paid back the US with Canadian funds as it would be to say that they used "TARP" funds to pay back the loan.

Bottom line: GM has paid back a loan quicker than they were supposed to.  That's good, right?

They simply swapped debt for more equity.

So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

GM would probably help themselves us out if they we just made better cars.

Assuming 350 million Americans, you own about $130 in GM equity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

No, but owning $45.3 billion in stock is better than owning $45.3 billion in stock and $6.3 billion in unsecured debt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

According to a news source and not "Reason":

Quotethe Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

So, GM paid back the loan portion of the US bail out funds.  This totaled $6.7 billion.  But, they still owe Canada $8.1 billion.

It would be just as accurate to say that GM paid back the US with Canadian funds as it would be to say that they used "TARP" funds to pay back the loan.

Bottom line: GM has paid back a loan quicker than they were supposed to.  That's good, right?

They simply swapped debt for more equity.

So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

GM would probably help themselves us out if they we just made better cars.

Assuming 350 million Americans, you own about $130 in GM equity.

Where's my employee discount then?!?!?!?!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 12:57:15 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 23, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
General Motors paid back its original TARP loans... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-XrbVFG7o0)

... with other TARP money. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/23/gm-pays-back-tarp-loans-withta)


Fuck you, Ed Whitacre. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSNPFVLIWjI)

According to a news source and not "Reason":

Quotethe Associated Press reported, GM received a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. The U.S. considered $6.7 billion of the $52 billion as a loan.

In fact, GM still owes $45.3 billion to the U.S. and $8.1 billion to Canada, money it received in exchange for shares in the company. GM said it hopes to repay those amounts with an eventual public stock offering, the AP reported.

So, GM paid back the loan portion of the US bail out funds.  This totaled $6.7 billion.  But, they still owe Canada $8.1 billion.

It would be just as accurate to say that GM paid back the US with Canadian funds as it would be to say that they used "TARP" funds to pay back the loan.

Bottom line: GM has paid back a loan quicker than they were supposed to.  That's good, right?

They simply swapped debt for more equity.

So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

GM would probably help themselves us out if they we just made better cars.

Assuming 350 million Americans, you own about $130 in GM equity.

Where's my employee discount then?!?!?!?!

Employee? Fuck that. You're the employer. Might make any dealings you have with the UAW a little, um, awkward. Except they own more than you. (Or maybe it's Chrysler they own a shitload of)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 27, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

No, but owning $45.3 billion in stock is better than owning $45.3 52 billion in stock and $6.3 billion in unsecured debt.

Capital structure math'd.  And I'm not so sure of your logic, since bondholders > stockholders in a liquidation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 01:01:00 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

No, but owning $45.3 billion in stock is better than owning $45.3 52 billion in stock and $6.3 billion in unsecured debt.

Capital structure math'd.  And I'm not so sure of your logic, since bondholders > stockholders in a liquidation.

If you believe that, in a liquidation, there would be enough cash to get to the unsecured bond holders after the secured parties, well, then I can't help you.

Given the risks of default, which are probably about equal in this scenario, the debt has no upside while the stock does.

I'm just happy they owe us less.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 27, 2010, 01:07:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 01:01:00 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2010, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2010, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 27, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
So, yeah, GM doesn't owe us any loans anymore, but we, the taxpayer "own" $45.3 billion in GM stock. Yay?

No, but owning $45.3 billion in stock is better than owning $45.3 52 billion in stock and $6.3 billion in unsecured debt.

Capital structure math'd.  And I'm not so sure of your logic, since bondholders > stockholders in a liquidation.

If you believe that, in a liquidation, there would be enough cash to get to the unsecured bond holders after the secured parties, well, then I can't help you.

Given the risks of default, which are probably about equal in this scenario, the debt has no upside while the stock does.

I'm just happy they owe us less.

Well, I can get behind that last statement.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 27, 2010, 06:21:48 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

Only if they bring along the Russians.

(http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834520b4b69e2010535e44700970b-500wi)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on April 27, 2010, 06:37:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

I'm going
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on April 27, 2010, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 27, 2010, 06:37:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

I'm going

I wish I could buy stock in hatefucking.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 27, 2010, 09:01:25 PM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Reminds me of the time my grandmother took me to a Saturday double feature of Cabaret and The Doberman Gang. Excellent choices for a six-year-old.

Anyway, about $8.50.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 28, 2010, 09:44:10 AM
ACORN!!!  Wait, no, just the GOP. (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/orange_county_gop_in_hot_water_after_report_of_vot.php?ref=fpb)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 28, 2010, 10:52:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Stew's contributions are of tjhe highest quality here, and this is no exception.  Awesome. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on April 28, 2010, 11:20:01 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 28, 2010, 09:44:10 AM
ACORN!!!  Wait, no, just the GOP. (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/orange_county_gop_in_hot_water_after_report_of_vot.php?ref=fpb)

I wonder how that could have happened.

Quote
voters being tricked into registering as Republicans by petitioners who asked them to sign petitions for, among other causes, legalizing pot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 10:52:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Stew's contributions are of tjhe highest quality here, and this is no exception.  Awesome. 

0.14 cents seems a bit low.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 28, 2010, 11:39:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 10:52:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Stew's contributions are of tjhe highest quality here, and this is no exception.  Awesome. 

0.14 cents seems a bit low.

I'm sure FDR's socialist regime subsidized it in large part, morph.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 28, 2010, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 11:39:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 10:52:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Stew's contributions are of tjhe highest quality here, and this is no exception.  Awesome. 

0.14 cents seems a bit low.

I'm sure FDR's socialist regime subsidized it in large part, morph.

According to my grandfather.67 cents got you 2 bottles of RC Cola, a moon pie, and a slave in those days.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 28, 2010, 11:49:17 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 28, 2010, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 11:39:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 10:52:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Stew's contributions are of tjhe highest quality here, and this is no exception.  Awesome. 

0.14 cents seems a bit low.

I'm sure FDR's socialist regime subsidized it in large part, morph.

According to my grandfather.67 cents got you 2 bottles of RC Cola, a moon pie, and a slave in those days.

That's a lot of bees.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 28, 2010, 11:56:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 28, 2010, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 11:39:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 10:52:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Stew's contributions are of tjhe highest quality here, and this is no exception.  Awesome. 

0.14 cents seems a bit low.

I'm sure FDR's socialist regime subsidized it in large part, morph.

According to my grandfather.67 cents got you 2 bottles of RC Cola, a moon pie, and a slave in those days.

I'll just leave this internet classic right here:  http://www.theonion.com/articles/rc-cola-celebrates-10th-purchase,1674/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 11:58:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 10:52:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Stew's contributions are of tjhe highest quality here, and this is no exception.  Awesome. 

0.14 cents seems a bit low.

http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 28, 2010, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 11:58:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 10:52:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 27, 2010, 08:12:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 27, 2010, 05:40:19 PM
BEST. IDEA. EVER. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/sarah-palin-lookalike-con_n_553826.html)

The Admiral Theater was my neighborhood theater when I lived in Albany Park in the 1940's.  Cost me .14 cents to go to a Saturday matinee to see a double feature, cartoon and a newsreel.  What does a Saturday matinee cost now?  (Penicillin shot not included)

Stew's contributions are of tjhe highest quality here, and this is no exception.  Awesome. 

0.14 cents seems a bit low.

http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/

(http://becauseitisawesome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/nice_verizon_check.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 12:44:04 PM
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/04/500x_custom_1272401669137_washpost1.jpg)

Washington Post = Racists.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Indolent Reader on April 28, 2010, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 12:44:04 PM
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/04/500x_custom_1272401669137_washpost1.jpg)

Washington Post = Racists.

Wow.  Can't get on their website - apparently a few other people decided to check it out for themselves as well.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: Indolent Reader on April 28, 2010, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 28, 2010, 12:44:04 PM
(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/04/500x_custom_1272401669137_washpost1.jpg)

Washington Post = Racists.

Wow.  Can't get on their website - apparently a few other people decided to check it out for themselves as well.

It's already been fixed.  http://gawker.com/5525783/the-washington-post-cannot-tell-obama-from-malcolm-x
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 28, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?

Is Chuck instructing us how to commit check fraud?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 28, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?

Is Chuck instructing us how to commit check fraud?

I think he's fishing for a lawsuit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on April 28, 2010, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 28, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?

Is Chuck instructing us how to commit check fraud?

I think he's fishing for a lawsuit.

Andy better lawyer up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 28, 2010, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 28, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?

Is Chuck instructing us how to commit check fraud?

I think he's fishing for a lawsuit.

Andy better lawyer up.

Since I came to the shoutbox first, I'm suing Kerm.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on April 28, 2010, 02:16:42 PM
That financial reform bill authorizes 4 trillion in lending authority for the Fed. Unlimited bailouts forever of companies. Obama administration is at war with the private sector and seeks to eliminate them from the game and replace them with government friendly businesses run by only a handful of massive banks/companies. Its easier to control a few big companies than hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Some of the damage this bill could cause....

Quote-Local community banks will be subject to at least 27 new regulations that could put many of them out of business.

-Harley-Davidson is worried that its dealer-financed loans to bikers will fall victim to new federal financing regulations.

-eBay may be harmed by restrictions on PayPal, a subsidiary, in moving money in the Internet marketplace.

-Small businesses that rely on credit cards, small credit lines, home equity loans and other types of credit will lose access to these life lines that keep their businesses operating—and employing workers.

Goldman Sach's and Citigroup wanting financial reform, is about the biggest clue you can find that this has nothing to do with helping the average citizen. Much like the Obama Administration withholding damaging info about Health Care reform, they are blowing smoke up your ass on this one as well.

And take a look at Primerica (a member of citigroup) and what they do....

http://www.businessinsider.com/citigroup-primerica-ipo-2010-4

I came away from that thinking it looks a lot like a pyramid scheme.

Hey, federal dollars can prop that system up forever.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Kermit IV on April 28, 2010, 03:42:34 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 28, 2010, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 28, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?

Is Chuck instructing us how to commit check fraud?

I think he's fishing for a lawsuit.

Andy better lawyer up.

Since I came to the shoutbox first, I'm suing Kerm.

Crap.  Does anyone know any good lawyers?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 28, 2010, 03:55:30 PM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 28, 2010, 03:42:34 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 28, 2010, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 28, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?

Is Chuck instructing us how to commit check fraud?

I think he's fishing for a lawsuit.

Andy better lawyer up.

Since I came to the shoutbox first, I'm suing Kerm.

Crap.  Does anyone know any good lawyers?

Most of the lawyers I know aren't fit to run a softball team.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on April 28, 2010, 05:10:41 PM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 28, 2010, 03:42:34 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 28, 2010, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 28, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?

Is Chuck instructing us how to commit check fraud?

I think he's fishing for a lawsuit.

Andy better lawyer up.

Since I came to the shoutbox first, I'm suing Kerm.

Crap.  Does anyone know any good lawyers?

Nope
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 28, 2010, 06:54:46 PM
Quote from: thehawk on April 28, 2010, 05:10:41 PM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 28, 2010, 03:42:34 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 28, 2010, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: MAD on April 28, 2010, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 28, 2010, 12:59:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 28, 2010, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 28, 2010, 12:44:39 PM
Nice job pixelating out the address and the MICR line on thecheck.

Didja notice the fractio below the check number?

Is Chuck instructing us how to commit check fraud?

I think he's fishing for a lawsuit.

Andy better lawyer up.

Since I came to the shoutbox first, I'm suing Kerm.

Crap.  Does anyone know any good lawyers?

Nope

Same here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 29, 2010, 08:14:13 AM
TSA! TSA! (http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/04/a-story-we-somehow-knew-was-coming-tsa-dept/39659/)

Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 08:33:39 AM
Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Those Israelis are pussies.  They don't even arm their pilots with guns!  How is their record against hijackings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

Oh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 29, 2010, 08:52:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 08:33:39 AM
Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Those Israelis are pussies.  They don't even arm their pilots with guns!  How is their record against hijackings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

Oh.

That's it. I'm suing G-D.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 29, 2010, 08:58:43 AM
Quote"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."

Laura Bush, from her new memoirs; probably the most decent person in the White House in those eight years.

Also:
QuoteThis week, Bill Frist, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader again offered qualified praise for the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Bob Bennett is on the verge of losing his primary in Utah, primarily because he briefly sponsored a health care bill with Ron Wyden that went nowhere.

What these two episodes show is the degree to which the Republican Party lurched to the right during the health care debate. Ideas that were until recently moderate became dangerous socialism. Right-wing elites like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Congressional leadership led the opposition to health care reform, whipping the base into a frenzy. That frenzy, in turn, pulled the whole rest of the party along with it. It's pretty clear that plenty of Republicans in Washington would have liked to cut a deal if left to their own devices, but they weren't left to their own devices.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-gop-hcr-lurch-and-the-republicans-left-behind

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 09:02:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 29, 2010, 08:52:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 08:33:39 AM
Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Those Israelis are pussies.  They don't even arm their pilots with guns!  How is their record against hijackings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

Oh.

That's it. I'm suing G-D.

(http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2008/04/06/heston-tenx.jpg)

Lay down some laws.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on April 29, 2010, 09:33:18 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 09:02:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 29, 2010, 08:52:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 08:33:39 AM
Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Those Israelis are pussies.  They don't even arm their pilots with guns!  How is their record against hijackings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

Oh.

That's it. I'm suing G-D.

(http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2008/04/06/heston-tenx.jpg)

Lay down some laws.

I prefer

(http://distinctlywelcoming.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ef71e048834011571564432970b-800wi)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 29, 2010, 09:33:18 AM
I prefer

(http://distinctlywelcoming.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ef71e048834011571564432970b-800wi)

Only 2 tablets?  I thought there were three.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on April 29, 2010, 09:55:06 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: Oleg on April 29, 2010, 09:33:18 AM
I prefer

(http://distinctlywelcoming.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ef71e048834011571564432970b-800wi)

Only 2 tablets?  I thought there were three.

(http://lesposen.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/picture-7.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 29, 2010, 10:03:46 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 29, 2010, 08:52:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 08:33:39 AM
Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Those Israelis are pussies.  They don't even arm their pilots with guns!  How is their record against hijackings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

Oh.

That's it. I'm suing G-D.

Better get yourself a good prophet. (http://www.google.com/search?q=covenant+lawsuit)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on April 29, 2010, 10:32:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 08:33:39 AM
Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Those Israelis are pussies.  They don't even arm their pilots with guns!  How is their record against hijackings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

Oh.

The El AL model works for El AL, but it isn't very scalable (cant find numbers, but American probably flies more flights per day from O'Hare than El AL flies overall):

http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-the-el-al-israeli-security-model-will-never-work-here-2010-1

And that article doesnt get into the fact that the Israelis have marshalls on every flight (who appear to be much more professional than US marshalls (who are on only a small percentage of US flights))

It may make sense to hold off buying the scanners if they don't work (TSA/HS is becoming the new military industrial complex, and we still have the old one), but our air systems requires some level of technology.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 29, 2010, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 29, 2010, 08:58:43 AM
Quote"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."

Laura Bush, from her new memoirs; probably the most decent person in the White House in those eight years.

Also:
QuoteThis week, Bill Frist, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader again offered qualified praise for the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Bob Bennett is on the verge of losing his primary in Utah, primarily because he briefly sponsored a health care bill with Ron Wyden that went nowhere.

What these two episodes show is the degree to which the Republican Party lurched to the right during the health care debate. Ideas that were until recently moderate became dangerous socialism. Right-wing elites like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Congressional leadership led the opposition to health care reform, whipping the base into a frenzy. That frenzy, in turn, pulled the whole rest of the party along with it. It's pretty clear that plenty of Republicans in Washington would have liked to cut a deal if left to their own devices, but they weren't left to their own devices.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-gop-hcr-lurch-and-the-republicans-left-behind

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that just because a person considers themselves a Republican doesn't mean they also have to be a frothing, anti-socialist sideshow of a person. There used to be something called a liberal Republican, was there not? Why wouldn't there still be such a thing?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 10:40:57 AM
Quote from: thehawk on April 29, 2010, 10:32:36 AM
The El AL model works for El AL, but it isn't very scalable (cant find numbers, but American probably flies more flights per day from O'Hare than El AL flies overall):

http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-the-el-al-israeli-security-model-will-never-work-here-2010-1

Perhaps.  But that article isn't a study, it's a reprint of a letter from a civilian.

As to the comment that "if each passenger / family got even a perfunctory 1-minute Q&A session with a TSA security officer, the system would crash," how much time is already spent waiting?  I'd trade 30 minutes waiting for a slot at the scanner for 2 minutes talking to a trained rep.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 29, 2010, 10:42:48 AM
Quote from: thehawk on April 29, 2010, 10:32:36 AM
It may make sense to hold off buying the scanners if they don't work (TSA/HS is becoming the new military industrial complex, and we still have the old one), but our air systems requires some level of technology.

Does whomping up a bit of thermite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ) count as a failure?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 29, 2010, 10:44:26 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 29, 2010, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 29, 2010, 08:58:43 AM
Quote"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."

Laura Bush, from her new memoirs; probably the most decent person in the White House in those eight years.

Also:
QuoteThis week, Bill Frist, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader again offered qualified praise for the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Bob Bennett is on the verge of losing his primary in Utah, primarily because he briefly sponsored a health care bill with Ron Wyden that went nowhere.

What these two episodes show is the degree to which the Republican Party lurched to the right during the health care debate. Ideas that were until recently moderate became dangerous socialism. Right-wing elites like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Congressional leadership led the opposition to health care reform, whipping the base into a frenzy. That frenzy, in turn, pulled the whole rest of the party along with it. It's pretty clear that plenty of Republicans in Washington would have liked to cut a deal if left to their own devices, but they weren't left to their own devices.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-gop-hcr-lurch-and-the-republicans-left-behind

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that just because a person considers themselves a Republican doesn't mean they also have to be a frothing, anti-socialist sideshow of a person. There used to be something called a liberal Republican, was there not? Why wouldn't there still be such a thing?

The Teabaggers and talk radio?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on April 29, 2010, 10:44:40 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 29, 2010, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 29, 2010, 08:58:43 AM
Quote"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."

Laura Bush, from her new memoirs; probably the most decent person in the White House in those eight years.

Also:
QuoteThis week, Bill Frist, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader again offered qualified praise for the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Bob Bennett is on the verge of losing his primary in Utah, primarily because he briefly sponsored a health care bill with Ron Wyden that went nowhere.

What these two episodes show is the degree to which the Republican Party lurched to the right during the health care debate. Ideas that were until recently moderate became dangerous socialism. Right-wing elites like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Congressional leadership led the opposition to health care reform, whipping the base into a frenzy. That frenzy, in turn, pulled the whole rest of the party along with it. It's pretty clear that plenty of Republicans in Washington would have liked to cut a deal if left to their own devices, but they weren't left to their own devices.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-gop-hcr-lurch-and-the-republicans-left-behind

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that just because a person considers themselves a Republican doesn't mean they also have to be a frothing, anti-socialist sideshow of a person. There used to be something called a liberal Republican, was there not? Why wouldn't there still be such a thing?

There are plenty of moderate Republicans out there, they're just no longer welcome in today's GOP.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 29, 2010, 10:46:43 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on April 29, 2010, 10:44:40 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 29, 2010, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 29, 2010, 08:58:43 AM
Quote"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."

Laura Bush, from her new memoirs; probably the most decent person in the White House in those eight years.

Also:
QuoteThis week, Bill Frist, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader again offered qualified praise for the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Bob Bennett is on the verge of losing his primary in Utah, primarily because he briefly sponsored a health care bill with Ron Wyden that went nowhere.

What these two episodes show is the degree to which the Republican Party lurched to the right during the health care debate. Ideas that were until recently moderate became dangerous socialism. Right-wing elites like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Congressional leadership led the opposition to health care reform, whipping the base into a frenzy. That frenzy, in turn, pulled the whole rest of the party along with it. It's pretty clear that plenty of Republicans in Washington would have liked to cut a deal if left to their own devices, but they weren't left to their own devices.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-gop-hcr-lurch-and-the-republicans-left-behind

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that just because a person considers themselves a Republican doesn't mean they also have to be a frothing, anti-socialist sideshow of a person. There used to be something called a liberal Republican, was there not? Why wouldn't there still be such a thing?

There are plenty of moderate Republicans out there, they're just no longer welcome in today's GOP.

Because GEORGE HUTCHINS (http://www.georgehutchins.com) is on a RINO HUNT!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on April 29, 2010, 10:51:53 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 10:40:57 AM
Quote from: thehawk on April 29, 2010, 10:32:36 AM
The El AL model works for El AL, but it isn't very scalable (cant find numbers, but American probably flies more flights per day from O'Hare than El AL flies overall):

http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-the-el-al-israeli-security-model-will-never-work-here-2010-1

Perhaps.  But that article isn't a study, it's a reprint of a letter from a civilian.

As to the comment that "if each passenger / family got even a perfunctory 1-minute Q&A session with a TSA security officer, the system would crash," how much time is already spent waiting?  I'd trade 30 minutes waiting for a slot at the scanner for 2 minutes talking to a trained rep.

El AL "suggests" you show up for your flight 3 hours before takeoff.  Also the airline has about 7,400 seats in total.  Thats what flies in and out of ORD in about an hour.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on April 29, 2010, 10:52:24 AM
Quote from: thehawk on April 29, 2010, 10:32:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 08:33:39 AM
Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Those Israelis are pussies.  They don't even arm their pilots with guns!  How is their record against hijackings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

Oh.

The El AL model works for El AL, but it isn't very scalable (cant find numbers, but American probably flies more flights per day from O'Hare than El AL flies overall):

http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-the-el-al-israeli-security-model-will-never-work-here-2010-1

And that article doesnt get into the fact that the Israelis have marshalls on every flight (who appear to be much more professional than US marshalls (who are on only a small percentage of US flights))

It may make sense to hold off buying the scanners if they don't work (TSA/HS is becoming the new military industrial complex, and we still have the old one), but our air systems requires some level of technology.


Let's also not forget the perfunctory military service of every able-bodied Israeli citizen...  I would imagine that when looking at a plane full of fat, slobby American citizens versus a plane full of Israelis who may or may not be two years removed from the top of their IDF Krav Maga class in basic; a terrorist may consider the former a slightly softer target.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 10:56:53 AM
Quote from: powen01 on April 29, 2010, 10:52:24 AM
Let's also not forget the perfunctory military service of every able-bodied Israeli citizen...  I would imagine that when looking at a plane full of fat, slobby American citizens versus a plane full of Israelis who may or may not be two years removed from the top of their IDF Krav Maga class in basic; a terrorist may consider the former a slightly softer target.

OK.  Let's reinstate the draft.

Stop hijacking, serve in the military!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 29, 2010, 11:06:29 AM
Quote from: powen01 on April 29, 2010, 10:52:24 AM
Quote from: thehawk on April 29, 2010, 10:32:36 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 29, 2010, 08:33:39 AM
Quote"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Those Israelis are pussies.  They don't even arm their pilots with guns!  How is their record against hijackings?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001213

Oh.

The El AL model works for El AL, but it isn't very scalable (cant find numbers, but American probably flies more flights per day from O'Hare than El AL flies overall):

http://www.businessinsider.com/sorry-the-el-al-israeli-security-model-will-never-work-here-2010-1

And that article doesnt get into the fact that the Israelis have marshalls on every flight (who appear to be much more professional than US marshalls (who are on only a small percentage of US flights))

It may make sense to hold off buying the scanners if they don't work (TSA/HS is becoming the new military industrial complex, and we still have the old one), but our air systems requires some level of technology.


Let's also not forget the perfunctory military service of every able-bodied Israeli citizen...  I would imagine that when looking at a plane full of fat, slobby American citizens versus a plane full of Israelis who may or may not be two years removed from the top of their IDF Krav Maga class in basic; a terrorist may consider the former a slightly softer target.

Karate? The Dane Cook of martial arts? We use Krav Maga. We've got an ex-Mossad guy. He comes in on Thursdays. Tuesdays he does a really rigorous spin class.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 29, 2010, 11:33:03 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 29, 2010, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 29, 2010, 08:58:43 AM
Quote"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."

Laura Bush, from her new memoirs; probably the most decent person in the White House in those eight years.

Also:
QuoteThis week, Bill Frist, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader again offered qualified praise for the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Bob Bennett is on the verge of losing his primary in Utah, primarily because he briefly sponsored a health care bill with Ron Wyden that went nowhere.

What these two episodes show is the degree to which the Republican Party lurched to the right during the health care debate. Ideas that were until recently moderate became dangerous socialism. Right-wing elites like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Congressional leadership led the opposition to health care reform, whipping the base into a frenzy. That frenzy, in turn, pulled the whole rest of the party along with it. It's pretty clear that plenty of Republicans in Washington would have liked to cut a deal if left to their own devices, but they weren't left to their own devices.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/the-gop-hcr-lurch-and-the-republicans-left-behind

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that just because a person considers themselves a Republican doesn't mean they also have to be a frothing, anti-socialist sideshow of a person. There used to be something called a liberal Republican, was there not? Why wouldn't there still be such a thing?

The modern Republican Party likes to say they're the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan. 2/3 of them would be Democrats by today's standards.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
More shenanigans in Pen's backyard.

QuoteThe Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

The best part:
QuoteIn the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html

Also:
QuoteHB 2281 would make it illegal for a school district to have any courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity "instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

It also would ban classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people."

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_c1f53405-acab-5f21-a580-a199a68ff76c.html

I have no idea what to make of this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on April 30, 2010, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
I have no idea what to make of this.

Obviously, it's just more small government from the land of Barry Goldwater.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 30, 2010, 02:26:43 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
More shenanigans in Pen's backyard.

QuoteThe Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

The best part:
QuoteIn the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html

Also:
QuoteHB 2281 would make it illegal for a school district to have any courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity "instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

It also would ban classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people."

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_c1f53405-acab-5f21-a580-a199a68ff76c.html

I have no idea what to make of this.

I think students still learning English should have teachers that practice shitty grammar and pronunciation. Further, people with terrible math skills should have a Constitutionally-protected right to teach math to students in schools.

The last item is a response to reported activities of La Raza. A simple play at the Googles brings me this. (http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3210) And this. (http://www.espressopundit.com/2009/11/la-raza-to-the-bottom.html)

I don't think the much-ballyhooed Arizona law is particularly good, but it isn't outrage-producing either, especially when the Federals hold routine checkpoints and random stops up and down I-19, I-10 and I-8, checking people's trunks, everyone's IDs, etc.

Arizona wants a solution to the problem, although my observation as an outsider who has plenty of family out there is that the biggest problem in Arizona is not the migration of Mexicans. It's the migration of Californians.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 30, 2010, 02:26:43 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
More shenanigans in Pen's backyard.

QuoteThe Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

The best part:
QuoteIn the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html

Also:
QuoteHB 2281 would make it illegal for a school district to have any courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity "instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

It also would ban classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people."

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_c1f53405-acab-5f21-a580-a199a68ff76c.html

I have no idea what to make of this.

I think students still learning English should have teachers that practice shitty grammar and pronunciation. Further, people with terrible math skills should have a Constitutionally-protected right to teach math to students in schools.

The last item is a response to reported activities of La Raza. A simple play at the Googles brings me this. (http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3210) And this. (http://www.espressopundit.com/2009/11/la-raza-to-the-bottom.html)

I don't think the much-ballyhooed Arizona law is particularly good, but it isn't outrage-producing either, especially when the Federals hold routine checkpoints and random stops up and down I-19, I-10 and I-8, checking people's trunks, everyone's IDs, etc.

Arizona wants a solution to the problem, although my observation as an outsider who has plenty of family out there is that the biggest problem in Arizona is not the migration of Mexicans. It's the migration of Californians.

I can understand some of the logic behind the English speaking requirements.  Some.  However, if these are quality educators whose major problem is that cannot stop the rolling of their "r's" then it is simply foolish.  Moreover, a thought experiment, would a teacher in Arizona from either Brooklyn or Boston also be subject to termination?

You aren't wrong with your comparison to the activites of the feds, however, this law is worded in such a way that allocates too much discretion to a police officer to determine what "reasonsable suspicion" is.  What criteria is the average cop going to use?  I have a strong feeling it's going to be the people who don't look like they are from around there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 30, 2010, 02:49:43 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 30, 2010, 02:26:43 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
More shenanigans in Pen's backyard.

QuoteThe Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

The best part:
QuoteIn the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html

Also:
QuoteHB 2281 would make it illegal for a school district to have any courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity "instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

It also would ban classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people."

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_c1f53405-acab-5f21-a580-a199a68ff76c.html

I have no idea what to make of this.

I think students still learning English should have teachers that practice shitty grammar and pronunciation. Further, people with terrible math skills should have a Constitutionally-protected right to teach math to students in schools.

The last item is a response to reported activities of La Raza. A simple play at the Googles brings me this. (http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3210) And this. (http://www.espressopundit.com/2009/11/la-raza-to-the-bottom.html)

I don't think the much-ballyhooed Arizona law is particularly good, but it isn't outrage-producing either, especially when the Federals hold routine checkpoints and random stops up and down I-19, I-10 and I-8, checking people's trunks, everyone's IDs, etc.

Arizona wants a solution to the problem, although my observation as an outsider who has plenty of family out there is that the biggest problem in Arizona is not the migration of Mexicans. It's the migration of Californians.

I can understand some of the logic behind the English speaking requirements.  Some.  However, if these are quality educators whose major problem is that cannot stop the rolling of their "r's" then it is simply foolish.  Moreover, a thought experiment, would a teacher in Arizona from either Brooklyn or Boston also be subject to termination?

You aren't wrong with your comparison to the activites of the feds, however, this law is worded in such a way that allocates too much discretion to a police officer to determine what "reasonsable suspicion" is.  What criteria is the average cop going to use?  I have a strong feeling it's going to be the people who don't look like they are from around there.

Not saying this solves anything, but at least they tightened up the language a little.

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 30, 2010, 03:14:57 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 30, 2010, 02:26:43 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 30, 2010, 01:57:18 PM
More shenanigans in Pen's backyard.

QuoteThe Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

The best part:
QuoteIn the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html

Also:
QuoteHB 2281 would make it illegal for a school district to have any courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity "instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

It also would ban classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people."

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_c1f53405-acab-5f21-a580-a199a68ff76c.html

I have no idea what to make of this.

I think students still learning English should have teachers that practice shitty grammar and pronunciation. Further, people with terrible math skills should have a Constitutionally-protected right to teach math to students in schools.

The last item is a response to reported activities of La Raza. A simple play at the Googles brings me this. (http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3210) And this. (http://www.espressopundit.com/2009/11/la-raza-to-the-bottom.html)

I don't think the much-ballyhooed Arizona law is particularly good, but it isn't outrage-producing either, especially when the Federals hold routine checkpoints and random stops up and down I-19, I-10 and I-8, checking people's trunks, everyone's IDs, etc.

Arizona wants a solution to the problem, although my observation as an outsider who has plenty of family out there is that the biggest problem in Arizona is not the migration of Mexicans. It's the migration of Californians.

I can understand some of the logic behind the English speaking requirements.  Some.  However, if these are quality educators whose major problem is that cannot stop the rolling of their "r's" then it is simply foolish.  Moreover, a thought experiment, would a teacher in Arizona from either Brooklyn or Boston also be subject to termination?
Quote

They should be if they constantly butcher English. Ron Santo, George W. Bush and Richard M. Daley shouldn't be anywhere near an ESL class.

QuoteYou aren't wrong with your comparison to the activites of the feds, however, this law is worded in such a way that allocates too much discretion to a police officer to determine what "reasonsable suspicion" is.  What criteria is the average cop going to use?  I have a strong feeling it's going to be the people who don't look like they are from around there.

That's where my problem with the bill lies. Joe Arpaio, for example, takes liberties with the law, and this would just be license for him to send his deputies out loaded for Bear.

The changes to the law Morph linked to make sense. However, they'd do better to scrap the law and start over.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
I have worked for the local police department in surveillance and worked with the county as a reserve officer and reasonable suspicion is never one sole factor. Through schooling and constant training it is drilled into you over and over that if your targeting someone based off one factor, give up because its not going to hold up in a court of law. So your not going to see officers flying out of their car at the sight of every Mexican on the streets, just like you don't see officers jumping out of their car for every black person in Chicago.

These are some of the things Arizona Law Enforcement are already using to build "reasonable suspicion."

QuoteKobach produced a training video for sheriff's deputies that includes a section on what can constitute "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally.

Among the 20 items Kobach lists are demeanor, language, dress and presence in areas known for drophouses or human smuggling.

Kobach stresses in the video that it takes more than one factor to add up to "reasonable suspicion."


Arpaio has been engaged in what he calls "Voluntary Compliance" he wants to make life so miserable for illegals that they will leave his state willingly. He knows and everyone knows its impossible to round everyone up and deport them, but he can go around enforcing federal and now state laws and drive them somewhere else. After all as the border became more secure in the California and Texas sectors they just pushed all the illegal activity into Arizona.

Just to give you an example of how bad it has gotten as other states have footed the problem off to Arizona, i grew up in a little border town called Douglas, Arizona. When i was a kid we had maybe 50 Border Patrol agents in a 16,000 person town. Now that number is well over 500 agents.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 03, 2010, 09:47:56 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
I have worked for the local police department in surveillance and worked with the county as a reserve officer and reasonable suspicion is never one sole factor.

Not even a BULGE in a pocket?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 03, 2010, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
I have worked for the local police department in surveillance and worked with the county as a reserve officer and reasonable suspicion is never one sole factor.

Our very own Dwight Schrute!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 03, 2010, 10:26:15 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 03, 2010, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
I have worked for the local police department in surveillance and worked with the county as a reserve officer and reasonable suspicion is never one sole factor.

Our very own Dwight Schrute!

Quote from: MikeC on May 06, 2008, 11:16:42 AM
QuoteMaybe instead of devoting the resources that we do to low-level bullshit like public intox and drug crimes, we should let a lot of that stuff go, so our DA's can prosecute the fuck out of wife beaters and you know, other real criminals.

I agree with some things you are saying but not this. Drug crimes are real criminals, they destroy lives, communities, lead to violence and more crimes.

And to be fair your seeing the crimes from the lawyer side and I am seeing it from the law enforcement side. You might not like how an officer may use the "for his safety and ours" but your also not on the street putting your life on the line.

If your standing in front of me and I notice a bulge in your left pocket, that gives me every right for a initial pat down for a weapon. Because I don't know you and you don't know me, so I have no idea what you may or may do to me depending on the call I am going to. I am certainly not going to let my guard down if I am dealing with a known gang member notice a bulge in his coat or jeans pocket and just ignore it hoping it isnt a gun. If it isn't a gun, cool, thank god. If it is, well i might have saved my own life but i am certainly not going to trust the word of someone if they happen to say "oh it's nothing."

As for the Cop on Benson's boat he is protecting the public. If Benson sped off drunk (which the cops are charging him with being intoxicated) into the night and struck another boat killing people the victims family would then sue the Cops for not stopping his boat and checking to prevent the accident.

Cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If we don't bust suspect A with weed on him and he gets in a vehicle and kills someone (because that is driving under the influence) the Cops are going to get sued for not doing their job.

There was a recent incident in California where a police officer was attacked by a 6 foot 2 220 pound highschooler with a bat to the back of the head. Easily could have knocked the officer out, but he fell down with blood gushing out the back of his head tried to pull his firearm but the magazine fell out so he reached for his second weapon as the kid was coming back to hit him again. He fired once killing the teenager and right fully so, because he could potentially pass out at any moment. A life threatening situation to say the least.

But a few parents were upset that the officer killed someone in front of other kids. They felt the officer could of used his baton or pepper spray and that he shouldn't have shot the kid. Saying he wasn't within his rights to shoot.

I am sorry the parents feel that way but to me thats delusional thinking, someone has just used lethal force against you and tried to kill you. For any officer it's automatically to your gun, point it at person and shoot to end the threat against your life.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 03, 2010, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 03, 2010, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
I have worked for the local police department in surveillance and worked with the county as a reserve officer and reasonable suspicion is never one sole factor.

Our very own Dwight Schrute!

This immigration stuff is boring anyway - I want to hear why the OilPenis of Deregulation currently splooging into the Gulf (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-fought-safety-measures-deepwater-oil-rigs/story?id=10521078) that's going to be the fourth worst* man-made disaster in history is Obama's fault.

1. Hiroshima
2. Nagasaki
3. ACORN
4. BP oil spill
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on May 03, 2010, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 03, 2010, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 03, 2010, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
I have worked for the local police department in surveillance and worked with the county as a reserve officer and reasonable suspicion is never one sole factor.

Our very own Dwight Schrute!

This immigration stuff is boring anyway - I want to hear why the OilPenis of Deregulation currently splooging into the Gulf (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-fought-safety-measures-deepwater-oil-rigs/story?id=10521078) that's going to be the fourth worst* man-made disaster in history is Obama's fault.

1. Hiroshima
2. Nagasaki
3. ACORN
4. BP oil spill
5. Slavery


Let's assign all the correct blame'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on May 03, 2010, 10:46:36 AM
I just hope they get this stupid shit cleaned up so it doesn't ruin my vacation to the beach in two weeks.  Fucking morons.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 03, 2010, 10:57:09 AM
Drill, baby, drill.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 03, 2010, 11:06:18 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 03, 2010, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 03, 2010, 10:30:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 03, 2010, 10:16:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
I have worked for the local police department in surveillance and worked with the county as a reserve officer and reasonable suspicion is never one sole factor.

Our very own Dwight Schrute!

This immigration stuff is boring anyway - I want to hear why the OilPenis of Deregulation currently splooging into the Gulf (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/bp-fought-safety-measures-deepwater-oil-rigs/story?id=10521078) that's going to be the fourth worst* man-made disaster in history is Obama's fault.

1. Hiroshima
2. Nagasaki
3. ACORN
4. BP oil spill
5. The Repeal of Slavery


Let's assign all the correct blame'd.


(http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/sumner%20brooks.jpg)

"You damnyankees ruin everything!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on May 03, 2010, 11:18:49 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 03, 2010, 10:57:09 AM
Drill, baby, drill.

There will be blood.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on May 03, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
QuoteKobach produced a training video for sheriff's deputies that includes a section on what can constitute "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally.

Among the 20 items Kobach lists are demeanor, language, dress and presence in areas known for drophouses or human smuggling.

Kobach stresses in the video that it takes more than one factor to add up to "reasonable suspicion."

How are those 4 things different than just saying they're looking for Mexicans?

I'm wondering if some of the other factors are wearing bandannas, driving El Caminos, wearing shirts with only the top button fastened, rolling really great burritos, and brown skin.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on May 03, 2010, 11:30:30 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 03, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
QuoteKobach produced a training video for sheriff's deputies that includes a section on what can constitute "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally.

Among the 20 items Kobach lists are demeanor, language, dress and presence in areas known for drophouses or human smuggling.

Kobach stresses in the video that it takes more than one factor to add up to "reasonable suspicion."

How are those 4 things different than just saying they're looking for Mexicans?

I'm wondering if some of the other factors are wearing bandannas, driving El Caminos, wearing shirts with only the top button fastened, rolling really great burritos, and brown skin.

Because they are looking for Mexicans.  What's the problem?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 03, 2010, 11:45:03 AM
To me the oddest thing about Arizona's new law is that it gives residents of the state the right to sue law enforcement officers personally if they don't exercise their discretion by questioning persons whom they reasonably suspect are undocumented.  I hope that there is a provision for attorney's fees in the event that such a lawsuit fails to prove that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that he failed to act upon.  I guess that they could make it stick if the officer saw a guy coming across the border carrying a placard saying "I AM UNDOCUMENTED".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 03, 2010, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on May 03, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
QuoteKobach produced a training video for sheriff's deputies that includes a section on what can constitute "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally.

Among the 20 items Kobach lists are demeanor, language, dress and presence in areas known for drophouses or human smuggling.

Kobach stresses in the video that it takes more than one factor to add up to "reasonable suspicion."

How are those 4 things different than just saying they're looking for Mexicans?

I'm wondering if some of the other factors are wearing bandannas, driving El Caminos, wearing shirts with only the top button fastened, rolling really great burritos, and brown skin.

Is this some sort of euphemism I'm unaware of?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 03, 2010, 12:28:19 PM
Quote from: Oleg on May 03, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
I'm wondering if some of the other factors are wearing bandannas, driving El Caminos, wearing shirts with only the top button fastened, rolling really great burritos, and brown skin.

(http://lineout.thestranger.com/files/2008/05/DSC04045.JPG)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on May 03, 2010, 01:00:30 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2010, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on May 03, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: MikeC on May 03, 2010, 09:36:23 AM
QuoteKobach produced a training video for sheriff's deputies that includes a section on what can constitute "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally.

Among the 20 items Kobach lists are demeanor, language, dress and presence in areas known for drophouses or human smuggling.

Kobach stresses in the video that it takes more than one factor to add up to "reasonable suspicion."

How are those 4 things different than just saying they're looking for Mexicans?

I'm wondering if some of the other factors are wearing bandannas, driving El Caminos, wearing shirts with only the top button fastened, rolling really great burritos, and brown skin.

Is this some sort of euphemism I'm unaware of?

Sometimes, a burrito is just a burrito.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 04, 2010, 11:50:07 AM
I am without speech. (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/05/04/not-all-americans-are-equal/)

QuoteCongressional Republicans want to know whether the Pakistani-born American arrested in the Times Square car bombing plot was read his Miranda rights, with Sen. John McCain saying it would be a "serious mistake" if the suspect was reminded of his right to remain silent.

"Obviously that would be a serious mistake until all the information is gathered," McCain (R-Ariz.) said on "Imus in the Morning" when asked whether the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, should have been Mirandized.

Rep. Peter King (N.Y.), the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, wants to know whether the Justice Department consulted with the intelligence community.

"I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen but still," King told POLITICO.

Fucking pathetic.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 04, 2010, 12:05:38 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

McCain? I dunno. Ask the Viet Cong.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on May 04, 2010, 12:21:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 11:50:07 AM
I am without speech. (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/05/04/not-all-americans-are-equal/)

QuoteCongressional Republicans want to know whether the Pakistani-born American arrested in the Times Square car bombing plot was read his Miranda rights, with Sen. John McCain saying it would be a "serious mistake" if the suspect was reminded of his right to remain silent.

"Obviously that would be a serious mistake until all the information is gathered," McCain (R-Ariz.) said on "Imus in the Morning" when asked whether the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, should have been Mirandized.

Rep. Peter King (N.Y.), the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, wants to know whether the Justice Department consulted with the intelligence community.

"I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he's an American citizen but still," King told POLITICO.

Fucking pathetic.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/faisal-shahzad-arrest-bec_n_562467.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/faisal-shahzad-arrest-bec_n_562467.html)

QuoteHe is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens," the bombastic Fox News host said to the stunned co-hosts of "Fox and Friends". "If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution."

Quote"We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular," Beck added. "We do the right thing."

When Glenn Beck is the voice of reason for the GOP, that doesn't reflect well on the party.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 04, 2010, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.

The simplest way to preserve our freedom is to give the state more power over life and death.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on May 04, 2010, 12:50:48 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.

I suspect you of a crime
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 04, 2010, 01:06:27 PM
Quote from: Yeti on May 04, 2010, 12:50:48 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.

I suspect you of a crime
You know good and damn well RV is already dead.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 04, 2010, 01:17:47 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 04, 2010, 01:06:27 PM
Quote from: Yeti on May 04, 2010, 12:50:48 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.

I suspect you of a crime
You know good and damn well RV is already dead.

Did the LIBRUL SOCIALISTS legalize Zombies when we weren't looking?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 04, 2010, 02:46:27 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 04, 2010, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.

The simplest way to preserve our freedom is to give the state more power over life and death. name SKO as dictator for life

THIS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 04, 2010, 02:49:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 04, 2010, 02:46:27 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 04, 2010, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.

The simplest way to preserve our freedom increase the amount of awful karaoke is to give the state more power over life and death. name SKO as dictator for life

THIS.


THAT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 04, 2010, 02:50:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 04, 2010, 02:49:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 04, 2010, 02:46:27 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 04, 2010, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.

The simplest way to preserve our freedom increase the amount of awful karaoke make awesome happen is to give the state more power over life and death. name SKO as dictator for life

THIS.


THAT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 04, 2010, 02:54:08 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 04, 2010, 02:50:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 04, 2010, 02:49:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 04, 2010, 02:46:27 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 04, 2010, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 04, 2010, 12:34:33 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 04, 2010, 12:04:37 PM
Why wasn't this cockbag shot in the back of the skull after he was detained?

I guess it would help our prison overpopulation problem to just shoot every citizen suspected of a crime in the back of the head.

The simplest way to preserve our freedom increase the amount of awful karaoke make awesome happen give girls the fun they so desperately want is to give the state more power over life and death. name SKO as dictator for life give SKO a microphone.

THIS.


THAT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 04, 2010, 06:23:07 PM
I'm laughing out loudly...

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/

QuoteThe pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)" and explains he is "sensual," "wild," and "up for anything" — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

On April 13, the "rent boy" (whom we'll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy's client and, as it happens, one of America's most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. "I had surgery," Rekers said, "and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him." (Medical problems didn't stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)

Yet Rekers wouldn't deny he met his slender, blond escort at Rentboy.com — which features homepage images of men in bondage and grainy videos of crotch-rubbing twinks — and Lucien confirmed it.

At the small western Miami townhome he shares with a roommate, a nervous Lucien expressed surprise when we told him that Rekers denied knowing about his line of work from the beginning. "He should've been able to tell you that," he said, fidgeting and fixing his eyes on his knees. "But that's up to him."

For decades, George Alan Rekers has been a general in the culture wars, though his work has often been behind the scenes. In 1983, he and James Dobson, America's best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group that has become a standard-bearer of the nation's extreme right wing. Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there. (The Family Research Council would not comment about Rekers's Euro-trip.)

...

In his interview with New Times, Lucien didn't want to impugn his client, but he made it clear they met through Rentboy.com, which is the only website on which he advertises his services. Neither Google nor any other search engine picks up individual Rentboy.com profiles, any more than they pick up individual profiles on eHarmony or Match.com. You cannot just happen upon one.

To arrive at Lucien's site, Rekers must have accepted Rentboy.com's terms of use, thereby acknowledging he was not offended by graphic sexual material. He then would have been transported to a front page covered with images of naked, tumescent men busily sodomizing each other.

Then Rekers must have performed a search. Did he want a "rentboy," a "sugar daddy," or a "masseur"? In what country? And what city? If Rekers searched for a rent boy in Miami, he would have found approximately 80 likely candidates. He must have scrolled down the first page, past the shirtless bears and desperate ex-models, and on to page 2. There, at last, was Lucien.

I hope this is legit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 04, 2010, 07:39:03 PM
Goddamn it - that's incredible. These stories will truly never get old.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 04, 2010, 11:57:07 PM
(http://i42.tinypic.com/t6e9vd.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 05, 2010, 07:25:31 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 04, 2010, 11:57:07 PM
(http://i42.tinypic.com/t6e9vd.jpg)

Needs more luggage.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 05, 2010, 07:33:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 04, 2010, 11:57:07 PM
(http://i42.tinypic.com/t6e9vd.jpg)

That can't be the real cover, right?

Intrepid Reader: Al Yellon

Maybe you shouldn't pay so much attention to the cover and actually read what's inside.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on May 05, 2010, 08:45:29 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 04, 2010, 11:57:07 PM
(http://i42.tinypic.com/t6e9vd.jpg)

A guide to logsplitting?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 05, 2010, 08:46:56 AM
Can't a guy dressed like the Brawny Man gaze meaningfully into a small boy's eyes without you people turning it into something perverse?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on May 05, 2010, 08:58:45 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

I'm dissapointed to see Frank Roche of Apex didn't get the win.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 05, 2010, 08:59:06 AM
I can't believe HUTCHINS lost to Lawson of all people. The guy wears a PINK SHIRT! North Carolina's tacit acceptance of Lawson's gay male homosexuality will be the downfall of America, just like it was for the British Empire.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 05, 2010, 09:04:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 05, 2010, 08:59:06 AM
I can't believe HUTCHINS lost to Lawson of all people. The guy wears a PINK SHIRT! North Carolina's tacit acceptance of Lawson's gay male homosexuality will be the downfall of America, just like it was for the British Empire.

Oh sure, blame Gilbert and Sullivan...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 05, 2010, 09:07:54 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

Quote

David Burnett of Cary had 9 percent and George Hutchins of Raleigh had less than 5 percent

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 05, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.

Please tell me that you haven't just now discovered GEORGE HUTCHINS. TEC and I have failed miserably if that is the case.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 05, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.

Please tell me that you haven't just now discovered GEORGE HUTCHINS. TEC and I have failed miserably if that is the case.

I'm telling you this. You're a failure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 05, 2010, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 05, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.

Please tell me that you haven't just now discovered GEORGE HUTCHINS. TEC and I have failed miserably if that is the case.

I'm telling you this. You're a failure.

For cripes sakes:

http://www.georgehutchins.com/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 05, 2010, 09:31:56 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 05, 2010, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 05, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.

Please tell me that you haven't just now discovered GEORGE HUTCHINS. TEC and I have failed miserably if that is the case.

I'm telling you this. You're a failure.

For cripes sakes:

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

No wonder he lost. He couldn't get Slak on board in time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 05, 2010, 09:33:13 AM
The GEORGE HUTCHINS twitter is a fake.  The man doesn't put everything in all caps.

If he put everything in all caps, we wouldn't know when he's talking about GAY MALE HOMOSEXUALS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:35:17 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 05, 2010, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 05, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.

Please tell me that you haven't just now discovered GEORGE HUTCHINS. TEC and I have failed miserably if that is the case.

I'm telling you this. You're a failure.

For cripes sakes:

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

I learned about this before you sent the link and AFTER Fork posted the article. You also failed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 05, 2010, 09:37:38 AM
http://georgehutchins.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=132939&p=3&topicID=35690447 (http://georgehutchins.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=132939&p=3&topicID=35690447)


Quote
This election will lay the groundwork for the future. Some possible options are to run as an Independent and/or to run in a different Congressional District in the future. If he runs Independent he will be a true Republican in spirit. The Republican party left Mr. Hutchins and other true Republicans. Perhaps the chances will be better in another district not containing Left wing areas like Chapel Hill and Durham.

There's hope for America yet.

Run, George, Run.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 05, 2010, 09:54:16 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:35:17 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 05, 2010, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 05, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.

Please tell me that you haven't just now discovered GEORGE HUTCHINS. TEC and I have failed miserably if that is the case.

I'm telling you this. You're a failure.

For cripes sakes:

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

I learned about this before you sent the link and AFTER Fork posted the article. You also failed.

Let us know when you reach the point of discovering that George Hutchins is not merely a Nazi enthusiast and/or sympathizer, but probably... PLOT TWIST!... an actual, according-to-hoyle, straight-up Neo-Nazi (http://www.nimcrown.us/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on May 05, 2010, 10:12:13 AM
I havent' been reading this LibrulHomocratFascist topic for awhile, so pardon me if I'm repeating someone else. 


THIS: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/sen-mike-bennett-caught-looking-porn-senate-floor
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 05, 2010, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 05, 2010, 09:54:16 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:35:17 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 05, 2010, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 05, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.

Please tell me that you haven't just now discovered GEORGE HUTCHINS. TEC and I have failed miserably if that is the case.

I'm telling you this. You're a failure.

For cripes sakes:

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

I learned about this before you sent the link and AFTER Fork posted the article. You also failed.

Let us know when you reach the point of discovering that George Hutchins is not merely a Nazi enthusiast and/or sympathizer, but probably... PLOT TWIST!... an actual, according-to-hoyle, straight-up Neo-Nazi (http://www.nimcrown.us/).

Dun Dun DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 05, 2010, 10:25:41 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 05, 2010, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 05, 2010, 09:54:16 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:35:17 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 05, 2010, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 05, 2010, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 09:16:19 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 05, 2010, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 05, 2010, 08:54:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 05, 2010, 08:48:33 AM

A temporary setback (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7544089/).

Care to explain?

There was no mention of GEORGE HUTCHINS in that article.

In the 21st Century Modern Age, of DNA and Crime Scene Investigation Technology, anyone convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER, which warrants the DEATH PENALTY, {Capitol Punishment}, if INNOCENT, should be able to prove their INNOCENTS, within one year after conviction, through Modern Science."

"IF INNOCENTS cannot be proven after conviction, within ONE YEAR, this convicted person is obviously, very Guilty of Murder, based upon Modern Crime Investigation Science.

And also: http://twitter.com/georgehutchins

Lordy.

Please tell me that you haven't just now discovered GEORGE HUTCHINS. TEC and I have failed miserably if that is the case.

I'm telling you this. You're a failure.

For cripes sakes:

http://www.georgehutchins.com/

I learned about this before you sent the link and AFTER Fork posted the article. You also failed.

Let us know when you reach the point of discovering that George Hutchins is not merely a Nazi enthusiast and/or sympathizer, but probably... PLOT TWIST!... an actual, according-to-hoyle, straight-up Neo-Nazi (http://www.nimcrown.us/).

Dun Dun DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

Slaky needs to pay closer attention to the puckcasts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 05, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
A novel solution to the Obama Administration's latest fuckup.

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 05, 2010, 12:27:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
A novel solution to the Obama Administration's latest fuckup.

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

QuoteKP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

And yet I get laughed at for using a .38 snubnose to turn off my TV set at night.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 05, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2010, 11:03:47 AM
A novel solution to the Obama's Katrina Administration's latest fuckup.

http://trueslant.com/juliaioffe/2010/05/04/nuke-that-slick/

Correct Talking Pointed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 05, 2010, 07:41:26 PM
That fucking corgi had a bulge in its pocket...

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/05/video-of-swat-raid-on-missouri/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 06, 2010, 08:01:18 AM
To all of you using the word "teabagger," well, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote"This remark is the equivalent of using the 'n' word. It shows contempt for middle America, expressed knowingly, contemptuously, on purpose, and with a smirk. It is indefensible to use this word. The president knows what it means, and his people know what it means. The public thought we reached a new low of incivility during the Clinton administration. Well, the Obama administration has just outdone them," ATR president Grover Norquist tells Inside the Beltway.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/strong-brew/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Shooter on May 06, 2010, 08:17:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 06, 2010, 08:01:18 AM
To all of you using the word "teabagger," well, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote"This remark is the equivalent of using the 'n' word. It shows contempt for middle America, expressed knowingly, contemptuously, on purpose, and with a smirk. It is indefensible to use this word. The president knows what it means, and his people know what it means. The public thought we reached a new low of incivility during the Clinton administration. Well, the Obama administration has just outdone them," ATR president Grover Norquist tells Inside the Beltway.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/strong-brew/

And you're only hurting yourself, middle American.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 06, 2010, 08:22:24 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 06, 2010, 08:01:18 AM
To all of you using the word "teabagger," well, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote"This remark is the equivalent of using the 'n' word. It shows contempt for middle America, expressed knowingly, contemptuously, on purpose, and with a smirk. It is indefensible to use this word. The president knows what it means, and his people know what it means. The public thought we reached a new low of incivility during the Clinton administration. Well, the Obama administration has just outdone them," ATR president Grover Norquist tells Inside the Beltway.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/strong-brew/

Thank God for grassroots organizations like ATR being run by Washington outsiders like Grover Norquist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 06, 2010, 08:39:35 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 06, 2010, 08:01:18 AM
To all of you using the word "teabagger," well, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote"This remark is the equivalent of using the 'n' word. It shows contempt for middle America, expressed knowingly, contemptuously, on purpose, and with a smirk. It is indefensible to use this word. The president knows what it means, and his people know what it means. The public thought we reached a new low of incivility during the Clinton administration. Well, the Obama administration has just outdone them," ATR president Grover Norquist tells Inside the Beltway.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/strong-brew/

What if I actually have contempt for middle America? Can I use it then?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 06, 2010, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 06, 2010, 08:39:35 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 06, 2010, 08:01:18 AM
To all of you using the word "teabagger," well, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote"This remark is the equivalent of using the 'n' word. It shows contempt for middle America, expressed knowingly, contemptuously, on purpose, and with a smirk. It is indefensible to use this word. The president knows what it means, and his people know what it means. The public thought we reached a new low of incivility during the Clinton administration. Well, the Obama administration has just outdone them," ATR president Grover Norquist tells Inside the Beltway.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/strong-brew/

What if I actually have contempt for middle America? Can I use it then?

All of us on the Left Coast have contempt for you Middle Earthians.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 06, 2010, 11:07:45 AM
Speaking of the teabaggers, I find this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/05/05/DI2010050502168.html to be incredibly revealing.

QuoteWashington, D.C.: Judson -- Are you willing to admit that taxes have actually gone down for the vast majority of Americans under President Obama?

Judson Phillips: No

QuoteNashville, Tenn.: "Judson -- Are you willing to admit that taxes have actually gone down for the vast majority of Americans under President Obama?

Judson Phillips: No"

Okay - can you provide actual evidence that taxes have increased or stayed the same under President Obama?

Judson Phillips: Let's start with him allowing the bush tax cuts to expire.

QuoteSidney, N.Y.: Many Tea Party supporters I know in Upstate New York receive federal single payer health benefits from VA, Medicare and Medicaid, which they profess to support while vehemently arguing against the still most private market health-care insurance reform. Please help me make sense of this.

Judson Phillips: And I know liberals who believe in the tooth fairy.

QuoteReagan: "The simple fact is under Reagan and his tax cuts, GDP grew faster in a shorter period of time than it did under either Bush or Clinton."

At a cost of the tripling of the deficit.

Let's be real here, you don't have a problem with debt, the deficit, or government spending. You have a problem with Democrats doing it.

This is why no rational person acknowledges your "movement" as anything beyond a cheap shill for the GOP.

Judson Phillips: Yes, and your heros, the liberal democrats of the 80's were spending like drunken democrats. I have problem with democrats and liberals being in control of the government. IT's sort of like leaving a convicted sex offender alone with children. It is a very bad idea.

QuoteVirginia: Reagan ranks 5th in GDP growth behind Johnson, Kennedy, Clinton, and Carter.

Why do you toss our phony facts?

Presidents And Prosperity (Forbes.com)

Judson Phillips: wrong. GDP under Reagan went up by 23% in five years. Under Bush and Clinton, it only went up 21% in 7 years.

Excellent logic.

QuoteMaryland: I am sorry but your answer of "I think the political class is afraid of the Tea Party movement. After all, we get people out as volunteers and get them to the polls. For them, it cannot be the same as usual in D.C. A lot of them are going to be unemployed after the first of the year and that does scare them" is really offensive. This us vs. them mentality is really repulsive to me. I am a hard-working middle class American and I don't agree with anything you are saying, and I have a right not agree with you. But you spliting the citizenry into classes of "elites/political class/Washington insiders/liberals" vs "real Americans" is just plain wrong! and that's the problem with your movement.

Liberals are just as American as you are and you and your movement has no right to question people's patriotism or Americanness just because they disagree with you.

Judson Phillips: Yes we do. You folks in the left do far worse. Patriotism is not something that cannot be measured. It can be. And you folks on the left, as a general rule are not patriotic. You do not love this country. You are embarrassed by us.



I hate to tell you this, but those of us in fly over country are the real americans.

FUCK YOU.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 06, 2010, 11:23:27 AM
I read that when you linked it in the shoutbox.

What an insufferable douchebag.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 06, 2010, 11:27:57 AM
Quote from: Professor SmallpenisPatriotism is not something that cannot be measured. It can be.

I really hope someone asked a follow up question about his patriotism measuring system. How many patriotisms do you need for it to be significant? 0.22? Twelve? Maybe Phil Rogers could help.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 06, 2010, 11:29:43 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 06, 2010, 11:07:45 AM
Judson Phillips: Patriotism is not something that cannot be measured. It can be.

Nate Silver is fast at work on the formula. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 06, 2010, 11:29:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 06, 2010, 11:27:57 AM
Quote from: Professor SmallpenisPatriotism is not something that cannot be measured. It can be.

I really hope someone asked a follow up question about his patriotism measuring system. How many patriotisms do you need for it to be significant? 0.22? Twelve? Maybe Phil Rogers could help.

I think they use a scale based on "percentage of rear of car concealed by racist bumper stickers.""
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 01:03:45 PM
I have no idea who Judson Phillips is or why I should care about this conversation between him and a bunch of trolls.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 01:03:45 PM
I have no idea who Judson Phillips is or why I should care about this conversation between him and a bunch of trolls.

Perfectly put.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 06, 2010, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 01:03:45 PM
I have no idea who Judson Phillips is or why I should care about this conversation between him and a bunch of trolls.

Perfectly put.

He's apparently the guy who's trying to leverage the teabagging movement into a money-making operation.

His group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Nation) was the one behind the $549-per-ticket teabagging convention in February.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on May 06, 2010, 02:04:22 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 06, 2010, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 01:03:45 PM
I have no idea who Judson Phillips is or why I should care about this conversation between him and a bunch of trolls.

Perfectly put.

He's apparently the guy who's trying to leverage the teabagging movement into a money-making operation.

His group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Nation) was the one behind the $549-per-ticket teabagging convention in February.

Just based on that earlier dialogue the guy's a delusional pair of clown shows and anyone who gives him money deserves to be seperated from said money.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Saul Goodman on May 06, 2010, 02:08:29 PM
"Pat Quinn: Finally...a governor for us."

That billboard made my day yesterday.  Well, it made about 0.05% of my day.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 06, 2010, 02:17:55 PM
Quote from: Day Man on May 06, 2010, 02:08:29 PM
"Pat Quinn: Finally...a governor for us."

That billboard made my day yesterday.  Well, it made about 0.05% of my day.

Who's the "us"?

Was there a photo accompanying the billboard?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 06, 2010, 02:28:33 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 06, 2010, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 01:03:45 PM
I have no idea who Judson Phillips is or why I should care about this conversation between him and a bunch of trolls.

Perfectly put.

He's apparently the guy who's trying to leverage the teabagging movement into a money-making operation.

His group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Nation) was the one behind the $549-per-ticket teabagging convention in February.

"Whoa there, racist. That is OUR word. You have no right to use it."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 06, 2010, 02:29:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 06, 2010, 02:17:55 PM
Quote from: Day Man on May 06, 2010, 02:08:29 PM
"Pat Quinn: Finally...a governor for us."

That billboard made my day yesterday.  Well, it made about 0.05% of my day.

Who's the "us"?

Was there a photo accompanying the billboard?

(http://i43.tinypic.com/2wpl5ig.jpg)

Quinn just won Huey's vote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 03:00:06 PM
Fuck it's silent. It's probably because of all the cheddar Morph is quickly unstacking (and maybe just stacking it back up yet).

Think it's bad here? At least we're not Europe ... yet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 03:00:06 PM
Fuck it's silent. It's probably because of all the cheddar Morph is quickly unstacking (and maybe just stacking it back up yet).

Think it's bad here? At least we're not Europe ... yet.

It's all Greek to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 06, 2010, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 03:00:06 PM
Fuck it's silent. It's probably because of all the cheddar Morph is quickly unstacking (and maybe just stacking it back up yet).

Think it's bad here? At least we're not Europe ... yet.

It's all Greek to me.

Morph is stacking feta.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 03:16:02 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 06, 2010, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 03:00:06 PM
Fuck it's silent. It's probably because of all the cheddar Morph is quickly unstacking (and maybe just stacking it back up yet).

Think it's bad here? At least we're not Europe ... yet.

It's all Greek to me.

Morph is stacking feta.

Mmm.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 06, 2010, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 06, 2010, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 03:00:06 PM
Fuck it's silent. It's probably because of all the cheddar Morph is quickly unstacking (and maybe just stacking it back up yet).

Think it's bad here? At least we're not Europe ... yet.

It's all Greek to me.

Morph is stacking feta.

Can I get a ruling on this Forkjoke? Is it okay for me to chuckle slightly, or is that only encouraging him?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 03:22:06 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 06, 2010, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 06, 2010, 03:15:33 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 06, 2010, 03:14:08 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 06, 2010, 03:00:06 PM
Fuck it's silent. It's probably because of all the cheddar Morph is quickly unstacking (and maybe just stacking it back up yet).

Think it's bad here? At least we're not Europe ... yet.

It's all Greek to me.

Morph is stacking feta.

Can I get a ruling on this Forkjoke? Is it okay for me to chuckle slightly, or is that only encouraging him?

I laughed. Mostly because I pictured big bricks of delicious feta piled high. Then I drooled. Fork gets the win for creating positive imagery.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on May 06, 2010, 03:44:14 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 04, 2010, 06:23:07 PM
I'm laughing out loudly...

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/

QuoteThe pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)" and explains he is "sensual," "wild," and "up for anything" — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

On April 13, the "rent boy" (whom we'll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy's client and, as it happens, one of America's most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. "I had surgery," Rekers said, "and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him." (Medical problems didn't stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)

Yet Rekers wouldn't deny he met his slender, blond escort at Rentboy.com — which features homepage images of men in bondage and grainy videos of crotch-rubbing twinks — and Lucien confirmed it.

At the small western Miami townhome he shares with a roommate, a nervous Lucien expressed surprise when we told him that Rekers denied knowing about his line of work from the beginning. "He should've been able to tell you that," he said, fidgeting and fixing his eyes on his knees. "But that's up to him."

For decades, George Alan Rekers has been a general in the culture wars, though his work has often been behind the scenes. In 1983, he and James Dobson, America's best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group that has become a standard-bearer of the nation's extreme right wing. Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there. (The Family Research Council would not comment about Rekers's Euro-trip.)

...

In his interview with New Times, Lucien didn't want to impugn his client, but he made it clear they met through Rentboy.com, which is the only website on which he advertises his services. Neither Google nor any other search engine picks up individual Rentboy.com profiles, any more than they pick up individual profiles on eHarmony or Match.com. You cannot just happen upon one.

To arrive at Lucien's site, Rekers must have accepted Rentboy.com's terms of use, thereby acknowledging he was not offended by graphic sexual material. He then would have been transported to a front page covered with images of naked, tumescent men busily sodomizing each other.

Then Rekers must have performed a search. Did he want a "rentboy," a "sugar daddy," or a "masseur"? In what country? And what city? If Rekers searched for a rent boy in Miami, he would have found approximately 80 likely candidates. He must have scrolled down the first page, past the shirtless bears and desperate ex-models, and on to page 2. There, at last, was Lucien.

I hope this is legit.

Update for Long Stroke. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/george-rekers-anti-gay-ac_n_565142.html)

Quote
UPDATE: The escort now says Rekers is indeed gay, and that Rekers paid him to perform daily nude body rubs during their European jaunt. "It's a situation where he's going against homosexuality when he is a homosexual," the young man told the New Times, adding that Rekers -- who repeatedly asked for a move he dubbed "The Long Stroke"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Saul Goodman on May 06, 2010, 03:51:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 06, 2010, 02:17:55 PM
Quote from: Day Man on May 06, 2010, 02:08:29 PM
"Pat Quinn: Finally...a governor for us."

That billboard made my day yesterday.  Well, it made about 0.05% of my day.

Who's the "us"?

Was there a photo accompanying the billboard?

Quinn posing with diverse people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 06, 2010, 05:21:53 PM
Quote from: Oleg on May 06, 2010, 03:44:14 PM
Update for Long Stroke. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/george-rekers-anti-gay-ac_n_565142.html)

Quote
UPDATE: The escort now says Rekers is indeed gay, and that Rekers paid him to perform daily nude body rubs during their European jaunt. "It's a situation where he's going against homosexuality when he is a homosexual," the young man told the New Times, adding that Rekers -- who repeatedly asked for a move he dubbed "The Long Stroke"

Linked from that link...

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/dr-george-rekers-patron-of-male.html

QuoteNARTH and Family Research Council co-founder Dr. George Rekers has responded to my inquiry about where to find the hottest male prostitutes. After the above, he continues:

QuoteI have spent much time as a mental health professional and as a Christian minister helping and lovingly caring for people identifying themselves as "gay." My hero is Jesus Christ who loves even the culturally despised people, including sexual sinners and prostitutes. Like Jesus Christ, I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them. Mark 2:16-17 reads, "16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." In fact, in a dialogue with hypocritical religious leaders, Jesus even stated to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. " (Matthew 21:31).

Like John the Baptist and Jesus, I have a loving Christian ministry to homosexuals and prostitutes in which I share the Good News of Jesus Christ with them (see I Corinthians 6:8-11). Contrary to false gossip, innuendo, and slander about me, I do not in any way "hate" homosexuals, but I seek to lovingly share two types of messages to them, as I did with the young man called "Lucien" in the news story: [1] It is possible to cease homosexual practices to avoid the unacceptable health risks associated with that behavior, and [2] the most important decision one can make is to establish a relationship with God for all eternity by trusting in Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, including homosexual sins. If you talk with my travel assistant that the story called "Lucien," you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail.

Oh, well that explains EVERYTHING! Dr. George Rekers is curing homosexuals ONE BY ONE by hiring them on MALE PROSTITUTION websites! Glory! Praise His Name!

The Family Research Council does their best to disavow "after reviewing the historical records"...

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR10E01&f=RF07B02

QuoteWASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (FRC) released the following statement in response to calls regarding Dr. George Rekers and his connection with the Family Research Council:

"In the past 24 hours FRC has received calls regarding Dr. George Rekers and his connection with the Family Research Council.  After reviewing the historical records we did verify that Dr. Rekers was a member of the original Family Research Council board prior to its merger with Focus on the Family in 1987.

"Reports have been circulating regarding Dr. Reker's relationship with a male prostitute.  FRC has had no contact with Dr. Rekers or knowledge of his activities in over a decade so FRC can provide no further insight into these allegations.

"While we are extremely disappointed when any Christian leader engages in the very activities that they 'preach' against, it is not surprising.  The Scriptures clearly teach the fallen nature of all people.  We each have a choice to act upon that nature or accept the forgiveness offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and do our best to ensure our actions, both public and private, match our professed positions."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on May 09, 2010, 09:56:06 AM
Help me out here. My apathetic viewpoint has left me unaware of the details of this Arizona law... So, you have to have contact with the police in a separate matter, right? Speeding, domestic issues, etc..? And then, the federal government has something on their set of laws that says you should have proof of residency and prove it at any time, yes?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on May 10, 2010, 12:24:02 AM
With the nomination of Kagan, I think this place will be better served if we just talk about how she looks like a man in drag.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on May 10, 2010, 07:10:54 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 10, 2010, 12:24:02 AM
With the nomination of Kagan, I think this place will be better served if we just talk about how she looks like a man Kevin James in drag.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 10, 2010, 07:31:40 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 10, 2010, 07:10:54 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 10, 2010, 12:24:02 AM
With the nomination of Kagan, I think this place will be better served if we just talk about how she looks like a man Kevin James in drag.

PAUL BLART...SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 10, 2010, 08:34:40 AM
(http://i44.tinypic.com/96ax61.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 10, 2010, 08:37:27 AM
Obama isn't very good at this socialism thing.

Apparently nominating someone with no judicial track record in order to get a smooth confirmation is more important than having the nards to nominate someone with an actual librul record to replace Stevens.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2010, 08:45:06 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 10, 2010, 08:37:27 AM
Obama isn't very good at this socialism thing.

Apparently nominating someone with no judicial track record in order to get a smooth confirmation is more important than having the nards to nominate someone with an actual librul record to replace Stevens.

I'm not really a fan of the pick either; my choice was Sidney Thomas of Montana.  However, Kagan comes with the reputation as a powerfully persuasive individual.  If she can get Kennedy to join the liberals on many of the cases, that's certainly acceptable in my book.

Plus, she's probably a lesbian too.  Bonus points.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM

Not a fan of the pick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 10, 2010, 09:14:26 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2010, 08:45:06 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 10, 2010, 08:37:27 AM
Obama isn't very good at this socialism thing.

Apparently nominating someone with no judicial track record in order to get a smooth confirmation is more important than having the nards to nominate someone with an actual librul record to replace Stevens.

I'm not really a fan of the pick either; my choice was Sidney Thomas of Montana.  However, Kagan comes with the reputation as a powerfully persuasive individual.  If she can get Kennedy to join the liberals on many of the cases, that's certainly acceptable in my book.

Plus, she's probably a lesbian too.  Bonus points.

I can see why she's persuasive. If you just give in to whatever she asks you can stop having to talk to/make eye contact with her.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on May 10, 2010, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Except for the fact that there are 9 judges and only one manager.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 10, 2010, 10:33:54 AM
Quote from: Oleg on May 10, 2010, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Except for the fact that there are 9 judges and only one manager.

Intrepid Reader: P.K. Wrigley

Exactly! That's why we should have a set of managers running the team.


Seriously, not a bad pick. I understand Fork's apprehension, but Harriet Myers she is not.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 10, 2010, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Nah.  It's like making Jim Hendry or Andy MacPhail manage.  Sure, they've never been in the dugout, but they've been in the game for 25 years.

She clerked for Marshall, I believe.  She's worked in the institution.

I don't know if it's a good pick or not.  But her not being a judge isn't exactly a disqualification in my book.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 10, 2010, 10:36:33 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 10, 2010, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Nah.  It's like making Jim Hendry or Andy MacPhail manage.  Sure, they've never been in the dugout, but they've been in the game for 25 years.

She clerked for Marshall, I believe.  She's worked in the institution.

I don't know if it's a good pick or not.  But her not being a judge isn't exactly a disqualification in my book.

Shit, being a judge in Cook County should be an automatic disqualification.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 10, 2010, 10:51:42 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 10, 2010, 10:36:33 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 10, 2010, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Nah.  It's like making Jim Hendry or Andy MacPhail manage.  Sure, they've never been in the dugout, but they've been in the game for 25 years.

She clerked for Marshall, I believe.  She's worked in the institution.

I don't know if it's a good pick or not.  But her not being a judge isn't exactly a disqualification in my book.

Shit, being a judge in Cook County should be an automatic disqualification.

We get it, you live in DuPage.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2010, 11:31:21 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 10, 2010, 10:35:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Nah.  It's like making Jim Hendry or Andy MacPhail manage.  Sure, they've never been in the dugout, but they've been in the game for 25 years.

She clerked for Marshall, I believe.  She's worked in the institution.

I don't know if it's a good pick or not.  But her not being a judge isn't exactly a disqualification in my book.

Rehnquist also had zero judicial experience when Nixon nominated him to the Court in '72.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Over a third of the 111 Supreme Court justices in American history came to the job without prior experience as judges.

Notably: Hugo Black (lawyer and Senator), Felix Frankfurter (lawyer and one of the founders of the ACLU), Thurgood Marshall (lawyer and Chief Counsel for the NAACP), Louis Brandeis (lawyer and social activist), William Rehnquist (lawyer and US Assistant Attorney General), Earl Warren (California Attorney General, Governor of California and sleazy male stripper).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on May 10, 2010, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Over a third of the 111 Supreme Court justices in American history came to the job without prior experience as judges.

Notably: Hugo Black (lawyer and Senator), Felix Frankfurter (lawyer and one of the founders of the ACLU), Thurgood Marshall (lawyer and Chief Counsel for the NAACP), Louis Brandeis (lawyer and social activist), William Rehnquist (lawyer and US Assistant Attorney General), Earl Warren (California Attorney General, Governor of California and sleazy male stripper).

Yeah, IIRC what knocked out Harriet Miers and her makeup gun that was set to "whore" wasn't her lack of bench experience so much as she was just a lightweight who got Bush off on a DUI or some shit.  I believe it was the first, last and only time that the Cheney junta allowed Georgie to make decisions on his own.  Never.  Again.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 10, 2010, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Over a third of the 111 Supreme Court justices in American history came to the job without prior experience as judges.

Notably: Hugo Black (lawyer and Senator), Felix Frankfurter (lawyer and one of the founders of the ACLU), Thurgood Marshall (lawyer and Chief Counsel for the NAACP), Louis Brandeis (lawyer and social activist), William Rehnquist (lawyer and US Assistant Attorney General), Earl Warren (California Attorney General, Governor of California and sleazy male stripper).

That's what Huey calls Felix Pie, because he was polishing off a hot dog when Felix got his first big league hit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2010, 11:51:18 AM
Quote from: MAD on May 10, 2010, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Over a third of the 111 Supreme Court justices in American history came to the job without prior experience as judges.

Notably: Hugo Black (lawyer and Senator), Felix Frankfurter (lawyer and one of the founders of the ACLU), Thurgood Marshall (lawyer and Chief Counsel for the NAACP), Louis Brandeis (lawyer and social activist), William Rehnquist (lawyer and US Assistant Attorney General), Earl Warren (California Attorney General, Governor of California and sleazy male stripper).

Yeah, IIRC what knocked out Harriet Miers and her makeup gun that was set to "whore" wasn't her lack of bench experience so much as she was just a lightweight who got Bush off on a DUI or some shit.  I believe it was the first, last and only time that the Cheney junta allowed Georgie to make decisions on his own.  Never.  Again.

I think it had a lot to do with the "she didn't go to Harvard or Yale" attitude that permeates most of the legal community.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 10, 2010, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Over a third of the 111 Supreme Court justices in American history came to the job without prior experience as judges.

Notably: Hugo Black (lawyer and Senator), Felix Frankfurter (lawyer and one of the founders of the ACLU), Thurgood Marshall (lawyer and Chief Counsel for the NAACP), Louis Brandeis (lawyer and social activist), William Rehnquist (lawyer and US Assistant Attorney General), Earl Warren (California Attorney General, Governor of California and sleazy male stripper).


Okay, fine, I'll have to step up.


"Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on May 10, 2010, 11:55:38 AM
This fucking team sucks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 10, 2010, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 10, 2010, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Over a third of the 111 Supreme Court justices in American history came to the job without prior experience as judges.

Notably: Hugo Black (lawyer and Senator), Felix Frankfurter (lawyer and one of the founders of the ACLU), Thurgood Marshall (lawyer and Chief Counsel for the NAACP), Louis Brandeis (lawyer and social activist), William Rehnquist (lawyer and US Assistant Attorney General), Earl Warren (California Attorney General, Governor of California and sleazy male stripper).


Okay, fine, I'll have to step up.


"Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!"

NOW who's being naïve?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 10, 2010, 11:56:36 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 10, 2010, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Over a third of the 111 Supreme Court justices in American history came to the job without prior experience as judges.

Notably: Hugo Black (lawyer and Senator), Felix Frankfurter (lawyer and one of the founders of the ACLU), Thurgood Marshall (lawyer and Chief Counsel for the NAACP), Louis Brandeis (lawyer and social activist), William Rehnquist (lawyer and US Assistant Attorney General), Earl Warren (California Attorney General, Governor of California and sleazy male stripper).

That's what Huey calls Felix Pie, because he was polishing off a hot dog when Felix got his first big league hit.


That explains Doug "1/4 Bottle of Cinnamon Schnapps and a Handful of Pretzels" Dascenzo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 10, 2010, 12:44:37 PM
THI (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/05/whiff) and THA (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-10/kagan-doesnt-deserve-it/2/)

QuoteYou don't waste a pick on a blank-slate centrist when your position in the Senate is about to get dramatically weaker.

QuoteIn short, Kagan's career represents rampant elitism–which is to say cronyism Ivy League-style–in its worst form. No one doubts she is smart, ambitious, hard-working, and well-liked by lots of influential people. In fact she's so well-liked she's gotten a series of jobs for which she was largely unqualified. She obtained tenure at two of America's top universities, and became a dean at one of them, without producing anything resembling the kind of academic record normally required for such positions.

QuoteNow someone who has never been a judge, and, far more important, has taken almost no public positions on any issue relevant to being a judge, is on the verge of being put on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 10, 2010, 10:50:55 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 10, 2010, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 11:37:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 10:24:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 10, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2010, 08:56:27 AM
Not a fan of the pick.

Say no more.

I figured MikeC would show up with all kinds of talking points & pyrotechnics.

My basic misgiving (which has no value whatsoever) is that judges make decisions that carry ramifications. Kagan has absolutely no experience at this.

It would be tantamount to any of us, who can sit here and pontificate about baseball stats and strategy without any real experience, being appointed manager of the Cubs for life.

Over a third of the 111 Supreme Court justices in American history came to the job without prior experience as judges.

Notably: Hugo Black (lawyer and Senator), Felix Frankfurter (lawyer and one of the founders of the ACLU), Thurgood Marshall (lawyer and Chief Counsel for the NAACP), Louis Brandeis (lawyer and social activist), William Rehnquist (lawyer and US Assistant Attorney General), Earl Warren (California Attorney General, Governor of California and sleazy male stripper).

Yeah, IIRC what knocked out Harriet Miers and her makeup gun that was set to "whore" wasn't her lack of bench experience so much as she was just a lightweight who got Bush off on a DUI or some shit.  I believe it was the first, last and only time that the Cheney junta allowed Georgie to make decisions on his own.  Never.  Again.

Cheney and the GOP threw her ass under the bus before the Senate was able to her - GWB's White House Counsel - under oath. The confirmation hearings would have turned into every Democrat on the committee grilling her about everything other than the Constitution, and SCOTUS's role.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 09:57:08 PM
Wonderful: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/11/political_ad_in_alabama_mocks_evolution.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 10:00:30 PM
DPD, but more Tea Partier fun:

QuoteThe official platform for the Republican Party of Maine is now a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.

The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics," declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that "healthcare is not a right," calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."

http://www.mainepolitics.net/content/maine-republicans-adopt-tea-party-platform?page=1

The document is here: http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf

Whither Collins and Snowe?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 10:10:57 PM
Last link, but an interesting rule change from our sister agency, the National Mediation Board:

QuoteThe National Mediation Board, the body that oversees airline and railway labor negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, yesterday authorized changes that would in effect lower the number of votes required to form a new union. The decision could have profound effects at airlines such as Delta Air Lines and JetBlue, where unions have fought to gain a foothold.

Is there no harbor safe from Obama's tyranny?

QuoteWorkers were previously required to gain a majority of the entire class of workers to win collective bargaining rights, meaning that "no-shows" counted against the union. Under the new rules workers will be allowed to organize if they win a simple majority of those who vote.

Oh.  So, those elections will be counted like every other damn election in this country.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2d37082-5c94-11df-bb38-00144feab49a.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 12, 2010, 12:18:30 AM
Are those bears? (http://www.radioiowa.com/2010/05/06/gay-marriage-opponent-questions-family-camping-policy-for-state-parks/)

QuoteSenator Merlin Bartz, a Republican from Grafton, says it appears to him that the Department of Natural Resources wants to make gay couples eligible for family camping at state parks.... "A lot of the advocates of gay marriage in Iowa have said, 'It doesn't affect anything. Nothing has changed,'" Bartz says. "The reality of it is that everything is changing."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 06:47:39 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 10:00:30 PM
DPD, but more Tea Partier fun:

QuoteThe official platform for the Republican Party of Maine is now a mix of right-wing fringe policies, libertarian buzzwords and outright conspiracy theories.

The document calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve, demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth," suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics," declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal), insists that "healthcare is not a right," calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."

http://www.mainepolitics.net/content/maine-republicans-adopt-tea-party-platform?page=1

The document is here: http://www.mainepolitics.net/sites/default/files/Maine_GOP_platform.pdf

Whither Collins and Snowe?

Are the bolded positions really that outlandish? The Dept. of Education might be the first federal department to cut out. Whom has the Dept. of Ed actually educated? Health care is a service, not a "right." The Law of the Sea Treaty has some problems with it, including the "eminent domain" provision and the levies which are a tax on U.S. interests without representation.

Austrian Economics would call for a tighter money policy, which would counter inflation and promote a strong dollar. (Sure, there are problems with the Austrian School; I subscribe to Friedman's brand of economics myself.)

I don't agree with eliminating the Fed, but the fact that it has little accountability to Congress is a little troubling, dontcha think?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 06:47:39 AM
Are the bolded positions really that outlandish? The Dept. of Education might be the first federal department to cut out. Whom has the Dept. of Ed actually educated?

The first one to cut is the Department of Energy.  Everything they do can be folded into Defense or Commerce.

Labor could also fit into commerce.  Interior and Agriculture could blend.  Veteran Affairs could slide into Defense.

Having national standards for education is a necessity. Not sure if it needs a whole cabinet level bureaucracy, but there is a strong national interest in education.  And there's far more waste at the Federal level in other places than in ejoocashun.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 09:24:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 06:47:39 AM
Are the bolded positions really that outlandish? The Dept. of Education might be the first federal department to cut out. Whom has the Dept. of Ed actually educated?

The first one to cut is the Department of Energy.  Everything they do can be folded into Defense or Commerce.

Labor could also fit into commerce.  Interior and Agriculture could blend.  Veteran Affairs could slide into Defense.

Having national standards for education is a necessity. Not sure if it needs a whole cabinet level bureaucracy, but there is a strong national interest in education.  And there's far more waste at the Federal level in other places than in ejoocashun.

Agreed on Energy and Labor and Commerce and Interior and Ag and VA and Defense (might as well as put Homeland Security under Defense too while we're at it).

But it's one thing to have federal standards and to have a whole cabinet-level bureaucracy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 09:31:42 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 09:24:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 06:47:39 AM
Are the bolded positions really that outlandish? The Dept. of Education might be the first federal department to cut out. Whom has the Dept. of Ed actually educated?

The first one to cut is the Department of Energy.  Everything they do can be folded into Defense or Commerce.

Labor could also fit into commerce.  Interior and Agriculture could blend.  Veteran Affairs could slide into Defense.

Having national standards for education is a necessity. Not sure if it needs a whole cabinet level bureaucracy, but there is a strong national interest in education.  And there's far more waste at the Federal level in other places than in ejoocashun.

Agreed on Energy and Labor and Commerce and Interior and Ag and VA and Defense (might as well as put Homeland Security under Defense too while we're at it).

But it's one thing to have federal standards and to have a whole cabinet-level bureaucracy.

Agreeing and augmenting.

Our only disagreement is on priority.

On Homeland, I kind of think that would fit better under Justice if you had to merge it.  But, if we are going to have that need, keep it separate from the guys buying tanks, planes and subs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World B Free on May 12, 2010, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 09:57:08 PM
Wonderful: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/11/political_ad_in_alabama_mocks_evolution.html

Meh, don't let science and an education get in the way of some good batshit crazy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: World B Free on May 12, 2010, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 09:57:08 PM
Wonderful: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/11/political_ad_in_alabama_mocks_evolution.html

Meh, don't let science and an education get in the way of some good batshit crazy.

That's why we need national standards in education.

Frankly, anyone who believes in Creationism (as in, the Earth is 4,000 years old) over evolution is not qualified for public office.  If a person can refuse to accept hard evidence and supplant that with pure belief, then that person is not qualified to make decisions for the public good.

"I don't care that the evidence says.  I believe it will work!"

That's Al Yellon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on May 12, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: World B Free on May 12, 2010, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 09:57:08 PM
Wonderful: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/11/political_ad_in_alabama_mocks_evolution.html

Meh, don't let science and an education get in the way of some good batshit crazy.

That's why we need national standards in education.

Frankly, anyone who believes in Creationism (as in, the Earth is 4,000 years old) over evolution is not qualified for public office.  If a person can refuse to accept hard evidence and supplant that with pure belief, then that person is not qualified to make decisions for the public good.

"I don't care that the evidence says.  I believe it will work!"

That's Al Yellon.

Chuck is right.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 12, 2010, 11:24:29 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 12, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: World B Free on May 12, 2010, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 09:57:08 PM
Wonderful: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/11/political_ad_in_alabama_mocks_evolution.html

Meh, don't let science and an education get in the way of some good batshit crazy.

That's why we need national standards in education.

Frankly, anyone who believes in Creationism (as in, the Earth is 4,000 years old) over evolution is not qualified for public office.  If a person can refuse to accept hard evidence and supplant that with pure belief, then that person is not qualified to make decisions for the public good.

"I don't care that the evidence says.  I believe it will work!"

That's Al Yellon.

Chuck is right.

We are all doomed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on May 12, 2010, 11:30:22 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 11:24:29 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 12, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 09:51:21 AM
Quote from: World B Free on May 12, 2010, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 09:57:08 PM
Wonderful: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/11/political_ad_in_alabama_mocks_evolution.html

Meh, don't let science and an education get in the way of some good batshit crazy.

That's why we need national standards in education.

Frankly, anyone who believes in Creationism (as in, the Earth is 4,000 years old) over evolution is not qualified for public office.  If a person can refuse to accept hard evidence and supplant that with pure belief, then that person is not qualified to make decisions for the public good.

"I don't care that the evidence says.  I believe it will work!"

That's Al Yellon.

Chuck is right.

We are all doomed.

Speak for yourself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?

If Kagan wants to be a hero to America, she should have a press conference and tell "Midge" to shut the fuck up.

Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 12, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

What do you think?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 12, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?

If Kagan wants to be a hero to America, she should have a press conference and tell "Midge" to shut the fuck up.

Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

No.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 12, 2010, 02:10:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 12, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?

If Kagan wants to be a hero to America, she should have a press conference and tell "Midge" to shut the fuck up.

Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

No.

No.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

What do you think?

David Mamet.  Very good.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 12, 2010, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 12, 2010, 02:10:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 12, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?

If Kagan wants to be a hero to America, she should have a press conference and tell "Midge" to shut the fuck up.

Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

No.

No.

No.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 12, 2010, 02:20:28 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 12, 2010, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 12, 2010, 02:10:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 12, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?

If Kagan wants to be a hero to America, she should have a press conference and tell "Midge" to shut the fuck up.

Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

No.

No.

No.

Yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 12, 2010, 02:20:57 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 12, 2010, 02:20:28 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 12, 2010, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 12, 2010, 02:10:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 12, 2010, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?

If Kagan wants to be a hero to America, she should have a press conference and tell "Midge" to shut the fuck up.

Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

No, I mean, no.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 12, 2010, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

What do you think?

David Mamet.  Very good.

Chuck. Look who asked you that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on May 12, 2010, 03:15:52 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

What do you think?

David Mamet.  Very good.

Chuck. Look who asked you that.

We get it.  You're the token Internet theatre queer around these parts.

And by "we" I mean everyone but Chuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 12, 2010, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 12, 2010, 03:15:52 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

What do you think?

David Mamet.  Very good.

Chuck. Look who asked you that.

We get it.  You're the token Internet theatre queer around these parts.

And by "we" I mean everyone but Chuck.

We get it. Everyone but Chuck gets it.

That was the Royal we. Because I'm a big ol' Queen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 12, 2010, 03:29:00 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 12, 2010, 03:15:52 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 02:10:41 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 12, 2010, 01:52:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 12, 2010, 01:49:22 PM
Anyone ever see the play or film Oleana?

What do you think?

David Mamet.  Very good.

Chuck. Look who asked you that.

We get it.  You're the token Internet theatre queer around these parts.

And by "we" I mean everyone but Chuck.

We get it. Everyone but Chuck gets it.

That was the Royal we. Because I'm a big ol' Queen.

You guys are ruining the "Fuck its silent in here..." thread.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 12, 2010, 04:29:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?

If you called me that I would assume that you weren't intending to pay me a compliment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 05:20:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 12, 2010, 04:29:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 12, 2010, 01:42:59 PM
Glad to see that the women's rights struggle is wrapped up that some feminists have now focused on the use of the uber-offensive term that known misogynist President Obama used to describe Elena Kagan. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-talk-can-you-say-lady-0512-20100511,0,7078798.story)

Lady is offensive? Really?

If you called me that I would assume that you weren't intending to pay me a compliment.

That and "woman" both.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 12, 2010, 05:25:39 PM
I believe that his apology was genuine.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=63399&tsp=1
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 14, 2010, 08:05:39 PM
If they'd a-done that for President Harding, he'd be alive yet. (http://www.pressherald.com/news/call-it-class-struggle-how-politics-went-too-far_2010-05-12.html)

QuoteWhile Clifford used his break time Monday to bang out a few pointed e-mails to GOP leaders asking for help in getting his poster back, King Middle School Principal Mike McCarthy started getting phone calls from rank-and-file Republicans who were upset by what they said they had seen in Clifford's classroom.... They also objected to the contents of a closed cardboard box they found near Clifford's desk. Upon opening it for a look-see, they found copies of the U.S. Constitution printed and donated to the school by (gasp) the American Civil Liberties Union.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 14, 2010, 08:50:14 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 14, 2010, 08:05:39 PM
If they'd a-done that for President Harding, he'd be alive yet. (http://www.pressherald.com/news/call-it-class-struggle-how-politics-went-too-far_2010-05-12.html)

QuoteWhile Clifford used his break time Monday to bang out a few pointed e-mails to GOP leaders asking for help in getting his poster back, King Middle School Principal Mike McCarthy started getting phone calls from rank-and-file Republicans who were upset by what they said they had seen in Clifford's classroom.... They also objected to the contents of a closed cardboard box they found near Clifford's desk. Upon opening it for a look-see, they found copies of the U.S. Constitution printed and donated to the school by (gasp) the American Civil Liberties Union.

A 'small government' movement railing against tyranny while acting like brownshirts? Go figure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 14, 2010, 11:13:02 PM
Yes. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/fools-game-depending-on-honesty-of.html)

QuoteThis exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 15, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 14, 2010, 11:13:02 PM
Yes. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/fools-game-depending-on-honesty-of.html)

QuoteThis exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 15, 2010, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 14, 2010, 11:13:02 PM
Yes. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/fools-game-depending-on-honesty-of.html)

QuoteThis exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 15, 2010, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 15, 2010, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 14, 2010, 11:13:02 PM
Yes. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/fools-game-depending-on-honesty-of.html)

QuoteThis exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

Define "self-interest."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on May 16, 2010, 08:17:27 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 15, 2010, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 15, 2010, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 14, 2010, 11:13:02 PM
Yes. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/fools-game-depending-on-honesty-of.html)

QuoteThis exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

Define "self-interest."

Self Interest: When I JO by myself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 16, 2010, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: powen01 on May 16, 2010, 08:17:27 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 15, 2010, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 15, 2010, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 14, 2010, 11:13:02 PM
Yes. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/fools-game-depending-on-honesty-of.html)

QuoteThis exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

Define "self-interest."

Self Interest: When I JO by myself.

And altruism?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 16, 2010, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 16, 2010, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: powen01 on May 16, 2010, 08:17:27 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 15, 2010, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 15, 2010, 08:05:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 14, 2010, 11:13:02 PM
Yes. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/fools-game-depending-on-honesty-of.html)

QuoteThis exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

TJ's actually correct here.

Define "self-interest."

Self Interest: When I JO by myself.

And altruism?

HJE.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 16, 2010, 02:52:10 PM
DPD

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 09:57:08 PM
Wonderful: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/05/11/political_ad_in_alabama_mocks_evolution.html

In fairness, Alabama has also given us the greatest political ad of the cycle. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 17, 2010, 02:16:26 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 14, 2010, 11:13:02 PM
Yes. (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/fools-game-depending-on-honesty-of.html)

QuoteThis exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

It's precisely the role of government in this matter that indicts Krugman as a simplistic boob.

Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all. (Interestingly, no political system eradicates self-interest; some pretend no one should care about it. Of course BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be most concerned about their interests.)

Yes, BP, Halliburton and Transocean should be expected to pursue their self-interests, just as anyone would.

Indeed, rational self-interest leads the oil industry to actively work to limit statutory regulation on the front end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/05/AR2010050504837.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/kenner_hearing_coast_guard_ins.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/natural-resources/drilling-the-taxpayer/nr-rik-20080918.html#Industry_Influence_Whos_in_Charge_Here

So far, so good from a libertarian perspective, I guess: a self-regulating market mechanism is better than the blunt instrument of centralized regulation.

But how else to ensure adequate safeguards?

When it comes to the regulation of drug safety, Friedman (in the interview Krugman quotes) suggests tort law as an alternative to the FDA.

Set aside for the moment that he's more circumspect in that same interview when it comes to the tragedy of the environmental commons (allowing that "there are cases like the power plant that emits smoke that dirties my shirt in which the company is imposing a cost on me for which I'm not being compensated" that would be a good argument for government coercion).

Let's stipulate that all of the negative externalities can be mitigated and discouraged through market forces and tort law alone: that the risk of liabilities (and, if they survive, the subsequent beating a company would take from wary investors and insurers) should be enough to incentivize due diligence.

Accountability with less government coercion through a self-regulating market. Fine.

Let's suppose, however, that the same group's rational self-interest also leads them to actively work to use the strong arm of the government to limit their own liability exposure on the back end.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514,0,6291548.story

Of course, in limiting their own liability at the legislative level, they're also effectively limiting the freedom of others (in this case, say, out of work Gulf fishermen (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0315696620100503)) to pursue their rational self interests in the courts.

They're, in effect, using the coercive power of the state to shift some of their risks onto others. (In fact, it seems to me that a market that efficiently prices in risk encourages the offloading of risk and the avoidance of responsibility, by whatever means necessary. That the market incentivizes increased regulation in this case.)

Not exactly a triumph of libertarianism. And, yet, it's certainly consistent with their pursuit of that great libertarian ideal: self-interest.

The big point, then, is that in practice a libertarian privileging of self-interest above all will very often lead to un-libertarlan outcomes. (See also: bank bailouts.)

"Meanwhile, in the real world"... we have irony.

Here's the thing, though... Often enough we find such un-libertarian encouragement of government regulation dressed up in libertarian-like market-friendly language. From the story above:

QuoteThe American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade group, said Thursday that raising the cap could also increase the costs of exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico by 25%, "which would threaten our nation's energy security, reduce government revenues and cost thousands of American jobs."

More than that, "tort reform" has long been a battle cry of many (though not all) self-described "libertarians" on the American Right:

http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/knave-of-torts/

For them, torts are just another form of stifling "regulation." And, so, increased regulation of torts thus becomes effectively another form of "deregulation."

And that goes beyond irony into just plain daft.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 17, 2010, 02:17:31 AM
But back to the original quote...

The overall effect of these twin strategies is to erode statutory regulation on the one hand and neuter negative market effects on the other.

(Again, both pursuant to a company's rational self-interest and both incentivized by the market.)

Say a company succeeds at gutting both of the above. Seems to me that all that would be left to ensure that the now-insulated market actor doesn't "get theirs" while burning everything else to the ground (whether by malicious intent (rare) or by negligence or merely cutting corners to cut costs) is... their personal responsibility.

Or at least their "enlightened self-interest." Which is to say: recognition that preserving the system serves their own rational self-interest.

Which was kind of the point of that quote from Digby's blog post (though perhaps poorly worded and over-simplifed):

QuoteThe funny thing is that the same people who believe we should rely on tort law also push "tort reform" which essentially guts it.

This exposes one of the great problems with libertarian thought. First, it assumes that people are rational in the first place. And then it assumes that people who are rational care about preserving the system as much as they care about getting theirs.

This fundamental misunderstanding of human nature is what led Oracle Greenspan to find himself gobsmacked at the age of 80 by the Wall Street melt down. It just never occurred to him that rational people would kill the golden goose—even though they had already hoarded enough goose eggs to keep them and their heirs sitting pretty for centuries.

For all its cynicism when it comes to the power of government, American right-libertarianism is actually downright idealistic when it comes to corporate power and the working of the market.

The million dollar question for the libertarian is: How does one, in a world of competing parties with competing interests, have a functioning libertarian polity in which self-interest is not pursued to un-libertarian ends?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 17, 2010, 09:41:56 AM
This isn't really a political topic - but did anyone else catch the 60 Minutes segment last night about the Deepwater Horizon explosion? Absolutely amazing that this guy survived. And an ANGER-inducing level of stupidity and negligence that led to the disaster.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 17, 2010, 10:54:08 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 17, 2010, 09:41:56 AM
This isn't really a political topic - but did anyone else catch the 60 Minutes segment last night about the Deepwater Horizon explosion? Absolutely amazing that this guy survived. And an ANGER-inducing level of stupidity and negligence that led to the disaster.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml

QuoteOn the rig, Mike Williams was reaching for a door to investigate the engine noise.

"These are three inch thick, steel, fire-rated doors with six stainless steel hinges supporting 'em on the frame. As I reach for the handle, I heard this awful hissing noise, this whoosh. And at the height of the hiss, a huge explosion. The explosion literally rips the door from the hinges, hits, impacts me and takes me to the other side of the shop. And I'm up against a wall, when I finally come around, with a door on top of me. And I remember thinking to myself, 'You know, this, this is it. I'm gonna die right here,'" Williams remembered.

Obviously he survived.

Does this give anyone else hope that Frank Lapidus is still alive?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 17, 2010, 11:27:09 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 17, 2010, 02:16:26 AM

Let's suppose, however, that the same group's rational self-interest also leads them to actively work to use the strong arm of the government to limit their own liability exposure on the back end.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514,0,6291548.story

Of course, in limiting their own liability at the legislative level, they're also effectively limiting the freedom of others (in this case, say, out of work Gulf fishermen (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0315696620100503)) to pursue their rational self interests in the courts.

They're, in effect, using the coercive power of the state to shift some of their risks onto others. (In fact, it seems to me that a market that efficiently prices in risk encourages the offloading of risk and the avoidance of responsibility, by whatever means necessary. That the market incentivizes increased regulation in this case.)

Not exactly a triumph of libertarianism. And, yet, it's certainly consistent with their pursuit of that great libertarian ideal: self-interest.

But others' self-interest should pursue the great libertarian ideal of limiting the power of government to essentially pick the winners.

QuoteThe big point, then, is that in practice a libertarian privileging of self-interest above all will very often lead to un-libertarlan outcomes. (See also: bank bailouts.)

"Meanwhile, in the real world"... we have irony.

Self-interest is the natural state of things. You cannot eliminate it. I will have my interests, you will have yours, whatever they are. It's not "privilege" anymore than you being hungry at lunchtime is "privilege" or you wanting to go to the Hawks game Friday is "privilege."

Self-interest above all involves everyone else pursuing their self-interests. Keeping restraints on the government is a ton more preferrable to shackling the people.

Quote


Here's the thing, though... Often enough we find such un-libertarian encouragement of government regulation dressed up in libertarian-like market-friendly language. From the story above:

QuoteThe American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade group, said Thursday that raising the cap could also increase the costs of exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico by 25%, "which would threaten our nation's energy security, reduce government revenues and cost thousands of American jobs."

More than that, "tort reform" has long been a battle cry of many (though not all) self-described "libertarians" on the American Right:

http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/knave-of-torts/

For them, torts are just another form of stifling "regulation." And, so, increased regulation of torts thus becomes effectively another form of "deregulation."

There are various tort reform positions:

1. A cap on "punitive" damages, which are damages above and beyond actual damages.
2. A "losers pay" system in which legal costs are absorbed by the losing party to discourage frivolous suits.
3. A cap on the percentages a lawyer can claim in class action suits.
4. A cap on actual damages.

Some are just regulations removing the rights of others dressed up in libertarian clothing. Others are not, and are instead written to protect individuals from the nuisance suit or from having to pay an arbitrary punitive figure.

You won't kill self-interest.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

I don't think being conservative or Republican has anything to do with this brand of insanity. I don't even think MikeC would approve of this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 17, 2010, 12:32:53 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

I don't think being conservative or Republican has anything to do with this brand of insanity. I don't even think MikeC would approve of this.

I dunno, he can surprise you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on May 17, 2010, 12:35:22 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

THIS times infinity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 17, 2010, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

I don't think being conservative or Republican has anything to do with this brand of insanity. I don't even think MikeC would approve of this.

No, this is fundamentalist Christians at their worst, and the actual conservatives in Texas are too scared to stop them because of the votes they'll lose. These people aren't conservative in any kind of ideological way, they're bat-shit crazy reactionaries. Revising history is the antithesis of what an actual conservative stands for. If you truly believe that it's necessary to understand the lessons of the past in order to move forward, as I, and most actual conservatives do, you'd agree that this is an incredibly dangerous abuse of political power. This shit has to be stopped at all costs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 17, 2010, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2010, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

I don't think being conservative or Republican has anything to do with this brand of insanity. I don't even think MikeC would approve of this.

No, this is fundamentalist Christians at their worst, and the actual conservatives in Texas are too scared to stop them because of the votes they'll lose. These people aren't conservative in any kind of ideological way, they're bat-shit crazy reactionaries. Revising history is the antithesis of what an actual conservative stands for. If you truly believe that it's necessary to understand the lessons of the past in order to move forward, as I, and most actual conservatives do, you'd agree that this is an incredibly dangerous abuse of political power. This shit has to be stopped at all costs.

This.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 17, 2010, 01:21:58 PM

I'm just getting my crackers, candy & marshmallows so I can make S'Mores at the inevitable book burning.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 17, 2010, 01:58:29 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2010, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2010, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

I don't think being conservative or Republican has anything to do with this brand of insanity. I don't even think MikeC would approve of this.

No, this is fundamentalist Christians at their worst, and the actual conservatives in Texas are too scared to stop them because of the votes they'll lose. These people aren't conservative in any kind of ideological way, they're bat-shit crazy reactionaries. Revising history is the antithesis of what an actual conservative stands for. If you truly believe that it's necessary to understand the lessons of the past in order to move forward, as I, and most actual conservatives do, you'd agree that this is an incredibly dangerous abuse of political power. This shit has to be stopped at all costs.

This.

THAT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 18, 2010, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2010, 11:27:09 AM
But others' self-interest should pursue the great libertarian ideal of limiting the power of government to essentially pick the winners.

I'm not sure what your point here is.

For starters, it seems awfully prescriptive for someone to say what someone else's self-interest "should" be.

More to the point, it is often in someone's self-interest to allow the goverment to "pick the winners" (if they're the ones in the position to be picked, or if they expect to be left on the short end of the stick if everything's left to market forces/etc).

This is precisely to my point.

In the example at hand, it is in the oil companies' self-interest to encourage legislative actions that limit other parties' freedom to sue them. Through their industry association, they work to convince the world that allowing the government to preemptively limit the ability of others to sue them is also in everyone else's self-interest. Quoting again...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514,0,6291548.story

QuoteThe American Petroleum Institute, the industry's trade group, said Thursday that raising the cap could also increase the costs of exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico by 25%, "which would threaten our nation's energy security, reduce government revenues and cost thousands of American jobs."

Further, apparently Lisa Murkowski sees it as in her self-interest to join them in opposing legislation that would enable the freedom of others to sue oil companies.

All fine. This is exactly what self-interest and power looks like in practice. (Which, no, is not to say that the workings of self-interest and power are necessarily bad.)

The simple fact is that such restraint of liberty by the government is a result of various parties' pursuit of their own rational self-interest.

Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2010, 11:27:09 AM
Self-interest is the natural state of things. You cannot eliminate it. I will have my interests, you will have yours, whatever they are. It's not "privilege" anymore than you being hungry at lunchtime is "privilege" or you wanting to go to the Hawks game Friday is "privilege."

Self-interest above all involves everyone else pursuing their self-interests. Keeping restraints on the government is a ton more preferrable to shackling the people.

I don't mean to say libertarianism treats self-interest as a privilege. No one will deny the existence of self-interest. And no one here is talking about 'eliminating' it.

I just mean that libertarianism privileges individual self-interest on the social level as a value first in importance before all other social values (e.g., equality, justice).

As you said:

Quote from: Brownie on May 15, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
Libertarian thought assumes that self-interest trumps all.

I won't deny that self-interest is an unavoidable fact of life and that, in a society of individual self-interests, we will see competing self-interests.

But the negotiation of these competing self-interests in a social space, then, becomes a necessity. And this process of social negotiation is that big, bad dirty word, "politics."

Political structures, both formal and informal, develop over time to deal with competing self-interests, allowing us to live together while still pursuing differing interests (to a greater or lesser degree).

Some (though not all) of these political structures form we call "civil government."

Our American government as it currently exists is the product of over 200 years worth of self-interest contending with self-interest, power contending with power. Actually, well over 200 years if you consider that our American polity didn't leap fully formed from Alexander Hamilton's head, but rather grew out of existing civil traditions. Indeed, self-interest contending with self-interest is the story of all of human history, to the extent that it's probably tautological to describe it as such.

The upshot of this, though, is that our political structures, including all of those that restrict liberty, are the very fruit of centuries worth of rational self-interest playing out in the political economy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 18, 2010, 12:04:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2010, 11:27:09 AM
You won't kill self-interest.

Wouldn't dream of it.

I'm just asking how libertarianism proposes to deal with the reality that rational self-interest will oftentimes conflict with greater liberty.

And, moreover, how libertarians propose to negotiate the conflicting self-interests within society after they've scrapped the very political structures that have developed over centuries of human history for the purposes of dealing with that very problem.

The Burkean in me suggests a certain amount of prudence when approaching the political status quo we've inherited and a wariness of the unintended consequences of messing with it. What currently exists politically grew out of the needs of the complex interactions of society (and, yes, out of competing self-interests within society). What exists, at least to an extent, exists as it does for a reason.

The social democrat in me responds that many of these political structures grow from asymetrical power relations, resulting in structural inequalities that demand interrogation and often reform, accomodation or outright abolition.

It also says, vis a vis libertarianism, that's it's entirely appropriate for society to regulate some self-interest for the sake of greater equality and for the sake of avoiding a society that goes full Thunderdome, where only the powerful prosper.

Finally, while the liberal in me still holds liberty as the highest of ideals, it tempers this with a respect for pragmatism and the importance of fairness, openness and deliberation when it comes to the operations of power.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on May 18, 2010, 03:44:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2010, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

I don't think being conservative or Republican has anything to do with this brand of insanity. I don't even think MikeC would approve of this.

No, this is fundamentalist Christians at their worst, and the actual conservatives in Texas are too scared to stop them because of the votes they'll lose. These people aren't conservative in any kind of ideological way, they're bat-shit crazy reactionaries. Revising history is the antithesis of what an actual conservative stands for. If you truly believe that it's necessary to understand the lessons of the past in order to move forward, as I, and most actual conservatives do, you'd agree that this is an incredibly dangerous abuse of political power. This shit has to be stopped at all costs.

Good luck with that.  They've got Chuck Norris.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 18, 2010, 04:21:08 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on May 18, 2010, 03:44:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2010, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history


Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

I don't think being conservative or Republican has anything to do with this brand of insanity. I don't even think MikeC would approve of this.

No, this is fundamentalist Christians at their worst, and the actual conservatives in Texas are too scared to stop them because of the votes they'll lose. These people aren't conservative in any kind of ideological way, they're bat-shit crazy reactionaries. Revising history is the antithesis of what an actual conservative stands for. If you truly believe that it's necessary to understand the lessons of the past in order to move forward, as I, and most actual conservatives do, you'd agree that this is an incredibly dangerous abuse of political power. This shit has to be stopped at all costs.

Good luck with that.  They've got Chuck Norris.

Big deal.  Al Franken was a wrestler in college!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 18, 2010, 06:25:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 18, 2010, 04:21:08 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on May 18, 2010, 03:44:05 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2010, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: MAD on May 17, 2010, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM
This shit in Texas is getting worse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

Quote from: Dumbass Crazy and Dangerous Zealot"We are fighting for our children's education and our nation's future," Dunbar said. "In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

Unless the Guardian is somehow quoting out of context, someone needs to point a cannon at this woman and light the fucking fuse.  Seriously, I don't know how any right-minded libertarian/conservative here would not be alarmed by the propulsion of this particular agenda unless (s)he is so fucking scared/insecure and blinded by their own ideology that (s)he would be willing to turn a blind eye to this shit that, in a normal society, wouldn't even be taken seriously. 

I have no tolerance for this unique brand of willful ignorance.  Fuck this bitch and all who follow her.

I don't think being conservative or Republican has anything to do with this brand of insanity. I don't even think MikeC would approve of this.

No, this is fundamentalist Christians at their worst, and the actual conservatives in Texas are too scared to stop them because of the votes they'll lose. These people aren't conservative in any kind of ideological way, they're bat-shit crazy reactionaries. Revising history is the antithesis of what an actual conservative stands for. If you truly believe that it's necessary to understand the lessons of the past in order to move forward, as I, and most actual conservatives do, you'd agree that this is an incredibly dangerous abuse of political power. This shit has to be stopped at all costs.

Good luck with that.  They've got Chuck Norris.

Big deal.  Al Franken was a wrestler in college!

Barney Oldfield strikes again.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 18, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 18, 2010, 12:03:57 PM
No one will deny the existence of self-interest.

Until it's separated from clairvoyance and other homely rhetorical baggage, I'll deny it as a meaningful theoretical apparatus, just like the "state of nature."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 01:08:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

In a pure world, yes.  If a business owner chooses to give up revenue based on a person's skin color, that's their right to refuse that business and profit.  In fact, it stands to reason that another business would open right next door offering the same product and put the discriminatory business under as the non-discriminatory business would be more profitable.

That said, we don't live in a pure world.  Other factors can and do come into play.  Peer pressure is a huge one.  "How dare you sell to those guys who are dark on the left side and white on the right! I'm not coming to your kid's bar mitzvah because you serve them."  

Bruce Bartlett (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1734/rand-paul-no-barry-goldwater-civil-rights) had a piece on why the free market failed here:

QuoteAs we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

Sometimes, a little government regulation isn't a bad thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 20, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 20, 2010, 01:18:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 01:08:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

In a pure world, yes.  If a business owner chooses to give up revenue based on a person's skin color, that's their right to refuse that business and profit.  In fact, it stands to reason that another business would open right next door offering the same product and put the discriminatory business under as the non-discriminatory business would be more profitable.

That said, we don't live in a pure world.  Other factors can and do come into play.  Peer pressure is a huge one.  "How dare you sell to those guys who are dark on the left side and white on the right! I'm not coming to your kid's bar mitzvah because you serve them."  

Bruce Bartlett (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1734/rand-paul-no-barry-goldwater-civil-rights) had a piece on why the free market failed here:

QuoteAs we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

Sometimes, a little government regulation isn't a bad thing.

A whole bucket full of THAT. I could MAYBE understand if Paul's argument were "legislation like the Civil Rights Act wouldn't be necessary in TODAY'S social climate, because there's more societal pressure for equality than there is for a second class of citizens." But it's not. He seems to think that, absence the Civil Rights Act, the free market would've stopped segregation. I couldn't disagree more.

I just don't understand clinging to ideology at the expense of common moral sense.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 20, 2010, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 20, 2010, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 20, 2010, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:31:00 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 20, 2010, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 20, 2010, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

No it's me too. I don't need to get a license to do anything else in the church or to enter into a contract.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 20, 2010, 01:31:44 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 20, 2010, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 20, 2010, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

Gubment involvement in marriage was originally for record-keeping purposes only.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 20, 2010, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

I think we know what I think.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 20, 2010, 02:56:01 PM
Let's say a black family's car breaks down in a small town with only one motel. In the libertarian paradise, the owner of this motel (let's just call him Tdubbs' Uncle) has the right to refuse to provide lodging to this family. Is it acceptable that the family should have to sleep in their car so Tdubbs' Uncle's can maintain his absolute property rights?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:08:18 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 02:56:01 PM
Let's say a black family's car breaks down in a small town with only one motel. In the libertarian paradise, the owner of this motel (let's just call him Tdubbs' Uncle) has the right to refuse to provide lodging to this family. Is it acceptable that the family should have to sleep in their car so Tdubbs' Uncle's can maintain his absolute property rights?

Yes.  If there was no hotel, but a boarding house in a private residence, should the owner be forced to take someone in who is stranded?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 03:15:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

I am certain that the Libertarians of the 19th century argued, just as Mr. Paul argues today, that they abhor slavery, but that the Government should not step in to prevent private ownership of human beings.   
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:17:53 PM
Cut the budget!

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 20, 2010, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on May 20, 2010, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in those states that had left the union, and since they considered themselves to be a separate country, it didn't really apply to anyone. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 20, 2010, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on May 20, 2010, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in those states that had left the union, and since they considered themselves to be a separate country, it didn't really apply to anyone. 

Uh, yes it did.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 03:40:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:08:18 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 02:56:01 PM
Let's say a black family's car breaks down in a small town with only one motel. In the libertarian paradise, the owner of this motel (let's just call him Tdubbs' Uncle) has the right to refuse to provide lodging to this family. Is it acceptable that the family should have to sleep in their car so Tdubbs' Uncle's can maintain his absolute property rights?

Yes.  If there was no hotel, but a boarding house in a private residence, should the owner be forced to take someone in who is stranded?

Which, in effect, is an argument that hotels should be like boarding houses, including the elimination of public-safety requirements and the tyranny of having to put locks on doors.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on May 20, 2010, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in those states that had left the union, and since they considered themselves to be a separate country, it didn't really apply to anyone. 

This is a joke, right?  My color blindedness is preventing me from seeing your green font, I think.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on May 20, 2010, 05:33:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2010, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on May 20, 2010, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 03:21:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2010, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

The power to emancipate the slaves was delegated to the United States by the Constitution via the 13th Amendment.

13 wasn't ratified until after Lincoln was dead. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in those states that had left the union, and since they considered themselves to be a separate country, it didn't really apply to anyone.  

This is a joke, right?  My color blindedness is preventing me from seeing your green font, I think.


The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to ten states, none of whom Lincoln had jurisdiction over at the time.  None of the Northern slaves were freed by the Proclamation, and only the part of Virginia that remained loyal to the South was named as an applicable area for freedom.  The Proclamation didn't really apply to the South until 1865, when Sherman ran roughshod over their asses.  

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."--William Seward, Secretary of State under Lincoln
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 06:09:37 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

You're confusing Federalism and Libertarianism. Bruce Bartlett did. You can be a Federalist and a Commie and you can have a broader view of the Constitution and be a libertarian.

If you believe the power of government need to be constrained to protect the rights of the individual, I'm not sure how you can make a case for involuntary servitude.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 20, 2010, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 06:09:37 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

You're confusing Federalism and Libertarianism. Bruce Bartlett did. You can be a Federalist and a Commie and you can have a broader view of the Constitution and be a libertarian.

If you believe the power of government need to be constrained to protect the rights of the individual, I'm not sure how you can make a case for involuntary servitude.


T. J. is right. There is not a single form of Libertarianism across either the left or right end of the spectrum that does not believe that all labor relationships must be entered into voluntarily. Whether you are a Rothbardian Libertarian, an Anarcho-Syndicalist, a Stirnerite, or an Anarcho-Communist, no one can force you to labor for another.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 20, 2010, 06:47:02 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 20, 2010, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 06:09:37 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

You're confusing Federalism and Libertarianism. Bruce Bartlett did. You can be a Federalist and a Commie and you can have a broader view of the Constitution and be a libertarian.

If you believe the power of government need to be constrained to protect the rights of the individual, I'm not sure how you can make a case for involuntary servitude.


T. J. is right. There is not a single form of Libertarianism across either the left or right end of the spectrum that does not believe that all labor relationships must be entered into voluntarily. Whether you are a Rothbardian Libertarian, an Anarcho-Syndicalist, a Stirnerite, or an Anarcho-Communist, no one can force you to labor for another.

This. That, and they believe that people who just wanna have fun should be allowed to do everything within their rights to have that fun, as it's all they really want.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 06:09:37 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

I don't count corporate entities as natural persons, nor is it reasonable to presume that business owners are not lessors. The point, however, was that the discrimination-is-no-problem argument places the rights of the "nation of shopkeepers" in a supervenient position to those of the "people of customers."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on May 20, 2010, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 06:09:37 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

I don't count corporate entities as natural persons, nor is it reasonable to presume that business owners are not lessors. The point, however, was that the discrimination-is-no-problem argument places the rights of the "nation of shopkeepers" in a supervenient position to those of the "people of customers."

Is that like a really big 7-11?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 07:30:59 PM
Quote from: PenPho on May 20, 2010, 07:01:03 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 06:09:37 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

I don't count corporate entities as natural persons, nor is it reasonable to presume that business owners are not lessors. The point, however, was that the discrimination-is-no-problem argument places the rights of the "nation of shopkeepers" in a supervenient position to those of the "people of customers."

Is that like a really big 7-11?

It was indeed a poor word choice.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 20, 2010, 07:38:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 20, 2010, 06:47:02 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 20, 2010, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 06:09:37 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 20, 2010, 01:39:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

And, by "people" what we really mean is "business owners."

A business owner is a person. So yeah, we mean business owners can protect their property as much as non-business-owning people can protect theirs.

Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:45:55 PM

So then was the Government overstepping its authority by violating the 10th Amendment in emancipating slaves?

You're confusing Federalism and Libertarianism. Bruce Bartlett did. You can be a Federalist and a Commie and you can have a broader view of the Constitution and be a libertarian.

If you believe the power of government need to be constrained to protect the rights of the individual, I'm not sure how you can make a case for involuntary servitude.


T. J. is right. There is not a single form of Libertarianism across either the left or right end of the spectrum that does not believe that all labor relationships must be entered into voluntarily. Whether you are a Rothbardian Libertarian, an Anarcho-Syndicalist, a Stirnerite, or an Anarcho-Communist, no one can force you to labor for another.

This. That, and they believe that people who just wanna have fun should be allowed to do everything within their rights to have that fun, as it's all they really want.

Provided they have completed that day's work.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 20, 2010, 08:40:55 PM
DPD.

NSFW - Language.

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/3yez (http://funnyordie.com/m/3yez)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2010, 11:10:12 PM
Expanded coverage to 5 million more individuals, cut foreign aid, and got the debt to 57% of GDP by 2018.  No VAT, either.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 21, 2010, 07:21:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2010, 11:10:12 PM
Expanded coverage to 5 million more individuals, cut foreign aid, and got the debt to 57% of GDP by 2018.  No VAT, either.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

56% by 2018.  Mostly through entitlement reform, but I also let all the Bush tax cuts expire.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 21, 2010, 08:22:39 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 21, 2010, 07:21:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2010, 11:10:12 PM
Expanded coverage to 5 million more individuals, cut foreign aid, and got the debt to 57% of GDP by 2018.  No VAT, either.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

56% by 2018.  Mostly through entitlement reform, but I also let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

TEC is a Taxandspendocrat?!?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on May 21, 2010, 08:23:59 AM
http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/05/rand-paul-obama-criticism-of-bp-un-american.html (http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/05/rand-paul-obama-criticism-of-bp-un-american.html)

QuoteIn an interview Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Paul says the president's response is part of the "blame game" that's played in the U.S. Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are "always someone's fault" and added, sometimes accidents just happen.

Hey Rand do yourself and the rest of us a favor and shut up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 21, 2010, 08:24:19 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 21, 2010, 08:22:39 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 21, 2010, 07:21:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2010, 11:10:12 PM
Expanded coverage to 5 million more individuals, cut foreign aid, and got the debt to 57% of GDP by 2018.  No VAT, either.

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

56% by 2018.  Mostly through entitlement reform, but I also let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

TEC is a Taxandspendocrat?!?

Jim DeMint's gonna have my legs broke.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 21, 2010, 08:51:38 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on May 21, 2010, 08:23:59 AM
http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/05/rand-paul-obama-criticism-of-bp-un-american.html (http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/05/rand-paul-obama-criticism-of-bp-un-american.html)

QuoteIn an interview Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Paul says the president's response is part of the "blame game" that's played in the U.S. Paul said that leads to the thinking that tragic incidents are "always someone's fault" and added, sometimes accidents just happen.

Hey Rand do yourself and the rest of us a favor and shut up.

The Tea Party is the beast that is turning on its master. Good luck getting those independents this fall.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 21, 2010, 12:56:01 PM
Some interesting thoughts on the Tory-Lib Dem coalition and their completely wacko approach to civil liberties abuses:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/21/britain/index.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 21, 2010, 01:58:16 PM
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html

QuoteIn his ads, Grayson is attempting to paint Paul as a kook whose beliefs are outside the mainstream. Which may explain why on several issues, Paul is edging toward the center: Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.

"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms.

http://www.frumforum.com/rand-pauls-personal-special-interest

QuoteRand Paul's libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts, or so reports (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/14/rand-paul-cut-spending-but-not-medicare-doctor-payments/tab/print/) the Wall Street Journal today:

QuoteTea party favorite Rand Paul has rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday's Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government.

But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.

In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. "Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.

I guess this is what the original Rand meant by the morality of selfishness.

Both via: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/in-defense-of-rand-paul-kinda-ctd-2.html

Where Sully's reader notes:

QuotePaul is willing to bend the issue of pure personal freedom for drug laws, abortion, and even coal subsidies ... but he thinks telling a restaurant it cannot discriminate is a bridge too far?  I still don't think he's racist, but what he chooses to be ideologically pure about certainly raises my eyebrow.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 03:25:40 PM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 21, 2010, 01:58:16 PM
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html

QuoteIn his ads, Grayson is attempting to paint Paul as a kook whose beliefs are outside the mainstream. Which may explain why on several issues, Paul is edging toward the center: Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.

"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms.

http://www.frumforum.com/rand-pauls-personal-special-interest

QuoteRand Paul's libertarianism stops where his pocketbook starts, or so reports (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/14/rand-paul-cut-spending-but-not-medicare-doctor-payments/tab/print/) the Wall Street Journal today:

QuoteTea party favorite Rand Paul has rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday's Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government.

But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.

In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. "Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living.

I guess this is what the original Rand meant by the morality of selfishness.

Both via: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/05/in-defense-of-rand-paul-kinda-ctd-2.html

Where Sully's reader notes:

QuotePaul is willing to bend the issue of pure personal freedom for drug laws, abortion, and even coal subsidies ... but he thinks telling a restaurant it cannot discriminate is a bridge too far?  I still don't think he's racist, but what he chooses to be ideologically pure about certainly raises my eyebrow.

All fair points. It would have been refreshing to see Paul make headlines questioning the drug war and turning his back on Ky. Coal Subsidies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
DPD

Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

QuoteBut this controversy does raise the very important topic of the government's central role in American racism. First and foremost, Jim Crow was a legal regime, one that relied on state and local laws to restrict the political, social, and economic liberty of African Americans. Those laws interfered with the right to vote, to acquire property, to contract, to travel, to associate, to marry, and to keep and bear arms. Under the 14th Amendment, state and local governments are forbidden from violating such rights. Yet as we all know, the courts only selectively enforced the 14th Amendment during the Jim Crow era. Indeed, the Supreme Court has yet to enforce the 14th Amendment when it comes to gun rights. But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

It's also important to acknowledge that economic rights are not in some inherent conflict with civil rights. In fact, we have significant historical evidence showing that legally enforced property rights (and other forms of economic liberty) actually undermined the Jim Crow regime. Most famously, the NAACP won its first Supreme Court victory in 1917 by arguing that a residential segregation law was a racist interference with property rights under the 14th Amendment.

Finally, keep in mind that Plessy v. Ferguson, the notorious 1896 Supreme Court decision that enshrined "separate but equal" into law and become a symbol of the Jim Crow era, dealt with a Louisiana law that forbid railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to blacks. That's not a market failure, it's a racist government assault on economic liberty.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 21, 2010, 06:18:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 03:25:40 PM
All fair points. It would have been refreshing to see Paul make headlines questioning the drug war and turning his back on Ky. Coal Subsidies.

You dare to suggest that we spend LESS on Homeland Defense?  Why do you HATE AMERICA?!?!?!?!?!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 22, 2010, 04:54:27 PM
Hutchins-Millen '12!

http://www.kevinmillenforcongress.net/index.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 23, 2010, 07:54:49 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 22, 2010, 04:54:27 PM
Hutchins-Millen '12!

http://www.kevinmillenforcongress.net/index.html

Anything with "Millen" in it is inherently funny.  It's science.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on May 23, 2010, 10:46:59 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 20, 2010, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 20, 2010, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

With an attitude like that, what's stopping Gil from marrying his cousin, or TDubbs from marrying his dog?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 23, 2010, 11:01:04 PM
I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 10:15:03 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on May 23, 2010, 10:46:59 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 20, 2010, 01:29:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 20, 2010, 01:22:23 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2010, 12:20:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 20, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2010, 10:22:40 AM
Another lefty (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more) hit job (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-proud-ignorance-of-rand-paul/56995/) on libertarianism:

QuoteSo is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it's irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes -- this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf -- splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

QuoteBut Paul never settles down and to make the argument. Rachel Maddow repeatedly raises lunch counters, and it would have really pleased me if Paul had just made the case for private sector discrimination. Frankly, I can see the outlines of the argument and am not totally unsympathetic to it. Indeed, I think there's a beautiful justice that's visited upon the random politician who, to this very day, is routinely exposed as belonging to a white country club. There's a kind of social sanction in that embarrassment that I don't think the law can bring. (That said, I trust the people who were actually there more than my own abstract theorizing.)

But what about red-lining? Does Paul know anything about blockbusting? Does he think banks should be able to have a policy of not lending to black businesses? Does he think real-estate agents should be able to discriminate? Does he think private homeowner groups should be able to band together and keep out blacks? Jews? Gays? Latinos?

I kept waiting for Maddow to say."OK these guys are sitting at a lunch counter that won't serve them.  The owner calls the police to remove them.  Should the police arrest them or refuse to intervene in a private dispute over private racism?"

Sure. They're on private property. As long as the police are to protect private property rights, shouldn't they?

To borrow from the wise Rachel Maddow: I'm against high cholesterol, but I am for the right of any of you to eat fried cheese.

So do private property rights trump the right of a black guy to eat lunch at the establishment of his choice?

Just as they should allow the racist guy on the street to invite everyone on his block to his party except for the black guy.

Just as they should allow for a restaurant to elect to seat a famous person before others.

Just as they should allow for a small town strip club in what used to be a school in downstate Illinois to continue operating.

Just as they should allow Tom Ricketts to put whatever signage he wants inside his building.

Just as they should allow private businesses to set rules for decorum inside its doors.

Just as they should allow owners of private businesses to do the right thing as well.

Again, the constraints should be placed on government before it's placed on the people.

So the Government is overreaching in denying marriage to certain individuals? While churches certainly have the right (under the 1st Amendment) to now recognize same-sex marriage, the Libertarian doctrine, as I understand it, dictates the Governement allow everyone to get married.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't give two shits if Bort and Thrill wanna commit to each other. Not my business, not the government's business. Unless one of them queers hits on me.

Not even sure if the gummint needs to be in the marriage business at all. But that's just me.

With an attitude like that, what's stopping Gil from marrying his cousin, or TDubbs from marrying his dog?

or pedophiles from teaching in schools?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 24, 2010, 10:19:36 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 23, 2010, 11:01:04 PM
I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins.


TECbyville Manhattan has spoken!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 24, 2010, 10:23:35 AM

Obama in bed with Big Oil? You betcha (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/23/Palin-WH-ties-to-big-oil-impede-response/UPI-71121274656374/)!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises. If Tom Ricketts tomorrow decided that eating bologna in the left-field bleachers is grounds for ejection, it won't be Chicago Police that will be hauling the voice of the fan out of the ballpark.

A couple points to consider:

1) Plessy v. Ferguson was not a case where the railroad's right to serve whom it wanted was upheld. Au contraire. The railroad, apparently not getting the memo about how many whites would stop riding the train, attempted to sell Plessy a train ticket.
2) The Woolworth lunch counters were desegregated during the Eisenhower Administration, and not by government action.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 04:55:18 PM
Interesting decision on American Needle.  Interesting meaning unanimous in support of American Needle against the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnKEPRNh3mHqN3yzyIjYvUtDubYF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl

This will be a big factor for the upcoming NHL and NFL negotiations.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on May 24, 2010, 04:58:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 04:55:18 PM
Interesting decision on American Needle.  Interesting meaning unanimous in support of American Needle against the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnKEPRNh3mHqN3yzyIjYvUtDubYF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl

This will be a big factor for the upcoming NHL and NFL negotiations.

So, a few questions on this...

1. Does this mean that certain teams can sell their marketing/licensing rights to the highest bidders?
2. Could this affect NCAA sports as well?

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: PenPho on May 24, 2010, 04:58:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 04:55:18 PM
Interesting decision on American Needle.  Interesting meaning unanimous in support of American Needle against the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnKEPRNh3mHqN3yzyIjYvUtDubYF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl

This will be a big factor for the upcoming NHL and NFL negotiations.

So, a few questions on this...

1. Does this mean that certain teams can sell their marketing/licensing rights to the highest bidders?
2. Could this affect NCAA sports as well?



Depending on the district court retrial, yes.
Yes, they were amici in the suit in favor of the NFL.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on May 24, 2010, 06:02:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 24, 2010, 10:23:35 AM

Obama in bed with Big Oil? You betcha (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/23/Palin-WH-ties-to-big-oil-impede-response/UPI-71121274656374/)!

Stolen shamelessly from Reddit:

Sometimes I just don't get Sarah Palin. She sleeps with a guy who worked for BP for eighteen years but accuses Obama of being in bed with big oil. Go figure.

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/c7kod/a_friend_dropped_this_gem_today_sometimes_i_just/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 24, 2010, 08:32:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PMIf Tom Ricketts tomorrow decided that eating bologna in the left-field bleachers is grounds for ejection, it won't be Chicago Police that will be hauling the voice of the fan out of the ballpark.

Well, it would be if Al had his way.

QuotePut police officers in the bleachers. I have not been to the new Yankee Stadium, but in the old Yankee Stadium bleachers -- where I sat at least 15 times during the 1990's and 2000's -- there were both plainclothes and uniformed NYC police officers. If you broke the rules or broke the law, one of these officers would say, "Come with me." If it was serious enough for arrest, they'd arrest you, but on most of these occasions, they would simply escort you out. No questions, no conversation, no excuses.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 25, 2010, 07:22:03 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 24, 2010, 08:32:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PMIf Tom Ricketts tomorrow decided that eating bologna in the left-field bleachers is grounds for ejection, it won't be Chicago Police that will be hauling the voice of the fan out of the ballpark.

Well, it would be if Al had his way.

QuotePut police officers in the bleachers. I have not been to the new Yankee Stadium, but in the old Yankee Stadium bleachers -- where I sat at least 15 times during the 1990's and 2000's -- there were both plainclothes and uniformed NYC police officers. If you broke the rules or broke the law, one of these officers would say, "Come with me." If it was serious enough for arrest, they'd arrest you, but on most of these occasions, they would simply escort you out. No questions, no conversation, no excuses.

There must have been some drunk-free secret bleachers in Yankee Stadium that I was completely unaware of. It was a fucking Wild West show out there.

Actually, the Cubs are within their rights to outlaw bologna being brought into the park, as it is an establishment that sells food, therefore they can restrict people bringing in their own.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 25, 2010, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: PenPho on May 24, 2010, 04:58:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 04:55:18 PM
Interesting decision on American Needle.  Interesting meaning unanimous in support of American Needle against the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnKEPRNh3mHqN3yzyIjYvUtDubYF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl

This will be a big factor for the upcoming NHL and NFL negotiations.

So, a few questions on this...

1. Does this mean that certain teams can sell their marketing/licensing rights to the highest bidders?
2. Could this affect NCAA sports as well?



Depending on the district court retrial, yes.
Yes, they were amici in the suit in favor of the NFL.

George Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones just passed out from the blood rushing to their boners.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 25, 2010, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 25, 2010, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 25, 2010, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 25, 2010, 09:40:36 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 25, 2010, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

Fine, I was tired. Consider them removed. Except that I'm leaving them on the original post out of laziness.

I don't necessarily think you're right about everything devolving into a thunderdome without the government, but if there were a button that dissolved all government right now, I wouldn't push it...yet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 25, 2010, 09:41:36 AM
DPD.

I'm not necessarily ANTI-Thunderdome either. In a limited capacity, they could be pretty kickass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 25, 2010, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 09:41:36 AM
DPD.

I'm not necessarily ANTI-Thunderdome either. In a limited capacity, they could be pretty kickass.

I like to think that there's room for at least a limited use of thunderdome in every system of government.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 10:09:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 25, 2010, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 25, 2010, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 25, 2010, 10:17:52 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

So how does any of this change anything? Underage guy tries to go into a bar; he's denied entrance at the door. Restaurant or nightclub requiring dress code refuses scruffily dressed folks entry. How are they denying entrance? With threat of force.

Maddow says Woolworth lunch counters were a good example of the practicality of the public accommodation rule of the CRA. Except again, consider:

1) The segregation of the lunch counters were lifted in Spring 1960 after peaceful protests (by those protesting the segregation; the counter-protests got ugly).
2) The initial reaction of Woolworth was to simply not serve those who sat at those seats.
3) Police were called in to prevent violence only after counter-protests occurred.

Woolworth desegregated their lunch counters after only a couple months. Woolworth apparently decided they wouldn't lose so many white customers that it wasn't worth serving other customers too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 25, 2010, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 10:09:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 25, 2010, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 25, 2010, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.  A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 10:35:06 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 10:09:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 25, 2010, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 25, 2010, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.  A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 25, 2010, 10:53:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 10:35:06 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 10:09:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 25, 2010, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 25, 2010, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.  A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

That's what it's all about if only people would--
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 25, 2010, 10:55:13 AM

File this under "What the fuck was she thinking?" (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/students-kkk-robes-part-of-racism-lesson-shock-georgia-high-school/19490279).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 11:05:03 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 10:53:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 10:35:06 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 10:09:31 AM
Quote from: SKO on May 25, 2010, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 25, 2010, 08:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 24, 2010, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 24, 2010, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 21, 2010, 08:46:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 21, 2010, 05:25:08 PM
Everyone must be playing Pac Man on Google or something, but just one final counterargument explaining the silliness of suggesting libertarians support Jim Crow: (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/rand-paul-property-rights-and)

Quote[...] But none of that changes the fact that we're talking primarily about state action, not about some failure of the free market.

Isn't it the state that's going to be responsible for hauling the Blue Gums out of one's sacred, likely rented and otherwise state-licensed lunch counter?

Possibly. Of course, they could rely on private security to determine who can be on the privately-owned (or privately-rented) premises.

True.

But, insofar as private security relies on legitimate use of force (or the credible threat thereof) to carry out such work, their work relies on use of force delegated to them by the state, which (per Max Weber's definition) necessarily maintains a successful claim on a monopoly of legitimate use of force over its territory.

(Of course, in our republic, the state's claim on force derives from the legitimacy afforded it by the people. But this doesn't change the fact that it is the state that delegates and legitimates use of force. It merely changes how it does so.)

The point is... Unless you're talking about dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely (which is a whole different can of anarcho-capitalist thunderdome worms), it is still the state that is legitimating the use of force, however private the actors may be.

Not just anarcho-capitalist.

It could be anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, mutualist, agorist, minarchist, and probably about 60 other theories.

Forest for the trees, Jon.

Although, no... Minarchists, as a rule, do not advocate dissolving the state and it's monopoly on violence entirely. That's pretty much the very definition of minarchism.

As a divine-right absolute monarchist, I claim the monopoly on violence entirely for myself. As ordained by God.

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective."

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.  A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

That's what it's all about if only people would--

Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 25, 2010, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 25, 2010, 10:55:13 AM

File this under "What the fuck was she thinking?" (http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/students-kkk-robes-part-of-racism-lesson-shock-georgia-high-school/19490279).

Only *wearing the robes*?  That's a weaksauce reenactment.  They should have burned a cross, or even better, participated in a school-sponsored lynching.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 25, 2010, 11:14:31 AM
Jesse Jr. for Kirk? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37673.html)

Alexi is dead meat.  The only question is if he figures in out in June or November.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on May 25, 2010, 11:15:25 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 25, 2010, 07:43:22 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: PenPho on May 24, 2010, 04:58:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2010, 04:55:18 PM
Interesting decision on American Needle.  Interesting meaning unanimous in support of American Needle against the NFL.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnKEPRNh3mHqN3yzyIjYvUtDubYF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl

This will be a big factor for the upcoming NHL and NFL negotiations.

So, a few questions on this...

1. Does this mean that certain teams can sell their marketing/licensing rights to the highest bidders?
2. Could this affect NCAA sports as well?



Depending on the district court retrial, yes.
Yes, they were amici in the suit in favor of the NFL.

George Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones just passed out from the blood rushing to their boners.

Actually, since baseball is exempt from the anti-trust laws, I don't think this would apply to baseball.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 25, 2010, 11:24:15 AM
Quote from: PenPho on May 25, 2010, 11:15:25 AM
Actually, since baseball is exempt from the anti-trust laws, I don't think this would apply to baseball.

It doesn't, but if Congress decided to act, it would.

In 1972, in Flood v. Kuhn the Supreme Court acknowledged that baseball's antitrust exemption was "an anomaly," but the Court ruled that it is up to Congress to change baseball's antitrust exemption. Bills were introduced before and after, but none ever became a law
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 25, 2010, 02:21:59 PM
Well, this is just fucking dandy (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/illinois-where-videotaping-on).

QuoteLast week, an Illinois judge rejected Chicago artist Christopher Drew's motion to dismiss the Class I felony charge against him. Drew is charged with violating the state's eavesdropping statute when he recorded his encounter with a police officer last December on the streets of Chicago. A Class I felony in Illinois is punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 25, 2010, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 25, 2010, 02:21:59 PM
Well, this is just fucking dandy (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/illinois-where-videotaping-on).

QuoteLast week, an Illinois judge rejected Chicago artist Christopher Drew's motion to dismiss the Class I felony charge against him. Drew is charged with violating the state's eavesdropping statute when he recorded his encounter with a police officer last December on the streets of Chicago. A Class I felony in Illinois is punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

Can someone explain to me how this statute is Constitutional?

It looks like this rule was toughened in the early 1990s. Was this fallout from Bruce Pearl and Deon Thomas?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 25, 2010, 03:17:45 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 25, 2010, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 25, 2010, 02:21:59 PM
Well, this is just fucking dandy (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/illinois-where-videotaping-on).

QuoteLast week, an Illinois judge rejected Chicago artist Christopher Drew's motion to dismiss the Class I felony charge against him. Drew is charged with violating the state's eavesdropping statute when he recorded his encounter with a police officer last December on the streets of Chicago. A Class I felony in Illinois is punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

Can someone explain to me how this statute is Constitutional?

It looks like this rule was toughened in the early 1990s. Was this fallout from Bruce Pearl and Deon Thomas?

I'd just like to know where the hell in Chicago this could have taken place that it wasn't recorded on one of the City's own cameras to begin with?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2010, 03:29:52 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 25, 2010, 03:07:08 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 25, 2010, 02:21:59 PM
Well, this is just fucking dandy (http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/20/illinois-where-videotaping-on).

QuoteLast week, an Illinois judge rejected Chicago artist Christopher Drew's motion to dismiss the Class I felony charge against him. Drew is charged with violating the state's eavesdropping statute when he recorded his encounter with a police officer last December on the streets of Chicago. A Class I felony in Illinois is punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.

Can someone explain to me how this statute is Constitutional?

It looks like this rule was toughened in the early 1990s. Was this fallout from Bruce Pearl and Deon Thomas?

I don't think it is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 25, 2010, 08:13:13 PM
I enjoyed this rant.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3964/yell-louder-yeah-will-cap-oil-leak
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 25, 2010, 08:33:16 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 25, 2010, 08:13:13 PM
I enjoyed this rant.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3964/yell-louder-yeah-will-cap-oil-leak

I really detest Earth Hour.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 25, 2010, 08:40:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 25, 2010, 08:33:16 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 25, 2010, 08:13:13 PM
I enjoyed this rant.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3964/yell-louder-yeah-will-cap-oil-leak

I really detest Earth Hour.

What do you hate about hollow symbolic gestures that solve nothing and make people feel good?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 25, 2010, 09:13:00 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 25, 2010, 08:40:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on May 25, 2010, 08:33:16 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 25, 2010, 08:13:13 PM
I enjoyed this rant.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3964/yell-louder-yeah-will-cap-oil-leak

I really detest Earth Hour.

What do you hate about hollow symbolic gestures that solve nothing and make people feel good?

Nothing. I should be so lucky as to have a facility for that sort of thing. It's the moralizing condescension that gets my goat.

[Edit.--And I'm going to switch solely to paraffin candles if incandescent bulbs become unobtainable, I swear.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 27, 2010, 12:10:48 AM
http://www.americaspeakingout.com/questions/4150/build-a-ten-story-golden-statue-in-honor-of-departed-heavy-metal-singer-ronnie-james-dio-this-will-create-a-great-deal

QuoteBuild a ten-story golden statue in honor of departed heavy metal singer Ronnie James Dio. This will create a great deal of jobs.

ronnie-james-dio  , dio  , job-creation  , gold-standard  , please-the-metal-gods  , holy-diver  , jump-on-the-tiger

QuoteRonnie James Dio is dead? That is unconstitutional!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 27, 2010, 08:07:56 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 27, 2010, 12:10:48 AM
http://www.americaspeakingout.com/questions/4150/build-a-ten-story-golden-statue-in-honor-of-departed-heavy-metal-singer-ronnie-james-dio-this-will-create-a-great-deal

QuoteBuild a ten-story golden statue in honor of departed heavy metal singer Ronnie James Dio. This will create a great deal of jobs.

ronnie-james-dio  , dio  , job-creation  , gold-standard  , please-the-metal-gods  , holy-diver  , jump-on-the-tiger

QuoteRonnie James Dio is dead? That is unconstitutional!

I agree with all of these statements.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 28, 2010, 04:10:49 PM
Awful...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/soldier-iraq-loses-home-homeowners-association-foreclose
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on May 28, 2010, 04:24:46 PM
DPD...

QuoteWhen Texas Gov. Rick Perry visited Iraq in July, Michael says he told him about the problem. According to Michael, Perry called May and put lawyers in touch with the Clauers' attorney, but couldn't do much to alleviate the situation. (Perry's office didn't respond to calls seeking comment.)

I guess Governor of Texas really is no more than a figurehead position (as I've always heard) if Perry has no means of intervening on behalf of a soldier whose home was sold out from under him through fraud or incompetence:

QuoteThere are a bevy of laws that are supposed to protect servicemembers from losing their homes or jobs while they're on active duty, including the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The homeowners' association's lawyer filed an affidavit wrongly claiming that neither of the Clauers was on active duty, says Barbara Hale, the couple's lawyer. Hale is seeking to have the court reverse the foreclosure and declare it "null and void," she says.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 29, 2010, 10:00:40 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27einhorn.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Great?
QuoteAt what level of government debt and future commitments does government default go from being unthinkable to inevitable, and how does our government think about that risk?

I recently posed this question to one of the president's senior economic advisers. He answered that the government is different from financial institutions because it can print money, and statistically the United States is not as bad off as some other countries. For an investor, these responses do not inspire confidence.

He went on to say that the government needs to focus on jobs now, because without an economic recovery, the rest does not matter. It's a valid point, but an insufficient excuse for holding off on addressing the long-term structural deficit. If we are going to spend more now, it is imperative that we lay out a credible plan to avoid falling into a debt trap. Even using the administration's optimistic 10-year forecast, it is clear that we will have problematic deficits for the next decade, which ends just as our commitments to baby boomers accelerate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on May 29, 2010, 11:43:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 29, 2010, 10:00:40 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27einhorn.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Great?
Quote
He went on to say that the government needs to focus on jobs now, because without an economic recovery, the rest does not matter. It's a valid point, but an insufficient excuse for holding off on addressing the long-term structural deficit. If we are going to spend more now, it is imperative that we lay out a credible plan to avoid falling into a debt trap. Even using the administration's optimistic 10-year forecast, it is clear that we will have problematic deficits for the next decade, which ends just as our commitments to baby boomers accelerate.

Tiresome and predictable CFiHP ranting about boomers starts in...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 29, 2010, 12:07:15 PM
too good to not share:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_en2308
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on June 01, 2010, 11:11:32 PM
A timely read given the latest from the Levant...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 03, 2010, 08:52:25 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on June 01, 2010, 11:11:32 PM
A timely read given the latest from the Levant...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false

Joe Biden wants to know what's the big deal (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/06/03/an-interesting-twist/) about this whole flotilla thing.

QuoteIf nothing else, it should be fun and entertaining to watch an American Vice-President provide a full-throated defense of Israel's absolute right to kill Americans. And then watching the bobbleheads in the media agree.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on June 03, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 03, 2010, 08:52:25 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on June 01, 2010, 11:11:32 PM
A timely read given the latest from the Levant...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false

Joe Biden wants to know what's the big deal (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/06/03/an-interesting-twist/) about this whole flotilla thing.

QuoteIf nothing else, it should be fun and entertaining to watch an American Vice-President provide a full-throated defense of Israel's absolute right to kill Americans. And then watching the bobbleheads in the media agree.

QuoteBiden: Yes, we know that, but they could have easily brought it in here and we'd get it through. And so now the question is what do we do? Well, we had made it clear, the President of the United States has spoken three times, yesterday with Bibi, or the day before yesterday, he's spoken once yesterday with a guy that I have spent a fair amount of time with, with Prime Minister Erdogan in Turkey; the Turks, we passed a resolution in the UN saying we need a transparent and open investigation of what happened. It looks like things are...

Rose: International investigation?

Biden: Well, an investigation run by the Israelis, but we're open to international participation, just like the investigation run on the sunken sub in – off the coast of Korea. That was run by South Korea, but the international community joined in that investigation. And so that is very possible here as well. I might add by the way for all those who say the Israelis, you know, you know, you can't trust them, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled today that every one of the people on those ships had to be released immediately.

South Korea investigated a hostile act by the Norks against a South Korean vessel.

Israel is investigating their own hostile act against a Turkish vessel.

Same thing, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 03, 2010, 10:12:05 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on June 03, 2010, 09:22:00 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 03, 2010, 08:52:25 AM
Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on June 01, 2010, 11:11:32 PM
A timely read given the latest from the Levant...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false

Joe Biden wants to know what's the big deal (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/06/03/an-interesting-twist/) about this whole flotilla thing.

QuoteIf nothing else, it should be fun and entertaining to watch an American Vice-President provide a full-throated defense of Israel's absolute right to kill Americans. And then watching the bobbleheads in the media agree.

QuoteBiden: Yes, we know that, but they could have easily brought it in here and we'd get it through. And so now the question is what do we do? Well, we had made it clear, the President of the United States has spoken three times, yesterday with Bibi, or the day before yesterday, he's spoken once yesterday with a guy that I have spent a fair amount of time with, with Prime Minister Erdogan in Turkey; the Turks, we passed a resolution in the UN saying we need a transparent and open investigation of what happened. It looks like things are...

Rose: International investigation?

Biden: Well, an investigation run by the Israelis, but we're open to international participation, just like the investigation run on the sunken sub in – off the coast of Korea. That was run by South Korea, but the international community joined in that investigation. And so that is very possible here as well. I might add by the way for all those who say the Israelis, you know, you know, you can't trust them, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled today that every one of the people on those ships had to be released immediately.

South Korea investigated a hostile act by the Norks against a South Korean vessel.

Israel is investigating their own hostile act against a Turkish vessel.

Same thing, right?

Barney Frank has also invoked North Korea in trying to justify this whole clusterfuck:

QuoteFrank: By the way, I don't remember quite so much worldwide outrage when the North Koreans sank a South Korean submarine and 46 people were killed. There are people much more upset about Israel in a much more ambiguous situation...

So now we're holding North Korea and Israel to the same standards? The reflexive defense by our political class of any action taken by Israel is amazing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on June 03, 2010, 06:15:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 03, 2010, 10:12:05 AM
So now we're holding North Korea and Israel to the same standards? The reflexive defense by our political class of any action taken by Israel is amazing.

At least Jonathan Pollard is still in the clink.

(http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ussliberty.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on June 03, 2010, 07:50:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 03, 2010, 06:15:21 PM
At least Jonathan Pollard is still in the clink.

Apparently that's exactly the problem...

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2010/060210.htm

QuoteWhen Yosaif HaTzadik's brothers found themselves in deep trouble in Eygpt, they did not hesitate to do a little soul-searching and immediately recognized that they had sinned by ignoring their brother Yosaif when he cried out to them from the pit into which they had thrown him.

The great rabbis of this generation (including Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, the greatest Kabbalist alive today) have identified Jonathan Pollard as the Yosaif HaTzadik of our generation. (See statement by Rabbi Eliyahu, shlita. (http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2006/121706.htm))

As long as Pollard continues to rot in an American prison, largely forgotten by the Jewish People, and while successive governments of Israel try to ignore him to death, we will have no blessing. (See J4JP release "Did You Know?" (http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/012607.htm) for details.)

...

... No blessing means no triumphs. No blessing means no victory. No blessing is what keeps Shalit in Gaza. No blessing is what produces disaster after disaster in this country. Unless we wake up, we are headed for even bigger trouble...

... It is important to keep waking people up to the fact that we have neglected the mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim for Pollard for 25 years and that HaShem in His kindness has been holding back His divine anger. Yosaif HaTzadik of our generation is crying out to us from the pit, it is time to hear him! At very very least, time for every Yid to daven for Pollard! At very least time for awareness of our responsibilty to Pollard and to Heaven on this issue!

I guess that means we'll be waiting until at least late 2015 (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Jonathan&Middle=Jay&LastName=Pollard&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=75&y=13) for peace to come to the Levant.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 08:58:51 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

Shooting an American citizen four times in the head and once in the chest?

No.  Not at all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 04, 2010, 09:01:44 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 08:58:51 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

Shooting an American citizen four times in the head and once in the chest?

No.  Not at all.

Yeah.  It's that black and white.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on June 04, 2010, 09:11:23 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 04, 2010, 09:01:44 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 08:58:51 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

Shooting an American citizen four times in the head and once in the chest?

No.  Not at all.

Yeah.  It's that black and white.

Hate crime?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

I don't think either side holds a particularly high moral ground in any of these issues.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on June 04, 2010, 09:21:32 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

I don't think either side holds a particularly high moral ground in any of these issues. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out

Papa SKO'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

I don't think either side holds a particularly high moral ground in any of these issues.

Yep.  This is about right.

Part of the issue is that the Israeli blockade is causing suffering.  However, it's about he only thing they can do for their security.  Both sides have blood on their hands and they can both go fuck themselves.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 04, 2010, 09:29:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

I don't think either side holds a particularly high moral ground in any of these issues.

Yep.  This is about right.

Part of the issue is that the Israeli blockade is causing suffering.  However, it's about he only thing they can do for their security.  Both sides have blood on their hands and they can both go fuck themselves.

I agree with all of this. So everyone screaming for justice is full of shit.

Though it's nice to hear my wife's uneducated Norwegian friends blame America for all of this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on June 04, 2010, 09:29:40 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

I don't think either side holds a particularly high moral ground in any of these issues.

Yep.  This is about right.

Part of the issue is that the Israeli blockade is causing suffering.  However, it's about he only thing they can do for their security.  Both sides have blood on their hands and they can both go fuck themselves.

Holy shit, THIS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 04, 2010, 09:29:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

I don't think either side holds a particularly high moral ground in any of these issues.

Yep.  This is about right.

Part of the issue is that the Israeli blockade is causing suffering.  However, it's about he only thing they can do for their security.  Both sides have blood on their hands and they can both go fuck themselves.

I agree with all of this. So everyone screaming for justice is full of shit.

Though it's nice to hear my wife's uneducated Norwegian friends blame America for all of this.

How are Norwegians uneducated?  Aren't they all socialists or something?  C'MON!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

I don't think either side holds a particularly high moral ground in any of these issues.

Yep.  This is about right.

Part of the issue is that the Israeli blockade is causing suffering.  However, it's about he only thing they can do for their security.  Both sides have blood on their hands and they can both go fuck themselves.

I endorse this comment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 09:57:43 AM
Well lets see, the flotilla was funded by a terrorist organization. Israel gives thousands of tons of aid to Gaza, and offered to transfer whatever the flotilla was transporting to Gaza themselves as long as they got to inspect the cargo.

QuoteThe Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA's radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings.  Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.  According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good.  This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002. 

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO).  In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.  French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere also testified that IHH had an "important role" in Ahmed Ressam's failed "millennium plot" to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999.

Terrorist funded voyage embarks towards Israel and Israel should do nothing? The first wave of soldiers on the boat were armed with paint ball guns and they were being thrown from the upper decks, beaten with bats and shot at. The second wave of soldiers came fully armed and put and end to that non-sense. They wanted a confrontation and they got it, its suicide by Israeli commando. Its no different than srtapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up. They were put on that boat fully expecting to have people killed.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 10:07:17 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 09:57:43 AM
Well lets see, the flotilla was funded by a terrorist organization. Israel gives thousands of tons of aid to Gaza, and offered to transfer whatever the flotilla was transporting to Gaza themselves as long as they got to inspect the cargo.

QuoteThe Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA's radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings.  Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.  According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good.  This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002. 

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO).  In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.  French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere also testified that IHH had an "important role" in Ahmed Ressam's failed "millennium plot" to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999.

Terrorist funded voyage embarks towards Israel and Israel should do nothing? The first wave of soldiers on the boat were armed with paint ball guns and they were being thrown from the upper decks, beaten with bats and shot at. The second wave of soldiers came fully armed and put and end to that non-sense. They wanted a confrontation and they got it, its suicide by Israeli commando. Its no different than srtapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up. They were put on that boat fully expecting to have people killed.



... Except that suicide by Israeli commando plays a lot better in some sectors of the international press.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 10:08:32 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 10:07:17 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 09:57:43 AM
Well lets see, the flotilla was funded by a terrorist organization. Israel gives thousands of tons of aid to Gaza, and offered to transfer whatever the flotilla was transporting to Gaza themselves as long as they got to inspect the cargo.

QuoteThe Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA's radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings.  Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.  According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good.  This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002. 

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO).  In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.  French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere also testified that IHH had an "important role" in Ahmed Ressam's failed "millennium plot" to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999.

Terrorist funded voyage embarks towards Israel and Israel should do nothing? The first wave of soldiers on the boat were armed with paint ball guns and they were being thrown from the upper decks, beaten with bats and shot at. The second wave of soldiers came fully armed and put and end to that non-sense. They wanted a confrontation and they got it, its suicide by Israeli commando. Its no different than srtapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up. They were put on that boat fully expecting to have people killed.



... Except that suicide by Israeli commando plays a lot better in some sectors of the international press.

MikeC endorses the execution of Americans by foreign governments.  Got it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 04, 2010, 11:46:54 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 10:08:32 AM
MikeC endorses the execution of Americans by foreign governments.  Got it.

When that happens, we can ask Mike for his endorsement.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 04, 2010, 12:03:22 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:36:19 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 04, 2010, 09:29:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 09:24:36 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 08:42:03 AM
So was Israel justified in doing what they did?

I don't think either side holds a particularly high moral ground in any of these issues.

Yep.  This is about right.

Part of the issue is that the Israeli blockade is causing suffering.  However, it's about he only thing they can do for their security.  Both sides have blood on their hands and they can both go fuck themselves.

I agree with all of this. So everyone screaming for justice is full of shit.

Though it's nice to hear my wife's uneducated Norwegian friends blame America for all of this.

How are Norwegians uneducated?  Aren't they all socialists or something?  C'MON!

Up north they lay around in their parents' log cabins after graduating high school and sling uninformed opinions about the world outside their own miserable existence.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 12:20:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 10:08:32 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 10:07:17 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 09:57:43 AM
Well lets see, the flotilla was funded by a terrorist organization. Israel gives thousands of tons of aid to Gaza, and offered to transfer whatever the flotilla was transporting to Gaza themselves as long as they got to inspect the cargo.

QuoteThe Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA's radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings.  Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.  According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good.  This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.  

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO).  In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.  French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere also testified that IHH had an "important role" in Ahmed Ressam's failed "millennium plot" to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999.

Terrorist funded voyage embarks towards Israel and Israel should do nothing? The first wave of soldiers on the boat were armed with paint ball guns and they were being thrown from the upper decks, beaten with bats and shot at. The second wave of soldiers came fully armed and put and end to that non-sense. They wanted a confrontation and they got it, its suicide by Israeli commando. Its no different than srtapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up. They were put on that boat fully expecting to have people killed.



... Except that suicide by Israeli commando plays a lot better in some sectors of the international press.

MikeC endorses the execution of Americans by foreign governments.  Got it.

Yes, they really should have stopped and checked ID's before shooting. it would have been an SNL skit they could put on TV...

Israeli Commando #1: (sitting in helicopter) Man they are getting whacked real good down there, quick someone radio the first team to demand to see ID's that should calm the situation down.

Helicopter pilot: GO!

2nd wave lands on deck.

Commando #1: Sir, please stop hitting my friend and show us your ID.

Commando #2: I really don't think he is listening

Commando #1: Ok hold my gun i am gonna go help my friend.

Ahhhh crap there is more of them quick tell them to show ID!! Tell them to show ID!!!!!

Commando #1 now getting the crap kicked out of him.

Commando #2: I would shoot them to get them off you, but i might shoot an American, sorry bud your SOL.

Commando #2 calls HQ: Ahhhh yeah we need a citizen check on an alleged terrorist, i don't know, kinda 5'5" swinging a lousiville slugger, kinda has a really nice uppercut swing to it.....how copy over?

HQ: Do you have a name?

Commando #2: Wait one, i think he is getting tired, i could probably shoot him a question in between swings.

HQ: Copy....take your time.



Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on June 04, 2010, 01:02:48 PM
That's 22 minutes and 41 seconds of your life put to good use there, Comar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 01:07:13 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 12:20:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 10:08:32 AM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 10:07:17 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 09:57:43 AM
Well lets see, the flotilla was funded by a terrorist organization. Israel gives thousands of tons of aid to Gaza, and offered to transfer whatever the flotilla was transporting to Gaza themselves as long as they got to inspect the cargo.

QuoteThe Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA's radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings.  Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world.

However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.  According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas.

In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good.  This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002.  

Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO).  In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda.  French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere also testified that IHH had an "important role" in Ahmed Ressam's failed "millennium plot" to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999.

Terrorist funded voyage embarks towards Israel and Israel should do nothing? The first wave of soldiers on the boat were armed with paint ball guns and they were being thrown from the upper decks, beaten with bats and shot at. The second wave of soldiers came fully armed and put and end to that non-sense. They wanted a confrontation and they got it, its suicide by Israeli commando. Its no different than srtapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up. They were put on that boat fully expecting to have people killed.



... Except that suicide by Israeli commando plays a lot better in some sectors of the international press.

MikeC endorses the execution of Americans by foreign governments.  Got it.

Yes, they really should have stopped and checked ID's before shooting. it would have been an SNL skit they could put on TV...

Israeli Commando #1: (sitting in helicopter) Man they are getting whacked real good down there, quick someone radio the first team to demand to see ID's that should calm the situation down.

Helicopter pilot: GO!

2nd wave lands on deck.

Commando #1: Sir, please stop hitting my friend and show us your ID.

Commando #2: I really don't think he is listening

Commando #1: Ok hold my gun i am gonna go help my friend.

Ahhhh crap there is more of them quick tell them to show ID!! Tell them to show ID!!!!!

Commando #1 now getting the crap kicked out of him.

Commando #2: I would shoot them to get them off you, but i might shoot an American, sorry bud your SOL.

Commando #2 calls HQ: Ahhhh yeah we need a citizen check on an alleged terrorist, i don't know, kinda 5'5" swinging a lousiville slugger, kinda has a really nice uppercut swing to it.....how copy over?

HQ: Do you have a name?

Commando #2: Wait one, i think he is getting tired, i could probably shoot him a question in between swings.

HQ: Copy....take your time.


I get it Mike; he wasn't a "real" American anyway.

ISRAEL, FUCK YEAH!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
 I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 04, 2010, 01:52:03 PM

so when you asked this morning whether anyone thought this was justfied, you just did it as a setup for this whole riff, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 01:57:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 01:57:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Hikers = environmentally friendly = liberal = not-American.

Natch.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 03:36:25 PM
I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 03:55:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 01:57:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Ok what we do know is that the commandos had no clue of any of the nationalities on the ship. Am i right? So i don't know how they could pick an American out of the group and intentionally "execute" them as some of you would assume. What purpose that would serve i don't know.

Does it really matter if it was an American attacking Israeli soldiers or an American attacking American soldiers, they are still going to drop you with bullets. Its a really bad fucking idea to attack Israeli commandos unless your sole purpose in life is to be a dead body. The fact that he is an American citizen among the dead means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He was on board a ship meant to run a naval blockade, that was warned it was going to be stopped, and the passengers some 600 of them wanted to fight what 20-30 commandos?  They provoked a confrontation, the blood is on the hands of the people who instigated the fight on the ship, and participated in the attacks.

He was involved in an illegal act, being funded by known terrorist organizations, and he gets some kinda of special free pass because of his citizenship? Thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Maybe not go on terrorist funded voyage and maybe not attack soldiers would = alive American citizen. But apparently its cool to attack and try and kill the soldiers and give a free pass to the violent terrorists who were the ones who instigated it. Naw that would be to sensible to condemn the terrorists who organized this, much better to just bitch at Israel for defending its nation.

Your defending a terrorist, who was funded by terrorists, who was attacking soldiers on a ship. Why can't he be shot again?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 04:02:04 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 03:36:25 PM
I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

<smarmy dick>No, mowing Iranian lawns, washing dishes dirtied with shawarma and using MY tax payer funded roads to drive around without insurance would be more like what we have done with illegals...  Kidding, sort of, but is there actually a federal punishment for being in this country illegally beyond just getting deported back after your hearings?  I know Mexico imprisons people for up to ten years for their second offense.

As for Mike C., can we hook him up with some type of <rhetorical question> or <oversimplification of the issues> tags?

</smarmy dick>
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 04, 2010, 04:04:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 03:55:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 01:57:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Ok what we do know is that the commandos had no clue of any of the nationalities on the ship. Am i right? So i don't know how they could pick an American out of the group and intentionally "execute" them as some of you would assume. What purpose that would serve i don't know.

Does it really matter if it was an American attacking Israeli soldiers or an American attacking American soldiers, they are still going to drop you with bullets. Its a really bad fucking idea to attack Israeli commandos unless your sole purpose in life is to be a dead body. The fact that he is an American citizen among the dead means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He was on board a ship meant to run a naval blockade, that was warned it was going to be stopped, and the passengers some 600 of them wanted to fight what 20-30 commandos?  They provoked a confrontation, the blood is on the hands of the people who instigated the fight on the ship, and participated in the attacks.

He was involved in an illegal act, being funded by known terrorist organizations, and he gets some kinda of special free pass because of his citizenship? Thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Maybe not go on terrorist funded voyage and maybe not attack soldiers would = alive American citizen. But apparently its cool to attack and try and kill the soldiers and give a free pass to the violent terrorists who were the ones who instigated it. Naw that would be to sensible to condemn the terrorists who organized this, much better to just bitch at Israel for defending its nation.

Your defending a terrorist, who was funded by terrorists, who was attacking soldiers on a ship. Why can't he be shot again?

Why even have an investigation or a judicial system if MikeC knows all the "facts" already?

God, life is not an episode of 24, Comar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 04:02:04 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 03:36:25 PM
I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

<smarmy dick>No, mowing Iranian lawns, washing dishes dirtied with shawarma and using MY tax payer funded roads to drive around without insurance would be more like what we have done with illegals...  Kidding, sort of, but is there actually a federal punishment for being in this country illegally beyond just getting deported back after your hearings?  I know Mexico imprisons people for up to ten years for their second offense.

As for Mike C., can we hook him up with some type of <rhetorical question> or <oversimplification of the issues> tags?

</smarmy dick>

Yes, one can be imprisoned, but we couldn't afford to build all of the prisons that it would take to hold them so we simply deport them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 04:02:04 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 03:36:25 PM
I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

<smarmy dick>No, mowing Iranian lawns, washing dishes dirtied with shawarma and using MY tax payer funded roads to drive around without insurance would be more like what we have done with illegals...  Kidding, sort of, but is there actually a federal punishment for being in this country illegally beyond just getting deported back after your hearings?  I know Mexico imprisons people for up to ten years for their second offense.

As for Mike C., can we hook him up with some type of <rhetorical question> or <oversimplification of the issues> tags?

</smarmy dick>

Yes, one can be imprisoned, but we couldn't afford to build all of the prisons that it would take to hold them so we simply deport them.

Wow, I didn't know there was a federal sentence for that type of thing.  What's the potential length?  Do they use it on habitual offenders or just to hold suspects even longer to build cases for other reasons?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 06:41:35 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: powen01 on June 04, 2010, 04:02:04 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 04, 2010, 03:36:25 PM
I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

<smarmy dick>No, mowing Iranian lawns, washing dishes dirtied with shawarma and using MY tax payer funded roads to drive around without insurance would be more like what we have done with illegals...  Kidding, sort of, but is there actually a federal punishment for being in this country illegally beyond just getting deported back after your hearings?  I know Mexico imprisons people for up to ten years for their second offense.

As for Mike C., can we hook him up with some type of <rhetorical question> or <oversimplification of the issues> tags?

</smarmy dick>

Yes, one can be imprisoned, but we couldn't afford to build all of the prisons that it would take to hold them so we simply deport them.

Wow, I didn't know there was a federal sentence for that type of thing.  What's the potential length?  Do they use it on habitual offenders or just to hold suspects even longer to build cases for other reasons?

On a first offense the unlawful entrant is deportable.  If he re-enters it is two years in prison.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on June 04, 2010, 11:35:44 PM
Reading MikeC's rants makes me want to go hiking in Iran.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 06, 2010, 05:45:48 PM
It seems to me that this is the thread where we should be talking about the Cubs.  But if we did then I guess it wouldn't be silent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 06, 2010, 06:13:07 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 03:55:11 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 01:57:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Ok what we do know is that the commandos had no clue of any of the nationalities on the ship. Am i right? So i don't know how they could pick an American out of the group and intentionally "execute" them as some of you would assume. What purpose that would serve i don't know.

Does it really matter if it was an American attacking Israeli soldiers or an American attacking American soldiers, they are still going to drop you with bullets. Its a really bad fucking idea to attack Israeli commandos unless your sole purpose in life is to be a dead body. The fact that he is an American citizen among the dead means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He was on board a ship meant to run a naval blockade, that was warned it was going to be stopped, and the passengers some 600 of them wanted to fight what 20-30 commandos?  They provoked a confrontation, the blood is on the hands of the people who instigated the fight on the ship, and participated in the attacks.

He was involved in an illegal act, being funded by known terrorist organizations, and he gets some kinda of special free pass because of his citizenship? Thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Maybe not go on terrorist funded voyage and maybe not attack soldiers would = alive American citizen. But apparently its cool to attack and try and kill the soldiers and give a free pass to the violent terrorists who were the ones who instigated it. Naw that would be to sensible to condemn the terrorists who organized this, much better to just bitch at Israel for defending its nation.

Your defending a terrorist, who was funded by terrorists, who was attacking soldiers on a ship. Why can't he be shot again?

Hey, about that terrorist boat cruise (http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/)...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on June 06, 2010, 06:39:18 PM
The Cubs need to be good again
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 07, 2010, 11:35:00 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 04, 2010, 01:57:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 04, 2010, 01:42:36 PM
I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Expanding on that line of thought: (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/06/03/allied-solidarity-whats-that/)

QuoteFor the last few days, the various reactions to the flotilla attack have reminded me of reactions to the short war escalated by Georgia in August 2008. Then as now, there is a U.S. ally that embarks on a military action that is certainly stupid and most likely illegal in pursuit of an unwise and unsustainable policy, the initial assumption that the ally bears the bulk of the blame for the disaster that follows is later proven to be mostly correct, and Washington predictably and reliably takes the side of the attacker. We then hear endlessly about Russian/Turkish perfidy when their citizens are the ones who were attacked first. Not only do many Americans automatically sympathize with the wrong side in these situations, but many of them cannot seem to fathom that there can be any good reason to take a different view.

"Pro-Israel" hawks often complain that others are in the habit of blaming the victim. As they see it, this is what most of the world always does to Israel, whose vulnerability and weakness they exaggerate on a regular basis to make their arguments seem more credible. Most of the people excusing or justifying the flotilla raid and the blockade have been doing nothing but blaming victims since the attack occurred.

QuoteWere the positions somehow reversed, we would likely be hearing something very different from Pollock. Had these been ships filled mostly with Americans en route to provide aid to members the Green movement as part of a Free Iran Flotilla and the attackers were from the Iranian navy, Americans would expect and demand the support of our allies against the state that attacked our citizens. If most Americans cannot understand why Turks expect the same, we really are more clueless as a nation than I had thought possible.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 11:40:35 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 07, 2010, 11:35:00 AM
Were the positions somehow reversed, we would likely be hearing something very different from Pollock. Had these been ships filled mostly with Americans en route to provide aid and possibly weapons because weapons smuggling into the area had a long history of occurring to members the Green movement as part of a Free Iran Flotilla and the attackers were from the Iranian navy who offered a port and shipping of real relief supplies once searched for contraband, Americans would expect and demand the support of our allies against the state that attacked our citizens who shouted "Go back to Auschwitz" and "Don't forget 9/11 guys". If most Americans cannot understand why Turks expect the same, we really are more clueless as a nation than I had thought possible.

More complete'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 07, 2010, 12:07:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 11:40:35 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 07, 2010, 11:35:00 AM
Were the positions somehow reversed, we would likely be hearing something very different from Pollock. Had these been ships filled mostly with Americans en route to provide aid and possibly weapons because weapons smuggling into the area had a long history of occurring to members the Green movement as part of a Free Iran Flotilla and the attackers were from the Iranian navy who offered a port and shipping of real relief supplies once searched for contraband, Americans would expect and demand the support of our allies against the state that attacked our citizens who shouted "Go back to Auschwitz" and "Don't forget 9/11 guys". If most Americans cannot understand why Turks expect the same, we really are more clueless as a nation than I had thought possible.

More complete'd.

I would think the whole "being attacked with clubs and knives" thing would be better justification for the IDF's reaction than having Auschwitz insults thrown their way, but that's just me.

And I completely understand that the Israelis want to screen for dangerous contraband like nutmeg and chickens.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/06/gazachart-thumb-454x274-20530.jpg)

And it's pretty obvious that the whole point of the flotilla was to provoke Israel and publicize what they feel is an inhumane blockade. It's clear they wanted Israel to take the bait. I don't think it's clear that they were "asking for" a bunch of people to end up dead.

I'm just confused about how aggressively taking the bait (shooting people) helps Israel strategically. Seems to me it just isolates them further.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 07, 2010, 12:13:13 PM

Am I the only one surprised chemical fertilizer is on the "Permitted" list?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:13:43 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 07, 2010, 12:07:18 PM
I would think the whole "being attacked with clubs and knives" thing would be better justification for the IDF's reaction than having Auschwitz insults thrown their way, but that's just me.

I wasn't justifying.  I was just casting your strawman Americans in the proper light for empathy,

Quote
And I completely understand that the Israelis want to screen for dangerous contraband like nutmeg and chickens.

Especially when the nutmeg has historically been gunpowder and the chickens have historically been grenades.

Quote
And it's pretty obvious that the whole point of the flotilla was to provoke Israel and publicize what they feel is an inhumane blockade.

Agreed.
Quote
It's clear they wanted Israel to take the bait. I don't think it's clear that they were "asking for" a bunch of people to end up dead.
Anyone suggesting they were "asking for it" is stupid.  Anyone suggesting the organizers weren't hoping some would end up dead for better propaganda is just as stupid.

Quote
I'm just confused about how aggressively taking the bait (shooting people) helps Israel strategically. Seems to me it just isolates them further.

It does.  Israel also thinks that, given the alternative ally to them in the Mid East are all Al-Qaida lovers, Israel can do whatever it wants.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 07, 2010, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:13:43 PM

Anyone suggesting they were "asking for it" is stupid.  Anyone suggesting the organizers weren't hoping some would end up dead for better propaganda is just as stupid.

Just as? And "Teabagger" is just as bad as "nigger."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 07, 2010, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:13:43 PMEspecially when the nutmeg has historically been gunpowder and the chickens have historically been grenades.

Not being a smartass - but what do you mean? That they have disguised grenades to look like chickens?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:26:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 07, 2010, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:13:43 PMEspecially when the nutmeg has historically been gunpowder and the chickens have historically been grenades.

Not being a smartass - but what do you mean? That they have disguised grenades to look like chickens?

Either you are clueless about the historical illegal weapons smuggling into Gaza or you are being a smartass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 07, 2010, 12:28:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:26:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 07, 2010, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:13:43 PMEspecially when the nutmeg has historically been gunpowder and the chickens have historically been grenades.

Not being a smartass - but what do you mean? That they have disguised grenades to look like chickens?

Either you are clueless about the historical illegal weapons smuggling into Gaza or you are being a smartass.

So it's possible to plant a grenade in a live chicken? I honestly didn't know that. How would you pull the pin?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 07, 2010, 01:13:36 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 07, 2010, 12:28:28 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:26:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 07, 2010, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 07, 2010, 12:13:43 PMEspecially when the nutmeg has historically been gunpowder and the chickens have historically been grenades.

Not being a smartass - but what do you mean? That they have disguised grenades to look like chickens?

Either you are clueless about the historical illegal weapons smuggling into Gaza or you are being a smartass.

So it's possible to plant a grenade in a live chicken? I honestly didn't know that. How would you pull the pin?

At least now I know how they make Popcorn Chicken.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 09, 2010, 09:03:32 AM
I think Harry Reid's job just got a lot safer. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/reid-opponent-embraces-patriot-group-that-warns-of-giant-concentration-camps.php?ref=fpa)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 10, 2010, 10:20:02 AM
Reuters doing its best to cover for the peace activists....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi10/07lede_mavi10-custom1.jpg)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi14/07lede_mavi14-custom1.jpg)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi11/07lede_mavi11-custom1.jpg)

Remember first wave IDF soldiers had paintball guns, they were stabbed and beaten badly. Next wave came guys with guns to rescue their fallen brothers. You do the math on what happens next.

And Israel is the bad guys cuz an American got shot. Go figure.

I think the Israel should call up Turkey and say they want to deliver aid to the Kurd's the largest displaced people on this planet. You think Turkey would be all nice and welcoming? They fucking hate the Kurd's.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 10, 2010, 10:21:42 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 10, 2010, 10:20:02 AM
Reuters doing its best to cover for the peace activists....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi10/07lede_mavi10-custom1.jpg)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi14/07lede_mavi14-custom1.jpg)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi11/07lede_mavi11-custom1.jpg)

Remember first wave IDF soldiers had paintball guns, they were stabbed and beaten badly. Next wave came guys with guns to rescue their fallen brothers. You do the math on what happens next.

And Israel is the bad guys cuz an American got shot. Go figure.

I think the Israel should call up Turkey and say they want to deliver aid to the Kurd's the largest displaced people on this planet. You think Turkey would be all nice and welcoming? They fucking hate the Kurd's.


THE HAWKS WON THE CUP! THE HAWKS WON THE CUP!!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 10, 2010, 10:23:09 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 10, 2010, 10:21:42 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 10, 2010, 10:20:02 AM
Reuters doing its best to cover for the peace activists....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi10/07lede_mavi10-custom1.jpg)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi14/07lede_mavi14-custom1.jpg)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi11/07lede_mavi11-custom1.jpg)

Remember first wave IDF soldiers had paintball guns, they were stabbed and beaten badly. Next wave came guys with guns to rescue their fallen brothers. You do the math on what happens next.

And Israel is the bad guys cuz an American got shot. Go figure.

I think the Israel should call up Turkey and say they want to deliver aid to the Kurd's the largest displaced people on this planet. You think Turkey would be all nice and welcoming? They fucking hate the Kurd's.


THE HAWKS WON THE CUP! THE HAWKS WON THE CUP!!!!!
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 10, 2010, 10:24:09 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 10, 2010, 10:20:02 AM
Reuters doing its best to cover for the peace activists....

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi10/07lede_mavi10-custom1.jpg)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi14/07lede_mavi14-custom1.jpg)

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/07/world/middleeast/07lede_mavi11/07lede_mavi11-custom1.jpg)

Remember first wave IDF soldiers had paintball guns, they were stabbed and beaten badly. Next wave came guys with guns to rescue their fallen brothers. You do the math on what happens next.

And Israel is the bad guys cuz an American got shot. Go figure.

I think the Israel should call up Turkey and say they want to deliver aid to the Kurd's the largest displaced people on this planet. You think Turkey would be all nice and welcoming? They fucking hate the Kurd's.

The Kurd's what?

Also...

HAWKS!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 10, 2010, 10:26:46 AM
You guys, this Hawks team is seriously great.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2010, 10:58:55 AM
MikeC backing Israel?  That's like Soriano hitting a homer in the top of the ninth to give the Cubs the lead, then having him make a running catch into the wall to save the game in the bottom.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 10, 2010, 11:06:44 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2010, 10:58:55 AM
MikeC backing Israel?  That's like Soriano hitting a homer in the top of the ninth to give the Cubs the lead, then having him make a running catch into the wall to save the game in the bottom.

I don't get this Chuck post at all.

By which I mean: I understand literally nothing about what this is attempting to say.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 10, 2010, 11:18:24 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 10, 2010, 11:06:44 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2010, 10:58:55 AM
MikeC backing Israel?  That's like Soriano hitting a homer in the top of the ninth to give the Cubs the lead, then having him make a running catch into the wall to save the game in the bottom.

I don't get this Chuck post at all.

By which I mean: I understand literally nothing about what this is attempting to say.

Perhaps Chuck considers being on the same side as MikeC to be the biggest FYC of them all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2010, 07:17:32 PM
I was wrong.  Grenades are really lettuce (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/312100/june-09-2010/formidable-opponent---michael-oren).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 10, 2010, 08:20:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2010, 07:17:32 PM
I was wrong.

I stopped here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 11, 2010, 06:45:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 10, 2010, 07:17:32 PM
I was wrong.  Grenades are really lettuce (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/312100/june-09-2010/formidable-opponent---michael-oren).

The Palestinians should go back to where they came from.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 11, 2010, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

60% OF THE VOTE IS NOT LUCK!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 11, 2010, 11:30:05 AM
I was surprised to learn that there was a Democratic Party in South Carolina.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 11, 2010, 12:22:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.

[Bort pulls up a rusted Ranchero, strewing dust and gravel everywhere, and honks horn - which plays "Dixie"]

"You rang?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 11, 2010, 12:24:07 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 11, 2010, 11:30:05 AM
I was surprised to learn that there was a Democratic Party in South Carolina.

It's basically peninsular Charleston and nowhere else.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:27:22 PM
Quote from: Bort on June 11, 2010, 12:22:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.

[Bort pulls up a rusted Ranchero, strewing dust and gravel everywhere, and honks horn - which plays "Dixie"]

"You rang?"

Do you have mudflaps featuring the silhouette of a naked woman?  Because if you do, we'll make you our king.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World B Free on June 11, 2010, 12:28:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Just a cringeworthy interview.  I think even Olbermann wanted to just end it and move on.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 11, 2010, 12:29:37 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:27:22 PM
Quote from: Bort on June 11, 2010, 12:22:16 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.

[Bort pulls up a rusted Ranchero, strewing dust and gravel everywhere, and honks horn - which plays "Dixie"]

"You rang?"

Do you have mudflaps featuring the silhouette of a naked woman?  Because if you do, we'll make you our king.

They make cars without those?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 11, 2010, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.

Good points all, you're probably right. Unless...all of the incidents you mentioned were part of a long con setting up this epic triple-reverse ratfuck?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 11, 2010, 12:31:19 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.

Good points all, you're probably right. Unless...all of the incidents you mentioned were part of a long con setting up this epic triple-reverse ratfuck?

Strom Thurmond's last words: "Initiate Operation Ratfuck."


Of course, it sounded like "inanhh ahprashh raaafuuu."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World B Free on June 11, 2010, 12:33:59 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.

Good points all, you're probably right. Unless...all of the incidents you mentioned were part of a long con setting up this epic triple-reverse ratfuck?

Given the pedigree of those public servants, maybe this guy isn't so bad after all.  I hope this long con goes on through the Summer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 11, 2010, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.

Good points all, you're probably right. Unless...all of the incidents you mentioned were part of a long con setting up this epic triple-reverse ratfuck?

Like the epic 47 year conspiracy to get a Kenyan Muslim Nazi Socialist as President?

Because, that's still the tops in terms of all ratfucks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 15, 2010, 06:38:24 PM
We're really in for it now...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lightning_strikes_jesus_statue

QuoteMONROE, Ohio – A six-story statue of Jesus Christ was struck by lightning and burned to the ground, leaving only a blackened steel skeleton and pieces of foam that were scooped up by curious onlookers Tuesday.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 17, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
Joe Barton apologizes to BP. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/gop-rep-barton-i-apologize-to-bp-for-tragedy-of-obama-administrations-20-billion-shakedown.php?ref=fpa) After all they've been through it's the least he could do.

QuoteI'm speaking now totally for myself, I'm not speaking for the Republican Party, I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives, but myself. But I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday.

QuoteSo I'm only speaking for myself, I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 17, 2010, 02:32:06 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 17, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
Joe Barton apologizes to BP. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/gop-rep-barton-i-apologize-to-bp-for-tragedy-of-obama-administrations-20-billion-shakedown.php?ref=fpa) After all they've been through it's the least he could do.

Why would he say something so stupid?  Unless...

538 has the answer:

QuoteMaking matters worse for Barton is the identity of the top contributor to his election campaigns. Since 1989, it has been the company Anadarko Petroleum, from which he's received $56,500 in PAC donations and another $90,000 in individual contributions.

Anadarko has been making a lot of news lately, and none of it is good: they're a 25 percent partner in the Macondo Prospect, which was the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion that is causing oil to spill into the Gulf of Mexico. Anadarko has also been sent a bill by BP and asked to pay its share of the cleanup costs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2010, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 17, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
Joe Barton apologizes to BP. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/gop-rep-barton-i-apologize-to-bp-for-tragedy-of-obama-administrations-20-billion-shakedown.php?ref=fpa) After all they've been through it's the least he could do.

QuoteI'm speaking now totally for myself, I'm not speaking for the Republican Party, I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives, but myself. But I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday.

QuoteSo I'm only speaking for myself, I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.

http://joebartonwouldliketoapologize.com/

QuoteBP, for getting our ocean all mixed up in your oil.

QuoteCatholic Church for our soft tender boys turning into bitter ungrateful adults.

QuoteKim Jong-Il for refusing his patent applications for radial tires, holograms, the microwave, the chair, Twitter, farting, fixies, hugs, and the 1978 Ramones album Road to Ruin.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on June 17, 2010, 05:38:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2010, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 17, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
Joe Barton apologizes to BP. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/gop-rep-barton-i-apologize-to-bp-for-tragedy-of-obama-administrations-20-billion-shakedown.php?ref=fpa) After all they've been through it's the least he could do.

QuoteI'm speaking now totally for myself, I'm not speaking for the Republican Party, I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives, but myself. But I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday.

QuoteSo I'm only speaking for myself, I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.

http://joebartonwouldliketoapologize.com/

QuoteBP, for getting our ocean all mixed up in your oil.

QuoteCatholic Church for our soft tender boys turning into bitter ungrateful adults.

QuoteKim Jong-Il for refusing his patent applications for radial tires, holograms, the microwave, the chair, Twitter, farting, fixies, hugs, and the 1978 Ramones album Road to Ruin.


QuoteTony Hayward. Totaly forgot to tickle your balls. Know how you love that. Want to go for another round?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 18, 2010, 11:40:13 AM
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010060110407/culture-wars/homosexuality-hitler-and-dont-ask-dont-tell.html

QuoteThe bottom line from what follows is this:

Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews. Gays in the military is an experiment that has been tried and found disastrously and tragically wanting. Maybe it's time for Congress to learn a lesson from history.

The leftwing blogosphere has gone berzerko over comments I made on my radio program this week regarding Adolph Hitler's homosexuality and the savage homosexuality of his Storm Troopers.

At this point, an excerpt of my remarks is now on YouTube and has been referred to by the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, and the Guardian in the U.K.

I have been accused of sinking to new lows and excoriated for rank homophobia.

The problem for my critics, however, is that I'm right.

...

Mr. Hutchins, your rebuttal?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2010, 12:38:41 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 17, 2010, 05:38:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2010, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 17, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
Joe Barton apologizes to BP. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/gop-rep-barton-i-apologize-to-bp-for-tragedy-of-obama-administrations-20-billion-shakedown.php?ref=fpa) After all they've been through it's the least he could do.

QuoteI'm speaking now totally for myself, I'm not speaking for the Republican Party, I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives, but myself. But I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday.

QuoteSo I'm only speaking for myself, I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.

http://joebartonwouldliketoapologize.com/

QuoteBP, for getting our ocean all mixed up in your oil.

QuoteCatholic Church for our soft tender boys turning into bitter ungrateful adults.

QuoteKim Jong-Il for refusing his patent applications for radial tires, holograms, the microwave, the chair, Twitter, farting, fixies, hugs, and the 1978 Ramones album Road to Ruin.

QuoteTony Hayward. Totaly forgot to tickle your balls. Know how you love that. Want to go for another round?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-19/bp-joe-barton-obama-and-the-shakedown/

QuoteShakedowns of this kind have a long and undistinguished history. And let's acknowledge that they aren't partisan, or even American, in nature. Republican presidents have engaged in similar tactics, like the so-called "voluntary restraint agreement" the Reagan administration reached with Japanese automobile exporters. During the westward expansion of the United States, the federal government "negotiated" with sovereign Indian nations in a similar spirit. European powers engaged in a truly extraordinary shakedown of China during the 19th century, forcing a then-vulnerable empire to accept the spread of opium and surrender treaty ports like Hong Kong. Resentment of the West lingers still.

(http://i.imgur.com/qTcrm.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on June 21, 2010, 12:53:38 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2010, 12:38:41 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on June 17, 2010, 05:38:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2010, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 17, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
Joe Barton apologizes to BP. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/gop-rep-barton-i-apologize-to-bp-for-tragedy-of-obama-administrations-20-billion-shakedown.php?ref=fpa) After all they've been through it's the least he could do.

QuoteI'm speaking now totally for myself, I'm not speaking for the Republican Party, I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives, but myself. But I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday.

QuoteSo I'm only speaking for myself, I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.

http://joebartonwouldliketoapologize.com/

QuoteBP, for getting our ocean all mixed up in your oil.

QuoteCatholic Church for our soft tender boys turning into bitter ungrateful adults.

QuoteKim Jong-Il for refusing his patent applications for radial tires, holograms, the microwave, the chair, Twitter, farting, fixies, hugs, and the 1978 Ramones album Road to Ruin.

QuoteTony Hayward. Totaly forgot to tickle your balls. Know how you love that. Want to go for another round?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-19/bp-joe-barton-obama-and-the-shakedown/

QuoteShakedowns of this kind have a long and undistinguished history. And let's acknowledge that they aren't partisan, or even American, in nature. Republican presidents have engaged in similar tactics, like the so-called "voluntary restraint agreement" the Reagan administration reached with Japanese automobile exporters. During the westward expansion of the United States, the federal government "negotiated" with sovereign Indian nations in a similar spirit. European powers engaged in a truly extraordinary shakedown of China during the 19th century, forcing a then-vulnerable empire to accept the spread of opium and surrender treaty ports like Hong Kong. Resentment of the West lingers still.

(http://i.imgur.com/qTcrm.jpg)

Oh get over it. You push one race of people to the brink of extinction and everyone refuses to let it go. They have casinos now, and we have sweet Black Mountain Gold. Everyone wins.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2010, 02:03:19 PM
Maybe Carl-Henric Svanberg shouldn't have worn that halter top and tight miniskirt to his meeting with Obama...

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stimulus/2010/jun/19/bp-shakedown/

QuoteLet me be clear about something - BP must pay. They've created an environmental disaster (sorry, Mr. President, but it's probably not the biggest in American history - look up the dust bowl sometime) that will probably devastate economic and natural life in the Gulf of Mexico for years and years. I don't think $20 billion plus clean-up costs is too much to demand. It might in fact be too little. If BP cut corners on safety and if the cut corners greatly increased the probability of this disaster, it deserves every legal penalty we can throw at it. But let's not forget that a prostitute can be raped, church-going family men can commit rape, and you're more likely to get away with rape if everyone thinks the victim deserves it.  A corporate vandal can be shaken down, our saintly president can probably manage a pretty good shakedown, and he's likely to get away with it if everyone thinks the victim deserves it.

http://obamacartoon.blogspot.com/2010/03/obamas-shakedown.html

(http://i.imgur.com/RpL50.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2010, 11:16:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 11, 2010, 09:02:40 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 11, 2010, 12:19:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 11, 2010, 10:35:08 AM
This is a great ratfuck by the GOP. Hilarious interview.

"I just ran a good old fashioned campaign."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/olbermann_interviews_alvin_greene.php#more?ref=fpblg

Or it could be that the Dems just nominated a dumbass.

Remember, the is the South Carolina GOP we're talking about here.   It's the party of Congressmen who shout "you lie", Governors that like long walks on the Appalachian Trail, and State Senators who called a Sikh woman a "raghead" and compared her to the Manchurian Candidate.

There's no way in hell they'd be able to pull something like this off.

Good points all, you're probably right. Unless...all of the incidents you mentioned were part of a long con setting up this epic triple-reverse ratfuck?

Like the epic 47 year conspiracy to get a Kenyan Muslim Nazi Socialist as President?

Because, that's still the tops in terms of all ratfucks.

Dem-on-GOP tea**gger ratfuck? (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/okay_this_is_getting_interesting.php)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on June 22, 2010, 08:23:54 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.   The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

What are you implying, Andy Martin?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 22, 2010, 08:53:18 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

Kirk is in the same position George Bush I was.  The question is, will Alexi be smart enough not to say anything stupid?  I doubt it.  Alexi's best campaign strategy would be to go to Ixtapa for the next 6 months and let Kirk finish imploding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on June 22, 2010, 08:57:29 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 22, 2010, 08:53:18 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

Kirk is in the same position George Bush I was.  The question is, will Alexi be smart enough not to say anything stupid?  I doubt it.  Alexi's best campaign strategy would be to go to Ixtapa for the next 6 months and let Kirk finish imploding.

Just wondering out loud here...what would happen if the Green Party candidate got enough votes to keep the top vote-getter from getting 50%? 

Because these two schmoes are currently looking like a worse choice than Blagojevich/Topinka.  Fuck this state.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 08:59:52 AM
Quote from: MAD on June 22, 2010, 08:57:29 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 22, 2010, 08:53:18 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

Kirk is in the same position George Bush I was.  The question is, will Alexi be smart enough not to say anything stupid?  I doubt it.  Alexi's best campaign strategy would be to go to Ixtapa for the next 6 months and let Kirk finish imploding.

Just wondering out loud here...what would happen if the Green Party candidate got enough votes to keep the top vote-getter from getting 50%? 

Because these two schmoes are currently looking like a worse choice than Blagojevich/Topinka.  Fuck this state.

Illinois is still a first past the post system, rather than instant runoff voting, so whoever gets the most votes, even if it's a plurality, wins.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 23, 2010, 12:44:52 PM
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Godspeed, General McChrystal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 23, 2010, 01:40:31 PM
McChrystal is an interesting soldier. Often says what others are afraid to say and headed up the secretive task force 6-26, that i believe found Saddam Hussein and killed Abu Masad Al-Zarqawi.

McChrystal was hand picked by Obama to be the top commander in Afghanistan after sacking Gen. David McKiernan. McChrystal also probably violated protocol by publicly releasing his surge of troops recommendation, which still hasn't been fully realized by the Obama Administration.

The big gripe coming out of Afghanistan is the Rules of Engagement problems. Most of that blame rightly or wrongly is being placed at McChrystal's feet. Judging by Obama and other Democrats responses to how the Afghan war was handled by air raiding/bombing villages, and killing women and children in the dead of the night, the ROE procedure is being dictated by the White House not McChrystal.

What a General can't do is speak up like McChrystal did, and for that he deserved to be removed. His replacement is David Petraeus who believes in a much looser version of the ROE that helped win the battles in Fallujah and turn the whole country of Iraq around. Patreaus's entire philosophy centers around this....

QuoteDoing so required establishing—and maintaining—persistent presence by living among the population, separating reconcilable Iraqis from irreconcilable enemies, relentlessly pursuing the enemy, taking back sanctuaries and then holding areas that have been cleared, and continuing to develop Iraq's security forces and to support local security forces, often called Sons of Iraq, and to integrate them into the Iraqi Army and Police and other employment programs.

Right now we don't do any of that in Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see of Patreaus will get to do what he wants in Afghanistan or will he be replaced when he is fed up. Patreaus is probably the best General we have seen since WW2, a really gifted military leader who isn't really liked by Democrats too much. He has been called General "Betray US" in full page spreads in the New York Times. He has been called a liar by Hillary Clinton who told him his reports, "really require the willing suspension of disbelief." On top of that before he even got his strategy put in place, every Democrat with a microphone said he failed at every turn and the war was lost. The man who every Democrat prayed and hoped would fail is now in charge of I guess fixing Afghanistan. Ain't that a hell of a reversal of fortune.

There is an interesting side note of military history that goes along with Patreaus. One of his handpicked guys H. R. McMaster is brilliant leader, he is most famous for the battle of 73 easting in the 1st Gulf War. If you want to know about something that military tacticians will study for the next 300 years, its that battle. But what probably got McChrystal in trouble was his thesis.....

QuoteHe holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in American History from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with a thesis criticizing American strategy in the Vietnam War and detailed in his 1998 book Dereliction of Duty.[1] It harshly criticizes high-ranking officers of that era, charging they inadequately challenged Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson's military strategy. The book was widely read in Pentagon circles and is listed on the official reading list of the Marine Corps.

I don't think McMaster ment going to Rolling Stone Magazine.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 23, 2010, 01:51:18 PM
(http://starsmedia.ign.com/stars/image/article/962/962328/jessica-hart-20090313023237003_640w.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 23, 2010, 04:12:25 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 23, 2010, 01:40:31 PM
McChrystal is an interesting soldier. Often says what others are afraid to say and headed up the secretive task force 6-26, that i believe found Saddam Hussein and killed Abu Masad Al-Zarqawi.

McChrystal was hand picked by Obama to be the top commander in Afghanistan after sacking Gen. David McKiernan. McChrystal also probably violated protocol by publicly releasing his surge of troops recommendation, which still hasn't been fully realized by the Obama Administration.

The big gripe coming out of Afghanistan is the Rules of Engagement problems. Most of that blame rightly or wrongly is being placed at McChrystal's feet. Judging by Obama and other Democrats responses to how the Afghan war was handled by air raiding/bombing villages, and killing women and children in the dead of the night, the ROE procedure is being dictated by the White House not McChrystal.

What a General can't do is speak up like McChrystal did, and for that he deserved to be removed. His replacement is David Petraeus who believes in a much looser version of the ROE that helped win the battles in Fallujah and turn the whole country of Iraq around. Patreaus's entire philosophy centers around this....

QuoteDoing so required establishing—and maintaining—persistent presence by living among the population, separating reconcilable Iraqis from irreconcilable enemies, relentlessly pursuing the enemy, taking back sanctuaries and then holding areas that have been cleared, and continuing to develop Iraq's security forces and to support local security forces, often called Sons of Iraq, and to integrate them into the Iraqi Army and Police and other employment programs.

Right now we don't do any of that in Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see of Patreaus will get to do what he wants in Afghanistan or will he be replaced when he is fed up. Patreaus is probably the best General we have seen since WW2, a really gifted military leader who isn't really liked by Democrats too much. He has been called General "Betray US" in full page spreads in the New York Times. He has been called a liar by Hillary Clinton who told him his reports, "really require the willing suspension of disbelief." On top of that before he even got his strategy put in place, every Democrat with a microphone said he failed at every turn and the war was lost. The man who every Democrat prayed and hoped would fail is now in charge of I guess fixing Afghanistan. Ain't that a hell of a reversal of fortune.

There is an interesting side note of military history that goes along with Patreaus. One of his handpicked guys H. R. McMaster is brilliant leader, he is most famous for the battle of 73 easting in the 1st Gulf War. If you want to know about something that military tacticians will study for the next 300 years, its that battle. But what probably got McChrystal in trouble was his thesis.....

QuoteHe holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in American History from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with a thesis criticizing American strategy in the Vietnam War and detailed in his 1998 book Dereliction of Duty.[1] It harshly criticizes high-ranking officers of that era, charging they inadequately challenged Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson's military strategy. The book was widely read in Pentagon circles and is listed on the official reading list of the Marine Corps.

I don't think McMaster ment going to Rolling Stone Magazine.

Did you like The Overton Window: A Thriller too?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2010, 08:40:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 24, 2010, 08:43:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)
[/quote]

So, that means what for Kirk and candidate recruitment in Illinois?

Sure?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:46:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 24, 2010, 08:43:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

So, that means what for Kirk and candidate recruitment in Illinois?

Sure?
[/quote]

So, you missed the part I bolded?  See, that was the part I was poke-sticking about, not the last sentence, which is undoubtedly true.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:47:58 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 08:40:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!

(http://www.balgavy.com/apes/Murdock.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 24, 2010, 09:09:48 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:46:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 24, 2010, 08:43:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

So, that means what for Kirk and candidate recruitment in Illinois?

Sure?

So, you missed the part I bolded?  See, that was the part I was poke-sticking about, not the last sentence, which is undoubtedly true.
[/quote]

O RLY?

(http://www.thezephyr.com/jim&carl.jpg)

(http://www.illinoischannel.org/Pictures/TopinkaJudyBaar030312.jpg)

But sure, the Dems option was soo much better....

Oh, and

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2009/05/13/news/companies/birger_fitzgerald.fortune/peter_fitzgerald.03.jpg)

Maybe that's it, but what "credible" candidates have the Dems offered since 1998? Durbin, Lisa Madigan and Obama? By my count, we are tied up at 3. And since Edgar has left office, we've had four years of a GOP governor running scared in the face of Operation Safe Road, so he completely handed his agenda over to the Dems. Then we got the Dems' greatest gift to this state for six years, followed by the affable dunce Pat Quinn. Seeing that Durbin, Madigan and Obama have definitely a few bits of clout in this state, I think we could question their credibility.

As for the Senate race, I will vote for the guy who promises to resign Jan. 3, allowing the new governor to pick his replacement. I'm really disappointed in Kirk. (He's still a better choice than Giannoulias, though). Both candidates remind me a bit of this guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_foalavjaA&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2010, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:47:58 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 08:40:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!


Owning WSJ? Is that significant?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 24, 2010, 09:48:46 AM
Again, I concede that the Democrats are sure to lose many seats this fall.  This happens when any party wins a tremendous number of seats.  However, my point is simply this.  The generic congressional ballot is 44.1% for Republicans and 42.3% for Democrats.  Take out Rasmussen's polling (which is sketchy anyway) and the number is 44.8% for the Democrats and 43.9% for the Republicans.  Hardly blow-out conditions, in my opinion.

Also, it appears that the Republicans are doing more to ruin their own chances than anything else.  There will not be an overarching agenda from the GOP; Boehner has suggested that the GOP doesn't need one, just voter anger in sufficient numbers.  The GOP is flirting with and then actively selecting extremist or otherwise lackluster candidates for seats they should win (Nevada, Illinois, and, in my long shot pick, Kentucky).  And, while voters distrust the Democrats in Congress, they distrust Republicans more.

This is still a media-driven narrative of "blow-out" conditions.  And no, it's not just a FOX driven narrative; every MSM outlet is falling for it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 09:56:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:47:58 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 08:40:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!


Owning WSJ? Is that significant?

Clearly he wrote the poll results himself, and somehow suckered NBC into accepting them.  The guy is amazing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 09:59:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 24, 2010, 09:48:46 AM
Again, I concede that the Democrats are sure to lose many seats this fall.  This happens when any party wins a tremendous number of seats.  However, my point is simply this.  The generic congressional ballot is 44.1% for Republicans and 42.3% for Democrats.  Take out Rasmussen's polling (which is sketchy anyway) and the number is 44.8% for the Democrats and 43.9% for the Republicans.  Hardly blow-out conditions, in my opinion.

Also, it appears that the Republicans are doing more to ruin their own chances than anything else.  There will not be an overarching agenda from the GOP; Boehner has suggested that the GOP doesn't need one, just voter anger in sufficient numbers.  The GOP is flirting with and then actively selecting extremist or otherwise lackluster candidates for seats they should win (Nevada, Illinois, and, in my long shot pick, Kentucky).  And, while voters distrust the Democrats in Congress, they distrust Republicans more.

This is still a media-driven narrative of "blow-out" conditions.  And no, it's not just a FOX driven narrative; every MSM outlet is falling for it.

I think maybe we should just see how it all plays out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 09:56:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:47:58 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 08:40:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!


Owning WSJ? Is that significant?

Clearly he wrote the poll results himself, and somehow suckered NBC into accepting them.  The guy is amazing.

WSJ follows the script. You and I both know how easy polls can be skewed. Ask questions the right way and you could have a poll showing 85% of Americans like ghey buttsecks and hate bacon, when in reality we know it's only Yeti.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 24, 2010, 10:06:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 10:01:56 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 09:56:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 09:32:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:47:58 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2010, 08:40:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!


Owning WSJ? Is that significant?

Clearly he wrote the poll results himself, and somehow suckered NBC into accepting them.  The guy is amazing.

WSJ follows the script. You and I both know how easy polls can be skewed. Ask questions the right way and you could have a poll showing 85% of Americans like ghey buttsecks and hate bacon, when in reality we know it's only Yeti.

From the story:

QuoteFor the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve.

So the NBC/WSJ poll has had Obama in positive territory for 18 months just to set him up for a big fall?

That's an impressive ratfuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on June 24, 2010, 10:22:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 24, 2010, 09:09:48 AM
O RLY?
(http://www.thezephyr.com/jim&carl.jpg)

Carl Hawkinson was my Little League coach for a few years and his son was a groomsman in my wedding.  He's an awesome guy.

/namedrop
/hueystory
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 24, 2010, 10:37:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2010, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 22, 2010, 12:31:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2010, 10:21:09 PM
Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325263274951230.html)

QuoteNearly two-thirds in the survey said they wanted more regulation of oil companies. Majorities also favor more regulation of Wall Street firms, health insurers and "big corporations."

While a majority still favors greater offshore drilling, support has slipped considerably over the past month as the Gulf oil spill has grown worse—from 60% in May to 53% now.

Sixty-three percent support legislation to reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy sources, even if it means an increase in energy costs.

Everything's coming up GOP!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 24, 2010, 02:43:41 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/the-case-for-calling-them-nitwits/8130/

QuoteThey blow each other up by mistake. They bungle even simple schemes. They get intimate with cows and donkeys. Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they're well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine. Can being more realistic about who our foes actually are help us stop the truly dangerous ones?

Read the whole thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on June 24, 2010, 03:19:57 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 24, 2010, 02:43:41 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/the-case-for-calling-them-nitwits/8130/

QuoteThey blow each other up by mistake. They bungle even simple schemes. They get intimate with cows and donkeys. Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they're well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine. Can being more realistic about who our foes actually are help us stop the truly dangerous ones?

Read the whole thing.

Yeah but one of them managed to steal a U.S. Presidential election for himself, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 08:51:50 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

Quote"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?  Not that changes didn't need to happen... but maybe they should be understood before implementation?  Further, an attempt at addressing Fannie and Freddie, and maybe even the broader incentives to extend credit to crappy borrowers, might have been nice.  But then again, Dodd and Frank ("let's roll the dice!") would then have to address their own ineptitude, and indeed that of Congress as a whole in regulating the GSEs, in such a scenario.  Not likely.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 25, 2010, 09:07:21 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 08:51:50 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

Quote"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?  Not that changes didn't need to happen... but maybe they should be understood before implementation?  Further, an attempt at addressing Fannie and Freddie, and maybe even the broader incentives to extend credit to crappy borrowers, might have been nice.  But then again, Dodd and Frank ("let's roll the dice!") would then have to address their own ineptitude, and indeed that of Congress as a whole in regulating the GSEs, in such a scenario.  Not likely.



Intrepid Reader Sen. Carl Levin:
Political theatre? What political theatre?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 09:10:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 08:51:50 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

Quote"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?  Not that changes didn't need to happen... but maybe they should be understood before implementation?  Further, an attempt at addressing Fannie and Freddie, and maybe even the broader incentives to extend credit to crappy borrowers, might have been nice.  But then again, Dodd and Frank ("let's roll the dice!") would then have to address their own ineptitude, and indeed that of Congress as a whole in regulating the GSEs, in such a scenario.  Not likely.

It's a mind numbingly stupid way to say it, but it's true.  Same with every law, right?  What are the unintended consequences?  Where will the smart lawyers figure out the loopholes?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 25, 2010, 09:23:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 25, 2010, 09:07:21 AM

Intrepid Reader Sen. Carl Levin:
Political theatre? What political theatre?

Best neck ankles (nankles) ever.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 25, 2010, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 08:51:50 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

Quote"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?

Isn't this a lame left over talking point from the health care debate?

Dodd didn't say "No one will know what's in it until it's actually in place." He said no one will know how it will work.

Will it be effective in practice rather than in theory?

In other words [guh]: what Internet Chuck said.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 25, 2010, 09:28:52 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 09:10:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 08:51:50 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

Quote"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?  Not that changes didn't need to happen... but maybe they should be understood before implementation?  Further, an attempt at addressing Fannie and Freddie, and maybe even the broader incentives to extend credit to crappy borrowers, might have been nice.  But then again, Dodd and Frank ("let's roll the dice!") would then have to address their own ineptitude, and indeed that of Congress as a whole in regulating the GSEs, in such a scenario.  Not likely.

It's a mind numbingly stupid way to say it, but it's true.  Same with every law, right?  What are the unintended consequences?  Where will the smart lawyers figure out the loopholes?

So in other words, maybe we should work to keep our laws short, simple and few.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 09:30:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 25, 2010, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 08:51:50 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

Quote"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?

Isn't this a lame left over talking point from the health care debate?

Dodd didn't say "No one will know what's in it until it's actually in place." He said no one will know how it will work.

Will it be effective in practice rather than in theory?

In other words [guh]: what Internet Chuck said.

This is not a good thing... or, what Internet TJ said.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 25, 2010, 12:55:47 PM
Nancy Pelosi was the one that said, I believe, we need to pass health care reform to find out whats in it.

Do remember Chris Dodd was the one watching over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, got sweetheart loans, crafted stimulus bill and helped out on Health Care reform....and his last attempt at stealing billions of dollars from hard working Americans is financial overhaul before he rides off into the sunset.

You want the #1 guy responsible for crushing debt? Spending trillions of tax dollars to clean up his messes? Its Chris fucking Dodd. Who will go down in Democrat history as a guy who did an awesome job. if someone needs his ass kicked its Chris Dodd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 25, 2010, 12:55:47 PM
Nancy Pelosi was the one that said, I believe, we need to pass health care reform to find out whats in it.

Do remember Chris Dodd was the one watching over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, got sweetheart loans, crafted stimulus bill and helped out on Health Care reform....and his last attempt at stealing billions of dollars from hard working Americans is financial overhaul before he rides off into the sunset.

You want the #1 guy responsible for crushing debt? Spending trillions of tax dollars to clean up his messes? Its Chris fucking Dodd. Who will go down in Democrat history as a guy who did an awesome job. if someone needs his ass kicked its Chris Dodd.

Yeah.  It's not Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and their veto pens.  It's not Howard Baker or Trent Lott or Bill Frist.  Or Dennis Hastert.  It's Chris Dodd.

This is like blaming Dave Veres for blowing it in 2003.  Yeah, he's not very good, but it wasn't even close to his fault.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 25, 2010, 12:55:47 PM
Nancy Pelosi was the one that said, I believe, we need to pass health care reform to find out whats in it.

Do remember Chris Dodd was the one watching over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, got sweetheart loans, crafted stimulus bill and helped out on Health Care reform....and his last attempt at stealing billions of dollars from hard working Americans is financial overhaul before he rides off into the sunset.

You want the #1 guy responsible for crushing debt? Spending trillions of tax dollars to clean up his messes? Its Chris fucking Dodd. Who will go down in Democrat history as a guy who did an awesome job. if someone needs his ass kicked its Chris Dodd.

Yeah.  It's not Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and their veto pens.  It's not Howard Baker or Trent Lott or Bill Frist.  Or Dennis Hastert.  It's Chris Dodd.

This is like blaming Dave Veres for blowing it in 2003.  Yeah, he's not very good, but it wasn't even close to his fault.

That list of names is... interesting.  I'm detecting a pattern there, and it isn't one of fault.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 25, 2010, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 25, 2010, 12:55:47 PM
Nancy Pelosi was the one that said, I believe, we need to pass health care reform to find out whats in it.

Do remember Chris Dodd was the one watching over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, got sweetheart loans, crafted stimulus bill and helped out on Health Care reform....and his last attempt at stealing billions of dollars from hard working Americans is financial overhaul before he rides off into the sunset.

You want the #1 guy responsible for crushing debt? Spending trillions of tax dollars to clean up his messes? Its Chris fucking Dodd. Who will go down in Democrat history as a guy who did an awesome job. if someone needs his ass kicked its Chris Dodd.

Yeah.  It's not Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and their veto pens.  It's not Howard Baker or Trent Lott or Bill Frist.  Or Dennis Hastert.  It's Chris Dodd.

This is like blaming Dave Veres for blowing it in 2003.  Yeah, he's not very good, but it wasn't even close to his fault.

That list of names is... interesting.  I'm detecting a pattern there, and it isn't one of fault.

I think the point Chuck was trying to make was that Chris Dodd is an odd choice to scapegoat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2010, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 25, 2010, 12:55:47 PM
Nancy Pelosi was the one that said, I believe, we need to pass health care reform to find out whats in it.

Do remember Chris Dodd was the one watching over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, got sweetheart loans, crafted stimulus bill and helped out on Health Care reform....and his last attempt at stealing billions of dollars from hard working Americans is financial overhaul before he rides off into the sunset.

You want the #1 guy responsible for crushing debt? Spending trillions of tax dollars to clean up his messes? Its Chris fucking Dodd. Who will go down in Democrat history as a guy who did an awesome job. if someone needs his ass kicked its Chris Dodd.

Yeah.  It's not Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and their veto pens.  It's not Howard Baker or Trent Lott or Bill Frist.  Or Dennis Hastert.  It's Chris Dodd.

This is like blaming Dave Veres for blowing it in 2003.  Yeah, he's not very good, but it wasn't even close to his fault.

That list of names is... interesting.  I'm detecting a pattern there, and it isn't one of fault.

I think the point Chuck was trying to make was that Chris Dodd is an odd choice to scapegoat.

I'd have picked Barney "roll the dice" Frank, myself...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on June 25, 2010, 01:38:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2010, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 25, 2010, 12:55:47 PM
Nancy Pelosi was the one that said, I believe, we need to pass health care reform to find out whats in it.

Do remember Chris Dodd was the one watching over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, got sweetheart loans, crafted stimulus bill and helped out on Health Care reform....and his last attempt at stealing billions of dollars from hard working Americans is financial overhaul before he rides off into the sunset.

You want the #1 guy responsible for crushing debt? Spending trillions of tax dollars to clean up his messes? Its Chris fucking Dodd. Who will go down in Democrat history as a guy who did an awesome job. if someone needs his ass kicked its Chris Dodd.

Yeah.  It's not Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and their veto pens.  It's not Howard Baker or Trent Lott or Bill Frist.  Or Dennis Hastert.  It's Chris Dodd.

This is like blaming Dave Veres for blowing it in 2003.  Yeah, he's not very good, but it wasn't even close to his fault.

That list of names is... interesting.  I'm detecting a pattern there, and it isn't one of fault.

I think the point Chuck was trying to make was that Chris Dodd is an odd choice to scapegoat.

I'd have picked Barney "roll the dice" Frank, myself...

Barney Frank wasn't on the 2003 Cubs team.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 25, 2010, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2010, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 25, 2010, 12:55:47 PM
Nancy Pelosi was the one that said, I believe, we need to pass health care reform to find out whats in it.

Do remember Chris Dodd was the one watching over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, got sweetheart loans, crafted stimulus bill and helped out on Health Care reform....and his last attempt at stealing billions of dollars from hard working Americans is financial overhaul before he rides off into the sunset.

You want the #1 guy responsible for crushing debt? Spending trillions of tax dollars to clean up his messes? Its Chris fucking Dodd. Who will go down in Democrat history as a guy who did an awesome job. if someone needs his ass kicked its Chris Dodd.

Yeah.  It's not Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and their veto pens.  It's not Howard Baker or Trent Lott or Bill Frist.  Or Dennis Hastert.  It's Chris Dodd.

This is like blaming Dave Veres for blowing it in 2003.  Yeah, he's not very good, but it wasn't even close to his fault.

That list of names is... interesting.  I'm detecting a pattern there, and it isn't one of fault.

I think the point Chuck was trying to make was that Chris Dodd is an odd choice to scapegoat.

I'd have picked Barney "roll the dice" Frank, myself...

If you're going to blame Congress for our National debt, you might want to pick someone who has been in the Majority party for most of the last 20 years, since they held the purse strings.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 02:01:46 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2010, 01:40:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2010, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 25, 2010, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 25, 2010, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 25, 2010, 12:55:47 PM
Nancy Pelosi was the one that said, I believe, we need to pass health care reform to find out whats in it.

Do remember Chris Dodd was the one watching over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, got sweetheart loans, crafted stimulus bill and helped out on Health Care reform....and his last attempt at stealing billions of dollars from hard working Americans is financial overhaul before he rides off into the sunset.

You want the #1 guy responsible for crushing debt? Spending trillions of tax dollars to clean up his messes? Its Chris fucking Dodd. Who will go down in Democrat history as a guy who did an awesome job. if someone needs his ass kicked its Chris Dodd.

Yeah.  It's not Reagan, Bush I and Bush II and their veto pens.  It's not Howard Baker or Trent Lott or Bill Frist.  Or Dennis Hastert.  It's Chris Dodd.

This is like blaming Dave Veres for blowing it in 2003.  Yeah, he's not very good, but it wasn't even close to his fault.

That list of names is... interesting.  I'm detecting a pattern there, and it isn't one of fault.

I think the point Chuck was trying to make was that Chris Dodd is an odd choice to scapegoat.

I'd have picked Barney "roll the dice" Frank, myself...

If you're going to blame Congress for our National debt, you might want to pick someone who has been in the Majority party for most of the last 20 years, since they held the purse strings.

Since January 20, 1981, the veto pen has been held by a Goop for 20 of those 30 years.  In 3 of those 20 years, the government ran a surplus as Reagan predicted (we would grow our way out of the debt he started).  It was squandered in Years 21 to 28.  Again, no use of the veto pen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
I think we have gone over the fact that the Clinton years do a whole lot of fuzzy math to make it look like they had a surplus. I don't know how you can add to the national debt and still run a surplus. But hey you Democrats are good with fuzzy math, saved or created jobs, health care bill, stimulus bill, whole shit load of fuzzy math going on there.

And what no talk about Weigel and JournoList? Journalists (lefty ones) conspiring together to shape the news cycle. Locked in a bubble of group thinking people all with one agenda, to stop conservatives and to promote liberal stories and narratives. And people wonder why the MSM is bleeding viewers and can't sell news papers. Its because they can no longer be trusted to deliver the news.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 26, 2010, 01:20:13 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
And what no talk about Weigel and JournoList?

Nope.

None.

Because Dave Weigel resigning from the Washington Post for writing "This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire" in a private email exchange is such a devastating blow to our Glorious Socialist Revolution that we're at a total loss for words.

Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PMJournalists (lefty ones) conspiring together to shape the news cycle.

That's one way of describing it.

Another would be "a private electronic mailing list used to share arguments and discuss ideas over the computer internet."

Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PMLocked in a bubble of group thinking people all with one agenda, to stop conservatives and to promote liberal stories and narratives.

Or: an off-the-record email discussion on various issues of the day amongst a group of people who share a broad ideological orientation yet still have a wide variety of opinions and areas of expertise.

Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PMAnd people wonder why the MSM is bleeding viewers and can't sell news papers. Its because they can no longer be trusted to deliver the news.

Yes. The whole MSM infrastructure is bound to collapse under its own decadent weight any... day... now...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 26, 2010, 04:06:35 PM
http://randomactsofshark.blogspot.com/2008/11/table-of-contents.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 26, 2010, 06:02:38 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
I think we have gone over the fact that the Clinton years do a whole lot of fuzzy math to make it look like they had a surplus.

As opposed to ignoring the 20 years of spending an not vetoing.

Bitching about the debt now is only because it's not your guy signing the checks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 27, 2010, 11:46:24 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
I think we have gone over the fact that the Clinton years do a whole lot of fuzzy math to make it look like they had a surplus. I don't know how you can add to the national debt and still run a surplus. But hey you Democrats are good with fuzzy math, saved or created jobs, health care bill, stimulus bill, whole shit load of fuzzy math going on there.

And what no talk about Weigel and JournoList? Journalists (lefty ones) conspiring together to shape the news cycle. Locked in a bubble of group thinking people all with one agenda, to stop conservatives and to promote liberal stories and narratives. And people wonder why the MSM is bleeding viewers and can't sell news papers. Its because they can no longer be trusted to deliver the news.


Here MikeC, read this.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/25/defending-dave-weigel
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 27, 2010, 11:54:19 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 27, 2010, 11:46:24 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
I think we have gone over the fact that the Clinton years do a whole lot of fuzzy math to make it look like they had a surplus. I don't know how you can add to the national debt and still run a surplus. But hey you Democrats are good with fuzzy math, saved or created jobs, health care bill, stimulus bill, whole shit load of fuzzy math going on there.

And what no talk about Weigel and JournoList? Journalists (lefty ones) conspiring together to shape the news cycle. Locked in a bubble of group thinking people all with one agenda, to stop conservatives and to promote liberal stories and narratives. And people wonder why the MSM is bleeding viewers and can't sell news papers. Its because they can no longer be trusted to deliver the news.


Here MikeC, read this.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/25/defending-dave-weigel

This. However, Weigel should know as well as anyone that there unfortunately is hardly ever such thing as "off the record."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 27, 2010, 12:10:49 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 27, 2010, 11:54:19 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 27, 2010, 11:46:24 AM
Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
I think we have gone over the fact that the Clinton years do a whole lot of fuzzy math to make it look like they had a surplus. I don't know how you can add to the national debt and still run a surplus. But hey you Democrats are good with fuzzy math, saved or created jobs, health care bill, stimulus bill, whole shit load of fuzzy math going on there.

And what no talk about Weigel and JournoList? Journalists (lefty ones) conspiring together to shape the news cycle. Locked in a bubble of group thinking people all with one agenda, to stop conservatives and to promote liberal stories and narratives. And people wonder why the MSM is bleeding viewers and can't sell news papers. Its because they can no longer be trusted to deliver the news.


Here MikeC, read this.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/25/defending-dave-weigel

This. However, Weigel should know as well as anyone that there unfortunately is hardly ever such thing as "off the record."

I refuse to accept the premise that the internet has destroyed the public/private distinction in people's lives.  99.9 % of what's posted here would probably get us in trouble with our employers, our friends and our families, but we still do it nevertheless.  For the WaPo or any other journalistic outfit to take such Draconian action over what is tantamount to a stool at a bar is offensive.

It's almost as if the standard from the Post (or the Manichean conservatives breathing fire over this incident, i.e. MikeC) is that, if you are a journalist, you have no private life, everything must be objective.

Christ, could a journalist even vote under this standard?  These were private comments and should have remained that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 28, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

He probably figured nobody reads Rolling Stone any more.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 28, 2010, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

I thought Tim Weigel was dead already?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

This was about the Washington Post reporter, Stew, not McChrystal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

This was about the Washington Post reporter, Stew, not McChrystal.

You expect me to read this stuff?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on June 28, 2010, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

This was about the Washington Post reporter, Stew, not McChrystal.

You expect me to read this stuff?

No, I think Stew just "saw what Morph did there." I LOL'd, Morph. I LOL'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 28, 2010, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

This was about the Washington Post reporter, Stew, not McChrystal.

You expect me to read this stuff?

No, I think Stew just "saw what Morph did there." I LOL'd, Morph. I LOL'd.

To be fair, I never advocated McChrystal's firing, unlike that noted liberal William Kristol. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on June 28, 2010, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 28, 2010, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

This was about the Washington Post reporter, Stew, not McChrystal.

You expect me to read this stuff?

No, I think Stew just "saw what Morph did there." I LOL'd, Morph. I LOL'd.

To be fair, I never advocated McChrystal's firing, unlike that noted liberal William Kristol. 

But you're no liberal, Gil. You and I are Nixonians. We'll lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule like Kings.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 28, 2010, 09:45:44 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 28, 2010, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

I thought Tim Weigel was dead already?

I keep hoping for Teri Weigel.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:00:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 28, 2010, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 28, 2010, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

This was about the Washington Post reporter, Stew, not McChrystal.

You expect me to read this stuff?

No, I think Stew just "saw what Morph did there." I LOL'd, Morph. I LOL'd.

To be fair, I never advocated McChrystal's firing, unlike that noted liberal William Kristol. 

But you're no liberal, Gil. You and I are Nixonians. We'll lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule like Kings.

Indeed.  Indeed.

My love for Nixon goes so far that I practically squee whenever I see the Nixon silver dollar in the alternate universe on "Fringe."  Better him than that no-goodnik Kennedy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 28, 2010, 10:02:54 AM
QuoteThat was the nature of the Senate in Byrd's day: It was thick with rules that could be used to tie the institution in knots, but those rules were governed by norms that were used to keep the institution functioning. It was this tradition that led Byrd to write a letter opposing filibuster reform earlier this year. "If the Senate rules are being abused," he wrote, "it does not necessarily follow that the solution is to change the rules. Senators are obliged to exercise their best judgment when invoking their right to extended debate." In other words, the Senate needed to reestablish its norms, not change its rules.

But the situation is too far gone for all that. The Senate is now a place of blanket holds and routine filibusters and anonymous obstruction and party-line votes. The thing about norms is that once broken, they're generally dead forever.

QuoteEventually, change to the norms will lead to change in the rules. But we're in the lag time when the Senate hasn't caught up to its own reality yet. You see this in different generations of senators: Many of the freshmen and sophomores want to change the body's rules. Some of the elders, like Byrd, steadfastly resisted such reforms.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/02/filibusters-1102-thumb-454x233.gif)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/the_post-byrd_senate.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 10:13:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 28, 2010, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

This was about the Washington Post reporter, Stew, not McChrystal.

You expect me to read this stuff?

No, I think Stew just "saw what Morph did there." I LOL'd, Morph. I LOL'd.

To be fair, I never advocated McChrystal's firing, unlike that noted liberal William Kristol.  

Weigel was a journalist who shared hot-headed opinions of other journalists (and Matt Drudge) privately over email in his capacity as a private citizen.

McChrystal was commander of our forces in Afghanistan and, in his official capacity as such, allowed his staff to speak mockingly of his civilian commanders in the presence of a reporter who was there specifically to write a profile for publication in a major magazine. Though possibly not in full-on violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_toward_officials), this certainly approached that line and displayed undeniable lack of respect for the chain of command and civilian control of the military.

These are two very different things.

FWIW.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 28, 2010, 10:48:05 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 10:13:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: SKO on June 28, 2010, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 09:13:42 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 28, 2010, 09:09:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 28, 2010, 06:52:18 AM
I must agree with Gil and TJ here.  Private comments are private comments and he shouldn't have been fired for making them...

Anyone who makes private comments around a Rolling Stone reporter thinking that they won't become public is too dumb too hold a responsible position.

This was about the Washington Post reporter, Stew, not McChrystal.

You expect me to read this stuff?

No, I think Stew just "saw what Morph did there." I LOL'd, Morph. I LOL'd.

To be fair, I never advocated McChrystal's firing, unlike that noted liberal William Kristol.  

Weigel was a journalist who shared hot-headed opinions of other journalists (and Matt Drudge) privately over email in his capacity as a private citizen.

McChrystal was commander of our forces in Afghanistan and, in his official capacity as such, allowed his staff to speak mockingly of his civilian commanders in the presence of a reporter who was there specifically to write a profile for publication in a major magazine. Though possibly not in full-on violation of Article 88 of the UCMJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_toward_officials), this certainly approached that line and displayed undeniable lack of respect for the chain of command and civilian control of the military.

These are two very different things.

FWIW.

You're completely correct.

The only thing I will say again about Weigel is that a Listserv is not that private, and he should know better. It's one thing to say something in confidence; it's another to put it into print. I wouldn't fire him, but I'd certainly reprimand Weigel for it.

I do wonder what would have happened if a member of the WH press corps said something personally offensive about the President or Robert Gibbs or Biden on this Listserv.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 28, 2010, 10:53:54 AM
Can we all agree that the world would indeed be a better place if Matt Drudge were to set himself on fire?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:56:30 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2010, 10:53:54 AM
Can we all agree that the world would indeed be a better place if Matt Drudge were to set himself on fire?

Agreed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 11:36:10 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

What is your fascination with my Forbidden Closet of Mystery?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2010, 11:38:49 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 11:36:10 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

What is your fascination with my Forbidden Closet of Mystery?

I thought I'd find Ozzie Smith in there.

(http://gameparlor.com/dan/384px-Springfield_Mystery_Spot.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on June 28, 2010, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

I don't see how that's the real question.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Because it's an amendment to the constitution that most liberals (though certainly not all) would like to pretend doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Yeah, what is Daley's facination with this?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Because it's an amendment to the constitution that most liberals (though certainly not all) would like to pretend doesn't exist.

But I have to have a gun... It's in the Constitution!

I mean, if I didn't have a gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. You want that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 11:57:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Because it's an amendment to the constitution that most liberals (though certainly not all) would like to pretend doesn't exist.

But I have to have a gun... It's in the Constitution!

I mean, if I didn't have a gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. You want that?

EXACTLY!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 11:59:18 AM
DPD, but from a policy standpoint purely, the Chicago gun ban has been anything but effective.  Criminals in the city have still been getting guns and discharging them at people at near record levels. 

The outright ban has accomplished none of its stated goals, except stripping firearms from law-abiding citizens.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 11:59:18 AM
DPD, but from a policy standpoint purely, the Chicago gun ban has been anything but effective.  Criminals in the city have still been getting guns and discharging them at people at near record levels. 

The outright ban has accomplished none of its stated goals, except stripping firearms from law-abiding citizens.

So, the way to stop gun violence is to have more guns on the street?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:08:04 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2010, 11:38:49 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 11:36:10 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

What is your fascination with my Forbidden Closet of Mystery?

I thought I'd find Ozzie Smith in there.

(http://gameparlor.com/dan/384px-Springfield_Mystery_Spot.jpg)

DPD.

Well, that's just a church.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on June 28, 2010, 12:08:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

The power to extinguish a human life at any desired moment?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:08:55 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 11:59:18 AM
DPD, but from a policy standpoint purely, the Chicago gun ban has been anything but effective.  Criminals in the city have still been getting guns and discharging them at people at near record levels. 

The outright ban has accomplished none of its stated goals, except stripping firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Don't let your facts and reasoned argument get in the way of the Mayor's ego and his excuse for the cities high gun crime rate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

Yeah, handguns are awesome for that.

And, what scenario would that be?  Do we want a society where we just shoot purse snatchers and muggers?  Is that what you mean?

Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

besides, if someone does actually try to break into your house, wouldn't a shotgun be a much better weapon for defense?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:10:50 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 11:59:18 AM
DPD, but from a policy standpoint purely, the Chicago gun ban has been anything but effective.  Criminals in the city have still been getting guns and discharging them at people at near record levels. 

The outright ban has accomplished none of its stated goals, except stripping firearms from law-abiding citizens.

So, the way to stop gun violence is to have more guns on the street?

Legally owned guns on a citizens own property is not the same thing as more guns on the street.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

Yeah, handguns are awesome for that.

And, what scenario would that be?  Do we want a society where we just shoot purse snatchers and muggers?  Is that what you mean?

Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

besides, if someone does actually try to break into your house, wouldn't a shotgun be a much better weapon for defense?

DPD
Yes it would be.
But I didn't realize the ban was in place to help citizens make a better choice for their home defense.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 12:13:42 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

Yeah, handguns are awesome for that.

And, what scenario would that be?  Do we want a society where we just shoot purse snatchers and muggers?  Is that what you mean?

Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

besides, if someone does actually try to break into your house, wouldn't a shotgun be a much better weapon for defense?

I believe Wheezer once expressed an opinion on this, but it appears to be lost to the Unratto.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on June 28, 2010, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

Yeah, handguns are awesome for that.

And, what scenario would that be?  Do we want a society where we just shoot purse snatchers and muggers?  Is that what you mean?

Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

besides, if someone does actually try to break into your house, wouldn't a shotgun be a much better weapon for defense?

DPD
Yes it would be.
But I didn't realize the ban was in place to help citizens make a better choice for their home defense.

Oleg is arguing that shooting people with a handgun = bad. But blowing them into a thousand pieces with a shotgun = good?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 12:18:06 PM
I'm going to put on some popcorn and enjoy this.

As you were.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 28, 2010, 12:20:41 PM
Quote from: BH on June 28, 2010, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

Yeah, handguns are awesome for that.

And, what scenario would that be?  Do we want a society where we just shoot purse snatchers and muggers?  Is that what you mean?

Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

besides, if someone does actually try to break into your house, wouldn't a shotgun be a much better weapon for defense?

DPD
Yes it would be.
But I didn't realize the ban was in place to help citizens make a better choice for their home defense.

Oleg is arguing that shooting people with a handgun = bad. But blowing them into a thousand pieces with a shotgun = good?

Oleg doesn't see the effectiveness of handguns because he's such a little target that despite everyone's best efforts, he's never been shot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:23:13 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 28, 2010, 12:20:41 PM
Quote from: BH on June 28, 2010, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

Yeah, handguns are awesome for that.

And, what scenario would that be?  Do we want a society where we just shoot purse snatchers and muggers?  Is that what you mean?

Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

besides, if someone does actually try to break into your house, wouldn't a shotgun be a much better weapon for defense?

DPD
Yes it would be.
But I didn't realize the ban was in place to help citizens make a better choice for their home defense.

Oleg is arguing that shooting people with a handgun = bad. But blowing them into a thousand pieces with a shotgun = good?

Oleg doesn't see the effectiveness of handguns because he's such a little target that despite everyone's best efforts, he's never been shot.

Ok I laughed.
A lot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on June 28, 2010, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:23:13 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 28, 2010, 12:20:41 PM
Quote from: BH on June 28, 2010, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

Yeah, handguns are awesome for that.

And, what scenario would that be?  Do we want a society where we just shoot purse snatchers and muggers?  Is that what you mean?

Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

besides, if someone does actually try to break into your house, wouldn't a shotgun be a much better weapon for defense?

DPD
Yes it would be.
But I didn't realize the ban was in place to help citizens make a better choice for their home defense.

Oleg is arguing that shooting people with a handgun = bad. But blowing them into a thousand pieces with a shotgun = good?

Oleg doesn't see the effectiveness of handguns because he's such a little target that despite everyone's best efforts, he's never been shot.

Ok I laughed.
A lot.

He told me the dreamcatcher he wears around his neck and all the patchouli creates a protective shield.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:32:43 PM
Quote from: BH on June 28, 2010, 12:15:26 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 28, 2010, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 11:28:42 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 10:09:11 AM
A good decision by the Supremes today.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Ban still in effect, however, due to the district level retrial.

I'm curious as to how much money the city has spent over the last two years fighting this court battle.
As well as how much they're going to spend going forward creating other impediments to ownership that will inevitably end up being challenged as well.

Real question...

What's the fascination with handguns for lawabiding citizens?

Self-defense?

Yeah, handguns are awesome for that.

And, what scenario would that be?  Do we want a society where we just shoot purse snatchers and muggers?  Is that what you mean?

Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

besides, if someone does actually try to break into your house, wouldn't a shotgun be a much better weapon for defense?

DPD
Yes it would be.
But I didn't realize the ban was in place to help citizens make a better choice for their home defense.

Oleg is arguing that shooting people with a handgun = bad. But blowing them into a thousand pieces with a shotgun = good?

Nope.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 28, 2010, 12:56:57 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
I think we have gone over the fact that the Clinton years do a whole lot of fuzzy math to make it look like they had a surplus. I don't know how you can add to the national debt and still run a surplus. But hey you Democrats are good with fuzzy math, saved or created jobs, health care bill, stimulus bill, whole shit load of fuzzy math going on there.

The math on how to fix it from Eric Cantor (http://www.americaspeakingout.com/users/64635/ericcantor/my/questions).  Now, remember, the deficit is over $1 trillion annually.

QuoteSuspend Federal Land Purchases - ($266 million in savings in the first year, $2.66 billion over ten years)

I love his math.  Instead of just saying $266 million per year, he actually does us the favor of multiplying by 10.  Whew.  Thanks for the math savings, too.

QuoteTERMINATE FUNDING FOR UNESCO - ($81 million in savings in the first year, $810 million over ten years)

Same math help.  OK, two ideas and he's knocked 0.0347% of the deficit off.  He only needs to come up with 288,185 more ideas to balance the budget!

QuoteREFORM FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC - bringing transparency to taxpayer exposure could generate savings of up to an estimated $30 billion.

"Could" save $30 billion and over an unstated time period.

Look.  You want to say we spend too much?  Agreed.  You want to say the Dems spend too much?  Agreed.  You want to say the solution is the GOP?

You're fucking nuts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 01:13:24 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 28, 2010, 12:56:57 PM
OK, two ideas and he's knocked 0.0347% of the deficit off.  He only needs to come up with 288,185 more ideas to balance the budget!

Que RV whining about how much he hates our stinking troops..
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 01:19:11 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of the ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

The invaders just keep coming!

(http://i.imgur.com/YxYQH.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 01:13:24 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 28, 2010, 12:56:57 PM
OK, two ideas and he's knocked 0.0347% of the deficit off.  He only needs to come up with 288,185 more ideas to balance the budget!

Que RV whining about how much he hates our stinking troops..

To answer your question, yes, I am in favor of shooting Hessians who invade my home.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on June 28, 2010, 01:50:00 PM
It's the master plan. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOooIltJHNg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.

I'm fine with people keeping a gun in their house.

Here's what I don't get: for many people, the rationale for keeping a gun in the house is to protect their family if a home invasion were to happen. For purposes of this post I'm assuming "family" includes at least one kid.

I would think, to be able to access your gun in a reasonable amount of time to properly react to a home invasion, it would need to be loaded and/or kept in an unlocked/easily accessible place.

But if you have kids, you've gotta keep it locked and unloaded, right? Unless you want to risk them blowing their face off, the chances of which increase by about 10 billion if you keep an unlocked/loaded gun in the house.

Maybe we need to bring Charles Bronson into the discussion to demonstrate how easy it is to spring to action once you hear Hudson Hawk step on that creaky floorboard.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.

I'm fine with people keeping a gun in their house.

Here's what I don't get: for many people, the rationale for keeping a gun in the house is to protect their family if a home invasion were to happen. For purposes of this post I'm assuming "family" includes at least one kid.

I would think, to be able to access your gun in a reasonable amount of time to properly react to a home invasion, it would need to be loaded and/or kept in an unlocked/easily accessible place.

But if you have kids, you've gotta keep it locked and unloaded, right? Unless you want to risk them blowing their face off, the chances of which increase by about 10 billion if you keep an unlocked/loaded gun in the house.

Maybe we need to bring Charles Bronson into the discussion to demonstrate how easy it is to spring to action once you hear Hudson Hawk step on that creaky floorboard.

I use one of these...
(http://www.buyasafe.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GV2000DLX-2T.jpg)

http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html (http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.

I'm fine with people keeping a gun in their house.

Here's what I don't get: for many people, the rationale for keeping a gun in the house is to protect their family if a home invasion were to happen. For purposes of this post I'm assuming "family" includes at least one kid.

I would think, to be able to access your gun in a reasonable amount of time to properly react to a home invasion, it would need to be loaded and/or kept in an unlocked/easily accessible place.

But if you have kids, you've gotta keep it locked and unloaded, right? Unless you want to risk them blowing their face off, the chances of which increase by about 10 billion if you keep an unlocked/loaded gun in the house.

Maybe we need to bring Charles Bronson into the discussion to demonstrate how easy it is to spring to action once you hear Hudson Hawk step on that creaky floorboard.

I use one of these...
(http://www.buyasafe.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GV2000DLX-2T.jpg)

http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html (http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html)

So, we're cool with shooting these fuckheads.  Fine, I get that.

In that case, wouldn't it still be easier to shoot one with a shotgun rather than a pistol?

What am I missing?  I've shot a shotgun, a handgun and a rifle before.  The shotgun was easy.  Shit, I barely had to aim to those clay pigeons and, eventually, I got the hang of hitting them often.  And, the loading click makes a very unique sound that can warn the home invader and (potenially) not turn you into a killer in the process.

I just don't get it...what is the fascination of handguns over other types of weapons?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on June 28, 2010, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.

I'm fine with people keeping a gun in their house.

Here's what I don't get: for many people, the rationale for keeping a gun in the house is to protect their family if a home invasion were to happen. For purposes of this post I'm assuming "family" includes at least one kid.

I would think, to be able to access your gun in a reasonable amount of time to properly react to a home invasion, it would need to be loaded and/or kept in an unlocked/easily accessible place.

But if you have kids, you've gotta keep it locked and unloaded, right? Unless you want to risk them blowing their face off, the chances of which increase by about 10 billion if you keep an unlocked/loaded gun in the house.

Maybe we need to bring Charles Bronson into the discussion to demonstrate how easy it is to spring to action once you hear Hudson Hawk step on that creaky floorboard.

I use one of these...
(http://www.buyasafe.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GV2000DLX-2T.jpg)

http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html (http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html)

So, we're cool with shooting these fuckheads.  Fine, I get that.

In that case, wouldn't it still be easier to shoot one with a shotgun rather than a pistol?

What am I missing?  I've shot a shotgun, a handgun and a rifle before.  The shotgun was easy.  Shit, I barely had to aim to those clay pigeons and, eventually, I got the hang of hitting them often.  And, the loading click makes a very unique sound that can warn the home invader and (potenially) not turn you into a killer in the process.

I just don't get it...what is the fascination of handguns over other types of weapons?

Pretty sure a handgun a little smaller to store than a rifle or a shotgun. But other than that minor difference, you're argument hits a bullseye.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.

I'm fine with people keeping a gun in their house.

Here's what I don't get: for many people, the rationale for keeping a gun in the house is to protect their family if a home invasion were to happen. For purposes of this post I'm assuming "family" includes at least one kid.

I would think, to be able to access your gun in a reasonable amount of time to properly react to a home invasion, it would need to be loaded and/or kept in an unlocked/easily accessible place.

But if you have kids, you've gotta keep it locked and unloaded, right? Unless you want to risk them blowing their face off, the chances of which increase by about 10 billion if you keep an unlocked/loaded gun in the house.

Maybe we need to bring Charles Bronson into the discussion to demonstrate how easy it is to spring to action once you hear Hudson Hawk step on that creaky floorboard.

I use one of these...
(http://www.buyasafe.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GV2000DLX-2T.jpg)

http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html (http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html)

So, we're cool with shooting these fuckheads.  Fine, I get that.

In that case, wouldn't it still be easier to shoot one with a shotgun rather than a pistol?

What am I missing?  I've shot a shotgun, a handgun and a rifle before.  The shotgun was easy.  Shit, I barely had to aim to those clay pigeons and, eventually, I got the hang of hitting them often.  And, the loading click makes a very unique sound that can warn the home invader and (potenially) not turn you into a killer in the process.

I just don't get it...what is the fascination of handguns over other types of weapons?

I want to be able to own a full stockade of assault rifles. Until that day consider me angry.

Honestly, I hate guns and would never own one. But I don't really give a shit what other people do. Have 12 guns. I don't give a shit. I don't plan on bothering you anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 03:05:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.

I'm fine with people keeping a gun in their house.

Here's what I don't get: for many people, the rationale for keeping a gun in the house is to protect their family if a home invasion were to happen. For purposes of this post I'm assuming "family" includes at least one kid.

I would think, to be able to access your gun in a reasonable amount of time to properly react to a home invasion, it would need to be loaded and/or kept in an unlocked/easily accessible place.

But if you have kids, you've gotta keep it locked and unloaded, right? Unless you want to risk them blowing their face off, the chances of which increase by about 10 billion if you keep an unlocked/loaded gun in the house.

Maybe we need to bring Charles Bronson into the discussion to demonstrate how easy it is to spring to action once you hear Hudson Hawk step on that creaky floorboard.

I use one of these...
(http://www.buyasafe.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GV2000DLX-2T.jpg)

http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html (http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html)

So, we're cool with shooting these fuckheads.  Fine, I get that.

In that case, wouldn't it still be easier to shoot one with a shotgun rather than a pistol?

What am I missing?  I've shot a shotgun, a handgun and a rifle before.  The shotgun was easy.  Shit, I barely had to aim to those clay pigeons and, eventually, I got the hang of hitting them often.  And, the loading click makes a very unique sound that can warn the home invader and (potenially) not turn you into a killer in the process.

I just don't get it...what is the fascination of handguns over other types of weapons?

I want to be able to own a full stockade of assault rifles. Until that day consider me angry.

Honestly, I hate guns and would never own one. But I don't really give a shit what other people do. Have 12 guns. I don't give a shit. I don't plan on bothering you anyway.

Guns are quite fun.  Just go to the range once and it'll change your mind.

Fun times.

I would kill to fire a .50 cal Barrett one day.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on June 28, 2010, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 03:05:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 02:47:51 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.

I'm fine with people keeping a gun in their house.

Here's what I don't get: for many people, the rationale for keeping a gun in the house is to protect their family if a home invasion were to happen. For purposes of this post I'm assuming "family" includes at least one kid.

I would think, to be able to access your gun in a reasonable amount of time to properly react to a home invasion, it would need to be loaded and/or kept in an unlocked/easily accessible place.

But if you have kids, you've gotta keep it locked and unloaded, right? Unless you want to risk them blowing their face off, the chances of which increase by about 10 billion if you keep an unlocked/loaded gun in the house.

Maybe we need to bring Charles Bronson into the discussion to demonstrate how easy it is to spring to action once you hear Hudson Hawk step on that creaky floorboard.

I use one of these...
(http://www.buyasafe.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GV2000DLX-2T.jpg)

http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html (http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html)

So, we're cool with shooting these fuckheads.  Fine, I get that.

In that case, wouldn't it still be easier to shoot one with a shotgun rather than a pistol?

What am I missing?  I've shot a shotgun, a handgun and a rifle before.  The shotgun was easy.  Shit, I barely had to aim to those clay pigeons and, eventually, I got the hang of hitting them often.  And, the loading click makes a very unique sound that can warn the home invader and (potenially) not turn you into a killer in the process.

I just don't get it...what is the fascination of handguns over other types of weapons?

I want to be able to own a full stockade of assault rifles. Until that day consider me angry.

Honestly, I hate guns and would never own one. But I don't really give a shit what other people do. Have 12 guns. I don't give a shit. I don't plan on bothering you anyway.

Guns are quite fun.  Just go to the range once and it'll change your mind.

Fun times.

I would kill to fire a .50 cal Barrett one day.

Left a bruise on my shoulder. Totally awesome, though.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 03:09:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2010, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 28, 2010, 01:14:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 28, 2010, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 12:10:13 PM
Or, are we cool with shooting home invaders?

I'm cool with that.

I was thinking it would be easier to reason with them. Show them the error of their ways. You know a "here's where your life went wrong" kinda thing. Usually very successful.

Now that's good thinking. And given the incredible success of the handgun ban they'll be unarmed and much more inclined to have a peaceful conversation.

I'm fine with people keeping a gun in their house.

Here's what I don't get: for many people, the rationale for keeping a gun in the house is to protect their family if a home invasion were to happen. For purposes of this post I'm assuming "family" includes at least one kid.

I would think, to be able to access your gun in a reasonable amount of time to properly react to a home invasion, it would need to be loaded and/or kept in an unlocked/easily accessible place.

But if you have kids, you've gotta keep it locked and unloaded, right? Unless you want to risk them blowing their face off, the chances of which increase by about 10 billion if you keep an unlocked/loaded gun in the house.

Maybe we need to bring Charles Bronson into the discussion to demonstrate how easy it is to spring to action once you hear Hudson Hawk step on that creaky floorboard.

I use one of these...
(http://www.buyasafe.com/v/vspfiles/photos/GV2000DLX-2T.jpg)

http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html (http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/multi-multi-deluxe.html)

So, we're cool with shooting these fuckheads.  Fine, I get that.

In that case, wouldn't it still be easier to shoot one with a shotgun rather than a pistol?

What am I missing?  I've shot a shotgun, a handgun and a rifle before.  The shotgun was easy.  Shit, I barely had to aim to those clay pigeons and, eventually, I got the hang of hitting them often.  And, the loading click makes a very unique sound that can warn the home invader and (potenially) not turn you into a killer in the process.

I just don't get it...what is the fascination of handguns over other types of weapons?

I don't know if it's actually a fascination Oleg.
Yes the shotgun is a more effective home defense weapon.
And in many ways safer because it is less inclined to overpenetrate in a home environment.
But it is unwieldy in comparison and a bit harder to store safely and with quick access.

But the real issue here is that this was an ineffective ban that was found to be unconstitutional.
The city chose to waste a lot of time and money trying to defend it instead of using those resources to fight root problems and work towards solving some of the real issues that cause Chicago's gun crime.
Putting yourself in front of a TV camera and blustering about gun laws is a lazy, grandstanding, and misdirected manner for our politicians to act.

But Christ you could probably say the same thing about any issue of the day when our "leaders" are involved.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 03:13:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 03:05:38 PM
I would kill to fire a .50 cal Barrett one day.

I'd definitely still recommend the shotgun in this instance...

(http://i.imgur.com/Cg9Zr.jpg)

/lawsuit bait
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 03:15:00 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 03:13:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 03:05:38 PM
I would kill to fire a .50 cal Barrett one day.

I'd definitely still recommend the shotgun in this instance...

(http://i.imgur.com/Cg9Zr.jpg)

/lawsuit bait

THI.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on June 28, 2010, 03:17:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 03:13:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 03:05:38 PM
I would kill to fire a .50 cal Barrett one day.

I'd definitely still recommend the shotgun in this instance...

(http://i.imgur.com/Cg9Zr.jpg)

/lawsuit bait

Kill them with the SPAS-12. Use a .50 cal on Theriot. Done deal
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on June 28, 2010, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 03:09:57 PM
Yes the shotgun is a more effective home defense weapon.
And in many ways safer because it is less inclined to overpenetrate in a home environment.
But it is unwieldy in comparison and a bit harder to store safely and with quick access.

A pump-action shotgun is safer for the average Joe for more reasons than just not accidentally shooting the neighbors when you inevitably miss, and I'd count "unwieldiness" as one of them, as it encourages having a plan, including properly aiming the thing, rather than fantasies about running around with laser sights and springing from behind corners and so forth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Why are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee bashing Thurgood Marshall?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on June 28, 2010, 04:39:04 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Why are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee bashing Thurgood Marshall?

Is that a trick question?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:40:55 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 28, 2010, 04:39:04 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Why are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee bashing Thurgood Marshall?

Is that a trick question?

Listening to many of them today, you'd think that Marshall was some kind of radical activist who literally tore up the constitution and wiped his ass with it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on June 28, 2010, 04:59:08 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:40:55 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 28, 2010, 04:39:04 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Why are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee bashing Thurgood Marshall?

Is that a trick question?

Listening to many of them today, you'd think that Marshall was some kind of radical activist who literally tore up the constitution and wiped his ass with it.

I'll just continue to assume that he did...in a good way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 28, 2010, 06:15:05 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 28, 2010, 04:19:44 PM
Quote from: flannj on June 28, 2010, 03:09:57 PM
Yes the shotgun is a more effective home defense weapon.
And in many ways safer because it is less inclined to overpenetrate in a home environment.
But it is unwieldy in comparison and a bit harder to store safely and with quick access.

A pump-action shotgun is safer for the average Joe for more reasons than just not accidentally shooting the neighbors when you inevitably miss, and I'd count "unwieldiness" as one of them, as it encourages having a plan, including properly aiming the thing, rather than fantasies about running around with laser sights and springing from behind corners and so forth.

What? You don't think spray and pray qualifies as having a plan?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 29, 2010, 09:25:19 AM
I know Matt Taibbi hasn't been a favorite round these parts, but I enjoyed his latest bile-soaked rant about lapdog reporters. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512)

QuoteAs to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.

They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on June 29, 2010, 09:33:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 29, 2010, 09:25:19 AM
I know Matt Taibbi hasn't been a favorite round these parts, but I enjoyed his latest bile-soaked rant about lapdog reporters. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512)

QuoteAs to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.

They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview.

I've had that dream. That frightening, terrible dream.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on June 29, 2010, 09:39:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 29, 2010, 09:25:19 AM
I know Matt Taibbi hasn't been a favorite round these parts, but I enjoyed his latest bile-soaked rant about lapdog reporters. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512)

QuoteAs to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.

They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview.

All of this is b.s. Only Fox News does this. Everybody else is ont eh level.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 29, 2010, 10:49:10 AM
Matt Taibbi's takedown off Lara Logan is fantastic.

QuoteWhen I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing [Lara] Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512

Fuck the mainstream media.  Cowards, all of them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 29, 2010, 10:56:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 29, 2010, 10:49:10 AM
Matt Taibbi's takedown off Lara Logan is fantastic.

QuoteWhen I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing [Lara] Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512

Fuck the mainstream media.  Cowards, all of them.

Would you like some crackers for your FACESOUP?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 29, 2010, 11:07:53 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 29, 2010, 10:56:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 29, 2010, 10:49:10 AM
Matt Taibbi's takedown off Lara Logan is fantastic.

QuoteWhen I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing [Lara] Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512

Fuck the mainstream media.  Cowards, all of them.

Would you like some crackers for your FACESOUP?

Oyster crackers please.

Fuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 29, 2010, 09:15:45 PM
This is one of the best thing ever made by anyone. Ever.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obamas-weekly-video-addresses-becoming-increasingl,17649/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 29, 2010, 09:40:11 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 29, 2010, 09:15:45 PM
This is one of the best thing ever made by anyone. Ever.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obamas-weekly-video-addresses-becoming-increasingl,17649/

Quote...as the phrase "in God we trust" loops for four minutes and 33 seconds.

I should have been in no way surprised at how many videos of this piece I've found on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=john+cage+4+33). And yet...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on June 29, 2010, 09:54:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 29, 2010, 09:40:11 PM
I should have been in no way surprised at how many videos of this piece I've found on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=john+cage+4+33). And yet...

There a comment on one video of the piece that says, "Great, now this is going to be stuck in my head all day."  Well played.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2010, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2010, 09:54:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 29, 2010, 09:40:11 PM
I should have been in no way surprised at how many videos of this piece I've found on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=john+cage+4+33). And yet...

There a comment on one video of the piece that says, "Great, now this is going to be stuck in my head all day."  Well played.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time that has been said of a YouTube comment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on June 30, 2010, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2010, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 29, 2010, 09:54:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 29, 2010, 09:40:11 PM
I should have been in no way surprised at how many videos of this piece I've found on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=john+cage+4+33). And yet...

There a comment on one video of the piece that says, "Great, now this is going to be stuck in my head all day."  Well played.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time that has been said of a YouTube comment.

Why don't you tell Louis Armstrong to his face??
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 30, 2010, 12:50:09 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Why are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee bashing Thurgood Marshall?

" When Graham asked where she was on Christmas (referring to the Christmas Day bomber), Kagan quipped that like most Jewish people, she was probably at a Chinese restaurant. "

We need this woman on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 30, 2010, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 30, 2010, 12:50:09 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Why are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee bashing Thurgood Marshall?

" When Graham asked where she was on Christmas (referring to the Christmas Day bomber), Kagan quipped that like most Jewish people, she was probably at a Chinese restaurant. "

We need this woman on the Supreme Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1uZ_W7atDE
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 30, 2010, 01:15:34 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 30, 2010, 12:50:09 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Why are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee bashing Thurgood Marshall?

" When Graham asked where she was on Christmas (referring to the Christmas Day bomber), Kagan quipped that like most Jewish people, she was probably at a Chinese restaurant. "

We need this woman on the Supreme Court.

Stew, this made me laugh uproariously.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 30, 2010, 01:30:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 30, 2010, 01:15:34 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 30, 2010, 12:50:09 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2010, 04:20:50 PM
Why are Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee bashing Thurgood Marshall?

" When Graham asked where she was on Christmas (referring to the Christmas Day bomber), Kagan quipped that like most Jewish people, she was probably at a Chinese restaurant. "

We need this woman on the Supreme Court.

Stew, this made me laugh uproariously.

The clip is awesome.  Does this version include that asswipe Chuck Shumer explaining that "No other restaurants are open"? Man, even Leno wouldn't explain that joke to his audience.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 30, 2010, 02:04:39 PM
http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/

Funny.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2010, 02:32:02 PM
Quote from: MikeC on June 26, 2010, 12:07:48 PM
And what no talk about Weigel and JournoList? Journalists (lefty ones) conspiring together to shape the news cycle. Locked in a bubble of group thinking people all with one agenda, to stop conservatives and to promote liberal stories and narratives. And people wonder why the MSM is bleeding viewers and can't sell news papers. Its because they can no longer be trusted to deliver the news.

Looks like the great MSM apocalypse just got delayed a few more days...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/from-washington-post-to-nbcu-dave-weigel-joins-msnbc-as-paid-contributor/

Hell, the MSM monster has apparently even gotten it's neon claws into Breitbart's "Big Journalism"...

http://bigjournalism.com/dweigel/2010/06/28/hubris-and-humility-david-weigel-comes-clean-on-washington-post-the-d-c-bubble-the-journolist/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2010, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 30, 2010, 02:04:39 PM
http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/

Funny.

http://teapartyjesus.tumblr.com/post/738254438

Wow.

Texas, you say? (http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201006250005) Get out of town!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 30, 2010, 07:47:53 PM
TPD

God bless the Illinois Review...

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2010/06/sodomy-is-source-of-pride-sexual-reproduction-is-not.html

QuoteIf Chicago's professional sports teams will be represented, I don't think Ernie Banks and the Blackhawks' Brent Sopel (http://outofbounds.nbcsports.com/2010/06/post-609.html.php) should be the only participants. I think in the spirit of having one's backfield in motion, the Chicago Bears should send a tight end and a wide receiver. After all, as Rick Chandler wrote in the "Out of Bounds (http://outofbounds.nbcsports.com/2010/06/post-609.html.php)" piece about the Stanley Cup's participation in the "Pride":

QuoteThis really is a remarkable gesture by both the Blackhawks and the Cubs; both organizations deserve tons of praise. This is what pro sports should be about; diversity, inclusion and bringing communities together.

Who says pro athletes aren't role models for our children? If more big name athletes get involved in peddling "Gay Pride"  more 10 year old might be inspired to become "Gay Pride" grand marshals. This is critical because some young people think it is alright or even cool to be straight.

(Read the rest for the requisite NAMBLA mention and more suggestions that gay people are just a bunch of fancy fad-chasing hipsters who've decided that procreation is unfashionable. "Same sex couples are above all that. They are trendy and enlightened.")

Elsewhere: Desipio-related. (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2010/06/the-most-insidious-sport-in-the-world.html#comment-6a00d834515c5469e20134850994e5970c)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on June 30, 2010, 09:13:34 PM
T eh Genius Supports AZ Immigration Law (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AoZnixTNXezoSFK7VD3Z.kcRvLYF?slug=ap-larussa-immigrationlaw)

I haven't figured out what that legislation is supposed to do but I know a lot of people are asshurt about it. Without even trying to understand it, I'm going to call it a bad idea and anybody who supports it is a turd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on June 30, 2010, 10:00:58 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 30, 2010, 09:13:34 PM
T eh Genius Supports AZ Immigration Law (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AoZnixTNXezoSFK7VD3Z.kcRvLYF?slug=ap-larussa-immigrationlaw)

I haven't figured out what that legislation is supposed to do but I know a lot of people are asshurt about it. Without even trying to understand it, I'm going to call it a bad idea and anybody who supports it is a turd.

It's essentially the exact same as the federal law, just..you know, enforced.

And a really, really bad idea for a state that owes such a large share of its revenue to tourism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 09:19:01 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn14RwuJJRg

Watch to the end for a very special cameo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Gun rights goes a bit deeper than just having one to defend yourself. Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide. Taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves is the easiest way to assert your domination of that group of people.

Now i am not saying we as a nation are anywhere near that or that it could happen soon in America, its just what history has shown.

Take for instance the most recent genocide occurring on this Earth, taking place in the Sudan. 

The Islamist Arab Government seized power in 1989 through a military coup. And what was one of their main goals? Gun control.

QuoteIn Sudan, it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to lawfully acquire and possess the means for self-defense. According to the national gun-control statutes, a gun licensee must be over 30 years of age, must have a specified social and economic status, and must be examined physically by a doctor. Females have even more difficulty meeting these requirements because of social and occupational limitations.

When these restrictions are finally overcome, there are additional restrictions on the amount of ammunition one may possess, making it nearly impossible for a law-abiding gun owner to achieve proficiency with firearms. A handgun owner, for example, can only purchase 15 rounds of ammunition a year. The penalties for violation of Sudan's firearms laws are severe, and can include capital punishment.

The practical application of the gun laws is different. If you are someone the government wants to slaughter—such as all the black Africans of southern and western Sudan, regardless of their religion—then you are absolutely forbidden to possess a firearm. A U.S. Department of State document notes: "After President Bashir seized power in 1989, the new government disarmed non-Arab ethnic groups but allowed politically loyal Arab allies to keep their weapons."

And it doesn't even really start and end with guns, forbidding the Scots from using swords and such was a means of suppressing the population. Why do you think stone throwing was so popular with them? It was about the only thing they could use to defend themselves that the English couldn't take away from them, because they were forbidden to bear or train with arms.

Taking away the means for average citizens to defend themselves almost always ends up badly for the side that is subjected to them. And the founders of our nation were keen to note this in creating our Constitution.

More importantly Law Enforcement can't protect everyone and usually show up after the crime has happened. There is no better means of deterrent than an armed public. Studies in prisons with criminals have shown if they had the choice between a non-armed house but a pretty good chance of getting arrested versus an armed house and no chance of getting arrested they would choose the unarmed house. I believe one of the main explanations given was that with the armed house that person isn't restrained by any kind of rules and regulations like a police officer is. The civilian with the gun is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. The criminals were more afraid of armed citizens than the police. And that's how you get an effective deterrent. And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 01, 2010, 06:11:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

J. Walter,  don't you realize that it is those armed gangs in Chicago who are protecting us from the government?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on July 01, 2010, 07:22:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Gun rights goes a bit deeper than just having one to defend yourself. Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide. Taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves is the easiest way to assert your domination of that group of people.

Now i am not saying we as a nation are anywhere near that or that it could happen soon in America, its just what history has shown.

Take for instance the most recent genocide occurring on this Earth, taking place in the Sudan.  

The Islamist Arab Government seized power in 1989 through a military coup. And what was one of their main goals? Gun control.

QuoteIn Sudan, it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to lawfully acquire and possess the means for self-defense. According to the national gun-control statutes, a gun licensee must be over 30 years of age, must have a specified social and economic status, and must be examined physically by a doctor. Females have even more difficulty meeting these requirements because of social and occupational limitations.

When these restrictions are finally overcome, there are additional restrictions on the amount of ammunition one may possess, making it nearly impossible for a law-abiding gun owner to achieve proficiency with firearms. A handgun owner, for example, can only purchase 15 rounds of ammunition a year. The penalties for violation of Sudan's firearms laws are severe, and can include capital punishment.

The practical application of the gun laws is different. If you are someone the government wants to slaughter—such as all the black Africans of southern and western Sudan, regardless of their religion—then you are absolutely forbidden to possess a firearm. A U.S. Department of State document notes: "After President Bashir seized power in 1989, the new government disarmed non-Arab ethnic groups but allowed politically loyal Arab allies to keep their weapons."

And it doesn't even really start and end with guns, forbidding the Scots from using swords and such was a means of suppressing the population. Why do you think stone throwing was so popular with them? It was about the only thing they could use to defend themselves that the English couldn't take away from them, because they were forbidden to bear or train with arms.

Taking away the means for average citizens to defend themselves almost always ends up badly for the side that is subjected to them. And the founders of our nation were keen to note this in creating our Constitution.

More importantly Law Enforcement can't protect everyone and usually show up after the crime has happened. There is no better means of deterrent than an armed public. Studies in prisons with criminals have shown if they had the choice between a non-armed house but a pretty good chance of getting arrested versus an armed house and no chance of getting arrested they would choose the unarmed house. I believe one of the main explanations given was that with the armed house that person isn't restrained by any kind of rules and regulations like a police officer is. The civilian with the gun is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. The criminals were more afraid of armed citizens than the police. And that's how you get an effective deterrent. And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.



Mike, I neither want or need your "help".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 01, 2010, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM

More importantly Law Enforcement can't protect everyone and usually show up after the crime has happened. There is no better means of deterrent than an armed public. Studies in prisons with criminals have shown if they had the choice between a non-armed house but a pretty good chance of getting arrested versus an armed house and no chance of getting arrested they would choose the unarmed house. I believe one of the main explanations given was that with the armed house that person isn't restrained by any kind of rules and regulations like a police officer is. The civilian with the gun is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. The criminals were more afraid of armed citizens than the police. And that's how you get an effective deterrent. And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.


I just want to know who funds these studies, because I would like to sell them a bridge.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 01, 2010, 07:54:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

The routine doesn't play too well in a world of pure phenomena associated only by sychronicity and attachment, either.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 01, 2010, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

I see.  The people don't have guns, so it's open season.  Who can be doing this if the people don't have guns? 

I KNOW!!!!

(http://www.manwhole.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/predator2.jpg)

He's in for the weekend with a few days to kill.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 01, 2010, 08:08:22 PM
(http://cdn02.cdn.thesuperficial.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/0629-kelly-brook-bikini-day3-02-480x720.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 08:18:55 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 01, 2010, 07:54:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

The routine doesn't play too well in a world of pure phenomena associated only by sychronicity and attachment, either.

Quiet, Hume.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 01, 2010, 10:19:03 PM
How have I missed this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUDh7jlWzWw)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on July 01, 2010, 10:41:45 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 01, 2010, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

I see.  The people don't have guns, so it's open season.  Who can be doing this if the people don't have guns? 

I KNOW!!!!

(http://www.manwhole.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/predator2.jpg)

He's in for the weekend with a few days to kill.

Jon Burge looks nothing like that.



Okay, maybe a little.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 11:14:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 01, 2010, 10:19:03 PM
How have I missed this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUDh7jlWzWw)

I need a ruling from CT....

(http://i.imgur.com/iEnth.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/lFQkp.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/m2b4q.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/Cgc67.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/KvGIO.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/uycO1.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/IiDyM.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/4zdSJ.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/7w2dL.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/pNTzZ.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/hRudj.png)

Irony?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 01, 2010, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 11:14:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 01, 2010, 10:19:03 PM
How have I missed this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUDh7jlWzWw)

I need a ruling from CT....

(http://i.imgur.com/iEnth.png)

That's another goddamn Bronco, isn't it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 11:29:16 PM
BTW: the leading lights of the Hip New Right...

(http://i.imgur.com/ZDxDw.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/ul9UP.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/y2MBg.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on July 02, 2010, 08:11:47 AM
Quote from: CT III on July 01, 2010, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM

More importantly Law Enforcement can't protect everyone and usually show up after the crime has happened. There is no better means of deterrent than an armed public. Studies in prisons with criminals have shown if they had the choice between a non-armed house but a pretty good chance of getting arrested versus an armed house and no chance of getting arrested they would choose the unarmed house. I believe one of the main explanations given was that with the armed house that person isn't restrained by any kind of rules and regulations like a police officer is. The civilian with the gun is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. The criminals were more afraid of armed citizens than the police. And that's how you get an effective deterrent. And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.


I just want to know who funds these studies, because I would like to sell them a bridge.



Did they ask the inmates if they'd prefer to get shot by a shotgun vs a handgun? That's the real question.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 08:29:32 AM
Actually the study that is cited a lot is one done by our own justice department. I believe this is the one i was trying to recall from memory...

http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=117

QuoteFifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74% agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot."

A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." In asking felons what they personally thought about while committing crimes, 34% indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by victim."

The data suggest that criminals may be a little more concerned about being caught by police and imprisoned than about being shot, but meeting the armed citizen clearly elicited fears of being shot. That deterrent effect of citizen gun ownership appeared in their responses to questions about actual encounters. Although 37% of those surveyed admitted that they personally had "run into a victim who was armed with a gun," that figure surpassed the 50% mark for armed criminals, an experience shared by 57% of the active gun predators. And 34% of the sample admitted to having been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim."

Significantly, almost 40% said there was at least one time when the criminal "decided not to do a crime because [he] knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun." Clearly, armed citizens represent a real threat to criminals, a threat with which large numbers are personally familiar, or familiar with through the shared experiences of their fellow outlaws.

QuoteDid they ask the inmates if they'd prefer to get shot by a shotgun vs a handgun? That's the real question.

Don't know if this will answer your question...

QuoteThe data show that an outright ban on handguns, such as is proposed by the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, would have nightmarish consequences. Most of the criminals who have previously used handguns--and especially those predators who have committed many crimes using handguns--said they would simply move to long guns which would be sawed down to concealable size. Outlawing handguns would simply make career criminals turn to what Wright describes as bigger, more lethal weapons.

If a ban on handguns was enacted, 64% of the criminal respondents said they would shift from a handgun to sawed-off rifles and shotguns. That finding was elicited from three-fourths of "handgun predators" and five eighths of those who had used a handgun more than once in crime. Wright says, "We would do well, by the way, to take this response seriously: most of the predators who said they would substitute the sawed-off shotgun also told us elsewhere in the questionnaire that they had in fact sawed off a shotgun at some time in their lives and that it would be 'very easy' for them to do so again. The possibility that even a few of the men who presently prowl the streets with handguns would, in the face of a handgun ban, prowl with sawed-off shotguns instead is itself good reason to think twice about the advisability of such a ban. That as many as three-quarters of them might do so causes one to tremble." Wright argues, then, that there are "sensible and humane" reasons for opposing a handgun ban.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 08:39:55 AM
(http://www.whedon.info/IMG/jpg/navi-rawat-k-a-photoshoot-gq-01.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

Well its not like you offer up any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I over generalized with that statement, but taking away gun rights from populations has led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last 100 years alone. That can not be denied, because the easiest way to control, and even exterminate people is to take away their right of self defense.

The Nazi's didn't enact gun control laws the Weimar Republic did to try and keep weapons out of Nazi's and Communist hands. But like human history has shown repeatedly it only serves to disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals and the evil people will hold onto their weapons and use them against the disarmed people. The Nazi's used the existing law to target everyone but themselves, and then in 1938 expressly used gun control to prevent Jews from having weapons. We all know what happened to the Jews after that.

Stalin did much of the same thing but did it to his entire peasant class, 50 million or so died.

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns. This seemed like a hell of a deal, but it was a calculated to plan to disarm the public. 100+ million dead, maybe even more.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao all feared an uprising of their own people more than anything else. And the best way to dominate a country was to disarm its population. After that its pretty easy to kill as many people as you want.

Like i said the Sudan conflict is Genocide happening right now in the name of gun control. Take away peoples right of self-defense and human history has shown that the powerful will dominate the weak. Its happened over and over in human history. to deny it is simply absurd.

I am simply stating why Americans fight so hard to keep their gun rights. Whether you like it or not the founders of this nation knew damn well what human nature was like. The right to keep in bear arms is not only for self defense against criminals but self defense against your own government. And even our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of Federal Government and its actions. Its why their is so many checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is the 2nd Amendment.

Next you have to ask why was that written into our Constitution? Most of it derives from English history and the way they treated people and we didn't want that to happen in America.

QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to remain free, you must have the ability to fight for it, if it becomes necessary.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 09:05:30 AM
(http://www.thecinemapost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/eliza-dushku.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 02, 2010, 09:15:22 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 09:05:30 AM
(http://www.thecinemapost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/eliza-dushku.jpg)

Finally, something in this thread makes sense!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

Well its not like you offer up any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I over generalized with that statement, but taking away gun rights from populations has led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last 100 years alone. That can not be denied, because the easiest way to control, and even exterminate people is to take away their right of self defense.

The Nazi's didn't enact gun control laws the Weimar Republic did to try and keep weapons out of Nazi's and Communist hands. But like human history has shown repeatedly it only serves to disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals and the evil people will hold onto their weapons and use them against the disarmed people. The Nazi's used the existing law to target everyone but themselves, and then in 1938 expressly used gun control to prevent Jews from having weapons. We all know what happened to the Jews after that.

Stalin did much of the same thing but did it to his entire peasant class, 50 million or so died.

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns. This seemed like a hell of a deal, but it was a calculated to plan to disarm the public. 100+ million dead, maybe even more.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao all feared an uprising of their own people more than anything else. And the best way to dominate a country was to disarm its population. After that its pretty easy to kill as many people as you want.

Like i said the Sudan conflict is Genocide happening right now in the name of gun control. Take away peoples right of self-defense and human history has shown that the powerful will dominate the weak. Its happened over and over in human history. to deny it is simply absurd.

I am simply stating why Americans fight so hard to keep their gun rights. Whether you like it or not the founders of this nation knew damn well what human nature was like. The right to keep in bear arms is not only for self defense against criminals but self defense against your own government. And even our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of Federal Government and its actions. Its why their is so many checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is the 2nd Amendment.

Next you have to ask why was that written into our Constitution? Most of it derives from English history and the way they treated people and we didn't want that to happen in America.

QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to remain free, you must have the ability to fight for it, if it becomes necessary.

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 09:42:27 AM
Congrats, Oleg.  You gave him exactly what he wants.

For a guy with no purpose coming here but to try to stir up shit and then leave (no effort at a conversation, no effort to participate in any other aspect of the group), there is but one answer to him.

Hogans.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 09:42:27 AM
Congrats, Oleg.  You gave him exactly what he wants.

For a guy with no purpose coming here but to try to stir up shit and then leave (no effort at a conversation, no effort to participate in any other aspect of the group), there is but one answer to him.

Hogans.

Fuck that turdbag.  It made me feel better, damnit.  I don't give a shit what he wants.

Besides, the one thing I can appreciate is stirring up shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 02, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 09:42:27 AM
Congrats, Oleg.  You gave him exactly what he wants.

For a guy with no purpose coming here but to try to stir up shit and then leave (no effort at a conversation, no effort to participate in any other aspect of the group), there is but one answer to him.

Hogans.

Fuck that turdbag.  It made me feel better, damnit.  I don't give a shit what he wants.

Besides, the one thing I can appreciate is stirring up shit.

I hear you take large wooden spoons into various porta potties.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:47:49 AM
Quote from: Slaky on July 02, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 09:42:27 AM
Congrats, Oleg.  You gave him exactly what he wants.

For a guy with no purpose coming here but to try to stir up shit and then leave (no effort at a conversation, no effort to participate in any other aspect of the group), there is but one answer to him.

Hogans.

Fuck that turdbag.  It made me feel better, damnit.  I don't give a shit what he wants.

Besides, the one thing I can appreciate is stirring up shit.

I hear you take large wooden spoons into various porta potties.

Just post a sign on 4 that says not to flush.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 09:48:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on July 02, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
I hear you take large wooden spoons into various porta potties.

(http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/603A08/web/Russ/website/DB/followingmydillusions_files/eggbeater%5B1%5D.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on July 02, 2010, 09:50:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:47:49 AM
Quote from: Slaky on July 02, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 02, 2010, 09:42:27 AM
Congrats, Oleg.  You gave him exactly what he wants.

For a guy with no purpose coming here but to try to stir up shit and then leave (no effort at a conversation, no effort to participate in any other aspect of the group), there is but one answer to him.

Hogans.

Fuck that turdbag.  It made me feel better, damnit.  I don't give a shit what he wants.

Besides, the one thing I can appreciate is stirring up shit.

I hear you take large wooden spoons into various porta potties.

Just post a sign on 4 that says not to flush.

Cue Slaky's Hall-of-Fame bathroom epic?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 02, 2010, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

Well its not like you offer up any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I over generalized with that statement, but taking away gun rights from populations has led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last 100 years alone. That can not be denied, because the easiest way to control, and even exterminate people is to take away their right of self defense.

The Nazi's didn't enact gun control laws the Weimar Republic did to try and keep weapons out of Nazi's and Communist hands. But like human history has shown repeatedly it only serves to disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals and the evil people will hold onto their weapons and use them against the disarmed people. The Nazi's used the existing law to target everyone but themselves, and then in 1938 expressly used gun control to prevent Jews from having weapons. We all know what happened to the Jews after that.

Stalin did much of the same thing but did it to his entire peasant class, 50 million or so died.

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns. This seemed like a hell of a deal, but it was a calculated to plan to disarm the public. 100+ million dead, maybe even more.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao all feared an uprising of their own people more than anything else. And the best way to dominate a country was to disarm its population. After that its pretty easy to kill as many people as you want.

Like i said the Sudan conflict is Genocide happening right now in the name of gun control. Take away peoples right of self-defense and human history has shown that the powerful will dominate the weak. Its happened over and over in human history. to deny it is simply absurd.

I am simply stating why Americans fight so hard to keep their gun rights. Whether you like it or not the founders of this nation knew damn well what human nature was like. The right to keep in bear arms is not only for self defense against criminals but self defense against your own government. And even our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of Federal Government and its actions. Its why their is so many checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is the 2nd Amendment.

Next you have to ask why was that written into our Constitution? Most of it derives from English history and the way they treated people and we didn't want that to happen in America.

QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to remain free, you must have the ability to fight for it, if it becomes necessary.

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.

they didn't keep YOU out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:57:09 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 02, 2010, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

Well its not like you offer up any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I over generalized with that statement, but taking away gun rights from populations has led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last 100 years alone. That can not be denied, because the easiest way to control, and even exterminate people is to take away their right of self defense.

The Nazi's didn't enact gun control laws the Weimar Republic did to try and keep weapons out of Nazi's and Communist hands. But like human history has shown repeatedly it only serves to disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals and the evil people will hold onto their weapons and use them against the disarmed people. The Nazi's used the existing law to target everyone but themselves, and then in 1938 expressly used gun control to prevent Jews from having weapons. We all know what happened to the Jews after that.

Stalin did much of the same thing but did it to his entire peasant class, 50 million or so died.

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns. This seemed like a hell of a deal, but it was a calculated to plan to disarm the public. 100+ million dead, maybe even more.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao all feared an uprising of their own people more than anything else. And the best way to dominate a country was to disarm its population. After that its pretty easy to kill as many people as you want.

Like i said the Sudan conflict is Genocide happening right now in the name of gun control. Take away peoples right of self-defense and human history has shown that the powerful will dominate the weak. Its happened over and over in human history. to deny it is simply absurd.

I am simply stating why Americans fight so hard to keep their gun rights. Whether you like it or not the founders of this nation knew damn well what human nature was like. The right to keep in bear arms is not only for self defense against criminals but self defense against your own government. And even our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of Federal Government and its actions. Its why their is so many checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is the 2nd Amendment.

Next you have to ask why was that written into our Constitution? Most of it derives from English history and the way they treated people and we didn't want that to happen in America.

QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to remain free, you must have the ability to fight for it, if it becomes necessary.

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.

they didn't keep YOU out.

See?  Doesn't work so well, does it.  And I got in while Reagan was on the watch (although we did start the process during Carter, so never mind).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 02, 2010, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:57:09 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 02, 2010, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

Well its not like you offer up any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I over generalized with that statement, but taking away gun rights from populations has led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last 100 years alone. That can not be denied, because the easiest way to control, and even exterminate people is to take away their right of self defense.

The Nazi's didn't enact gun control laws the Weimar Republic did to try and keep weapons out of Nazi's and Communist hands. But like human history has shown repeatedly it only serves to disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals and the evil people will hold onto their weapons and use them against the disarmed people. The Nazi's used the existing law to target everyone but themselves, and then in 1938 expressly used gun control to prevent Jews from having weapons. We all know what happened to the Jews after that.

Stalin did much of the same thing but did it to his entire peasant class, 50 million or so died.

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns. This seemed like a hell of a deal, but it was a calculated to plan to disarm the public. 100+ million dead, maybe even more.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao all feared an uprising of their own people more than anything else. And the best way to dominate a country was to disarm its population. After that its pretty easy to kill as many people as you want.

Like i said the Sudan conflict is Genocide happening right now in the name of gun control. Take away peoples right of self-defense and human history has shown that the powerful will dominate the weak. Its happened over and over in human history. to deny it is simply absurd.

I am simply stating why Americans fight so hard to keep their gun rights. Whether you like it or not the founders of this nation knew damn well what human nature was like. The right to keep in bear arms is not only for self defense against criminals but self defense against your own government. And even our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of Federal Government and its actions. Its why their is so many checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is the 2nd Amendment.

Next you have to ask why was that written into our Constitution? Most of it derives from English history and the way they treated people and we didn't want that to happen in America.

QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to remain free, you must have the ability to fight for it, if it becomes necessary.

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.

they didn't keep YOU out.

See?  Doesn't work so well, does it.  And I got in while Reagan was on the watch (although we did start the process during Carter, so never mind).

Whole damn neighborhood went to hell.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 02, 2010, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: CBStew on July 02, 2010, 11:00:57 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:57:09 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 02, 2010, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 09:37:14 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 01, 2010, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

Quote from: MikeC on July 01, 2010, 05:05:47 PM
And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

Well its not like you offer up any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I over generalized with that statement, but taking away gun rights from populations has led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last 100 years alone. That can not be denied, because the easiest way to control, and even exterminate people is to take away their right of self defense.

The Nazi's didn't enact gun control laws the Weimar Republic did to try and keep weapons out of Nazi's and Communist hands. But like human history has shown repeatedly it only serves to disarm the law abiding citizens, the criminals and the evil people will hold onto their weapons and use them against the disarmed people. The Nazi's used the existing law to target everyone but themselves, and then in 1938 expressly used gun control to prevent Jews from having weapons. We all know what happened to the Jews after that.

Stalin did much of the same thing but did it to his entire peasant class, 50 million or so died.

Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns. This seemed like a hell of a deal, but it was a calculated to plan to disarm the public. 100+ million dead, maybe even more.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao all feared an uprising of their own people more than anything else. And the best way to dominate a country was to disarm its population. After that its pretty easy to kill as many people as you want.

Like i said the Sudan conflict is Genocide happening right now in the name of gun control. Take away peoples right of self-defense and human history has shown that the powerful will dominate the weak. Its happened over and over in human history. to deny it is simply absurd.

I am simply stating why Americans fight so hard to keep their gun rights. Whether you like it or not the founders of this nation knew damn well what human nature was like. The right to keep in bear arms is not only for self defense against criminals but self defense against your own government. And even our founding fathers had a healthy distrust of Federal Government and its actions. Its why their is so many checks and balances. One of those checks and balances is the 2nd Amendment.

Next you have to ask why was that written into our Constitution? Most of it derives from English history and the way they treated people and we didn't want that to happen in America.

QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In order to remain free, you must have the ability to fight for it, if it becomes necessary.

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.

they didn't keep YOU out.

See?  Doesn't work so well, does it.  And I got in while Reagan was on the watch (although we did start the process during Carter, so never mind).

Whole damn neighborhood went to hell.

[fork]The Terror of Tiny Town?[/fork]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 02, 2010, 12:05:46 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns.

Not only that, the fucker brought back the discredited practice of acupuncture as part of the Cultural Revolution.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 02, 2010, 12:11:55 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 02, 2010, 12:05:46 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns.

Not only that, the fucker brought back the discredited practice of acupuncture as part of the Cultural Revolution.

Seems weird that he wouldn't just take the guns in the first place. Save a step.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 02, 2010, 01:27:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 02, 2010, 12:11:55 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 02, 2010, 12:05:46 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns.

Not only that, the fucker brought back the discredited practice of acupuncture as part of the Cultural Revolution.

Seems weird that he wouldn't just take the guns in the first place. Save a step.

Mao would fuck with your MIND, man. He was deep.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 02, 2010, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 02, 2010, 01:27:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 02, 2010, 12:11:55 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 02, 2010, 12:05:46 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 09:01:17 AM
Mao would kidnap the richest people in his country, hold them for ransom. When the ransom was paid, and the person was returned they would kidnap them again and ask for their guns.

Not only that, the fucker brought back the discredited practice of acupuncture as part of the Cultural Revolution.

Seems weird that he wouldn't just take the guns in the first place. Save a step.

Mao would fuck with your MIND, man. He was deep.

No wonder Obama idolizes him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 02, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
Has this portion of the healthcare bill been discussed? (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/)

While it may seem like an insignificant part of the bill or tax code in general, this is quite the overhaul. Now, the estimates say this will increase tax revenues around $345 billion due to unreported incomes. That's good. I may advocate lower taxes, but I'm not a fan of tax cheats (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE CREEKOLDFUCK). So, this will be good in that respect. However, this is going to be an utter nightmare for small businesses. The way it used to work is that you only issued a 1099 to any non-corporation for services rendered. Now, it's anyone you pay over $600 to over the course of the year, regardless of what was purchased, goods or services. So, this is going to mean that small businesses are going to have to collect FEINs and all appropriate tax information (mainly addresses, because if you purchase something from Best Buy, you're sending the 1099 to the corporate office in Minnesota, not the store in Chicago). Once all this is done, it will go smoothly, but the transition is going to blow ass. I'm absolutely dreading 2012 and January 2013 as one of the largest tasks of my job is to prepare the 1099s for my clients. FML. Thanks Obamadong. Bleh

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 02, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
Has this portion of the healthcare bill been discussed? (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/)

While it may seem like an insignificant part of the bill or tax code in general, this is quite the overhaul. Now, the estimates say this will increase tax revenues around $345 billion due to unreported incomes. That's good. I may advocate lower taxes, but I'm not a fan of tax cheats (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE CREEKOLDFUCK). So, this will be good in that respect. However, this is going to be an utter nightmare for small businesses. The way it used to work is that you only issued a 1099 to any non-corporation for services rendered. Now, it's anyone you pay over $600 to over the course of the year, regardless of what was purchased, goods or services. So, this is going to mean that small businesses are going to have to collect FEINs and all appropriate tax information (mainly addresses, because if you purchase something from Best Buy, you're sending the 1099 to the corporate office in Minnesota, not the store in Chicago). Once all this is done, it will go smoothly, but the transition is going to blow ass. I'm absolutely dreading 2012 and January 2013 as one of the largest tasks of my job is to prepare the 1099s for my clients. FML. Thanks Obamadong. Bleh



Question...

If you're buying more than $600 from someone or some entity, don't you already have their address so you could, you know, pay them?  I mean, just how much of an effect can this possibly have, especially if you're a small business and you're writing off those expenses anyway?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 02, 2010, 02:43:40 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 02, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
Has this portion of the healthcare bill been discussed? (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/)

While it may seem like an insignificant part of the bill or tax code in general, this is quite the overhaul. Now, the estimates say this will increase tax revenues around $345 billion due to unreported incomes. That's good. I may advocate lower taxes, but I'm not a fan of tax cheats (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE CREEKOLDFUCK). So, this will be good in that respect. However, this is going to be an utter nightmare for small businesses. The way it used to work is that you only issued a 1099 to any non-corporation for services rendered. Now, it's anyone you pay over $600 to over the course of the year, regardless of what was purchased, goods or services. So, this is going to mean that small businesses are going to have to collect FEINs and all appropriate tax information (mainly addresses, because if you purchase something from Best Buy, you're sending the 1099 to the corporate office in Minnesota, not the store in Chicago). Once all this is done, it will go smoothly, but the transition is going to blow ass. I'm absolutely dreading 2012 and January 2013 as one of the largest tasks of my job is to prepare the 1099s for my clients. FML. Thanks Obamadong. Bleh



Question...

If you're buying more than $600 from someone or some entity, don't you already have their address so you could, you know, pay them?  I mean, just how much of an effect can this possibly have, especially if you're a small business and you're writing off those expenses anyway?

Well, kind of. But often you don't actually mail the check to the company's actual address. For instance, if you buy something from Apple you may send it to a local store or a certain billing address. That's not likely the address the IRS has for them, which needs to be correct for 1099 reporting, or you'll get a nice notice from them. Enough of those and your company will be subject to some hefty fines

As far as writing off the expenses, this isn't really something that's going to affect the expense portion of small businesses. You and I both know small businesses are taking all the expenses they can. The IRS is just trying to make sure small businesses that are incorporated (since individuals and partnerships are subject to 1099s already, along with law firms) are reporting all their income. My point is that this is a pretty big overhaul in the way things are done tax-wise and it just doesn't seem like it's been noticed. There is going to be an inordinate amount of increased paperwork. I estimate that for my normal clients (non-realty holding companies), I issue around 15-20 1099s per client each year. That number is sure to go up to at least 50-60. Now, when you factor in how many companies there are out there issuing 1099s, it's going to be a shitload of paperwork.

I don't want you to think I think this is going to ruin small businesses (although there will be some who may flop or struggle because they were cheating taxes anyway). It is just going to have a decent impact on them in regards to the additional paperwork they have to deal with. Seems to me that it will be quite the pain in the ass and maybe it should have gotten more attention. If businesses were smart, they'd start working on collecting all the information now, since trying to collect it in December 2012 and January 2013 will be sure to suck. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dumbass and procrastinating business owners out there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 02, 2010, 02:50:55 PM

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 02, 2010, 03:06:42 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 02, 2010, 02:50:55 PM

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Can you drop the photo of you flexing and bring back the masked "F" lady as your avatar?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 02, 2010, 02:50:55 PM

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Let's get serious about it'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 02, 2010, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 02, 2010, 02:50:55 PM

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Let's get serious about it'd.
:lowfive:
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 02, 2010, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 02, 2010, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 02, 2010, 02:50:55 PM
I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Let's get serious about it'd.

:lowfive:

Only the Catholic Church stands in the way of the New World Order (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mmoriarty/2010/06/30/catholics-vs-communists/), you Marxist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 02, 2010, 04:09:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 02, 2010, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 02, 2010, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 02, 2010, 02:50:55 PM
I'm no expert, but I'm guessing we could balance the budget by stripping religious organizations of their tax-exempt status if they make political endorsements.

Let's get serious about it'd.

:lowfive:

Only the Catholic Church stands in the way of the New World Order (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mmoriarty/2010/06/30/catholics-vs-communists/), you Marxist.
Bakuninite, sir.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 11:01:38 PM
Quote

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.

Yes its fear mongering to understand what has happened in history and why our founding fathers put such laws in place. Your just on you liberal circle jerk tour and doing your best Obama impression of fake fear mongering and righteous outrage just because your hissy fits look cool to the rest of the kids around you.

The people who wrote the 2nd amendment had more vision and foresight in their sperm than you will ever have Oleg. But hey go believe some more Obama bullshit had we need to spend spend spend to get out of debt. You can hit Nancy Pelosi up for some advice on how to create jobs. She seems to think unemployment insurance is the biggest job creator in this nation. And then you can sit back and wonder how fucking stupid the people in charge really think you are Oleg, because your gonna follow that stupid bitch and a liar President no matter what. They know your a fucking moron and they count on your support.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 02, 2010, 11:53:08 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 11:01:38 PM
Quote

You're a fucking piece of shit fear-mongerer.  Go fuck yourself.

Yes, we must have guns so we keep the likes of Hitler and Stalin out of our country!  Eat shit.

Yes its fear mongering to understand what has happened in history and why our founding fathers put such laws in place. Your just on you liberal circle jerk tour and doing your best Obama impression of fake fear mongering and righteous outrage just because your hissy fits look cool to the rest of the kids around you.

The people who wrote the 2nd amendment had more vision and foresight in their sperm than you will ever have Oleg. But hey go believe some more Obama bullshit had we need to spend spend spend to get out of debt. You can hit Nancy Pelosi up for some advice on how to create jobs. She seems to think unemployment insurance is the biggest job creator in this nation. And then you can sit back and wonder how fucking stupid the people in charge really think you are Oleg, because your gonna follow that stupid bitch and a liar President no matter what. They know your a fucking moron and they count on your support.

Best thing in the history of ever.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 03, 2010, 01:00:19 AM
This reminds me that, back in Arkansas in the 8th grade, not only did we get nine weeks of gun training instead of regular physical education, we also got nine weeks of exclusively studying the work of Dale Carnegie instead of science class.

Scratch that.

Quote from: MikeCYour just on you liberal circle jerk tour and doing your best Obama impression of fake fear mongering and righteous outrage just because your hissy fits look cool to the rest of the kids around you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryjmrtTE4Mc
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 03, 2010, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 11:01:38 PM
Yes its fear mongering to understand what has happened in history and why our founding fathers put such laws in place.

Our founding fathers put those laws in place because of what Hitler and Stalin did?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 03, 2010, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 03, 2010, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 11:01:38 PM
Yes its fear mongering to understand what has happened in history and why our founding fathers put such laws in place.

Our founding fathers put those laws in place because of what Hitler and Stalin did?

Look, if a Redcoat comes to your door not only do you have the right to refuse to quarter them you also can take your gun out and threaten them. Isn't that the very definition of foresight? It's gonna happen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on July 03, 2010, 10:37:08 AM
I want to disarm this thread and cast it in to the firebarn.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on July 03, 2010, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Slaky on July 03, 2010, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 03, 2010, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 02, 2010, 11:01:38 PM
Yes its fear mongering to understand what has happened in history and why our founding fathers put such laws in place.

Our founding fathers put those laws in place because of what Hitler and Stalin did?

Look, if a Redcoat comes to your door not only do you have the right to refuse to quarter them you also can take your gun out and threaten them. Isn't that the very definition of foresight? It's gonna happen.

Now I need to worry about the fucking REDCOATS?  God damn Obama. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tony on July 03, 2010, 12:42:13 PM
This thread is way more entertaining than the Cubs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 03, 2010, 01:20:52 PM
Quote from: Tony on July 03, 2010, 12:42:13 PM
This thread is way more entertaining than the Cubs.

Having a digital prostate exam is more entertaining than the Cubs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 03, 2010, 03:25:11 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 03, 2010, 01:20:52 PM
Quote from: Tony on July 03, 2010, 12:42:13 PM
This thread is way more entertaining than the Cubs.

Having a digital prostate exam is more entertaining than the Cubs.

Something tells me Stew's opinion on this should be taken seriously
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on July 03, 2010, 03:33:41 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 03, 2010, 01:20:52 PM
Quote from: Tony on July 03, 2010, 12:42:13 PM
This thread is way more entertaining than the Cubs.

Having a digital prostate exam is more entertaining than the Cubs.

You can get a digital prostate exam these days?  Man, I'll bet the quality's far better than the analogue prostate exams they're still giving us here in Europe.

What a time to be alive.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on July 03, 2010, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: Tonker on July 03, 2010, 03:33:41 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 03, 2010, 01:20:52 PM
Quote from: Tony on July 03, 2010, 12:42:13 PM
This thread is way more entertaining than the Cubs.

Having a digital prostate exam is more entertaining than the Cubs.

You can get a digital prostate exam these days?  Man, I'll bet the quality's far better than the analogue prostate exams they're still giving us here in Europe.

What a time to be alive.

Is there an app for that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 03, 2010, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: Tonker on July 03, 2010, 03:33:41 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 03, 2010, 01:20:52 PM
Quote from: Tony on July 03, 2010, 12:42:13 PM
This thread is way more entertaining than the Cubs.

Having a digital prostate exam is more entertaining than the Cubs.

You can get a digital prostate exam these days?  Man, I'll bet the quality's far better than the analogue prostate exams they're still giving us here in Europe.

What a time to be alive.

Intrepid Reader Guy Picciotto: Someone needs to get back to his Latin Roots.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CubFaninHydePark on July 05, 2010, 11:19:43 PM
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/scripts/cartridge-family

Quote

LISA
Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

HOMER
You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. (he starts pushing Lisa) Do you want that? Huh? Do you?

LISA
No...

HOMER
All right then.


And I'll add, if we didn't have the 2nd Amendment, people could show up in these threads and start threatening lawsuits anytime they want.  Do you want that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 06, 2010, 01:03:57 AM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on July 05, 2010, 11:19:43 PM
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/scripts/cartridge-family

Quote

LISA
Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

HOMER
You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. (he starts pushing Lisa) Do you want that? Huh? Do you?

LISA
No...

HOMER
All right then.


And I'll add, if we didn't have the 2nd Amendment, people could show up in these threads and start threatening lawsuits anytime they want.  Do you want that?

That's it! I'm suing.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
But I have to have a gun... It's in the Constitution!

I mean, if I didn't have a gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. You want that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 06, 2010, 01:59:20 PM
Tea Partiers for Obama (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26474.html):

QuoteThe dire outlook from CBO today is not the fault of the current administration or any one administration (LBJ may be the most to blame I guess for starting Medicare). In fact, if the Medicare cuts in the health care bill are to be believed and CBO's estimates pertaining to the health care bill are to be believed, Pres. Obama has already done more to reduce in magnitude the long-term budget problems for the U.S. than the previous administration, who undoubtedly made the problem worse (Chuck note: They're talking about Medicare D). That's true despite the amount added to the deficit from the stimulus bill and the costly coverage provisions in the health care bill. The obvious question is whether or not you believe the large cuts to Medicare will ever pan out. If not, Obama's fiscal record thus far is about as bad as the previous administration's.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 06, 2010, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 06, 2010, 01:59:20 PM
Tea Partiers for Obama (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26474.html):

QuoteThe dire outlook from CBO today is not the fault of the current administration or any one administration (LBJ may be the most to blame I guess for starting Medicare). In fact, if the Medicare cuts in the health care bill are to be believed and CBO's estimates pertaining to the health care bill are to be believed, Pres. Obama has already done more to reduce in magnitude the long-term budget problems for the U.S. than the previous administration, who undoubtedly made the problem worse (Chuck note: They're talking about Medicare D). That's true despite the amount added to the deficit from the stimulus bill and the costly coverage provisions in the health care bill. The obvious question is whether or not you believe the large cuts to Medicare will ever pan out. If not, Obama's fiscal record thus far is about as bad as the previous administration's.

Wait a minute? Conservatives stopped to say "Is this Obama's fault?" Who you crappin'?

Also, is that site worth a shite? Reading stuff about tax policies is kind of intriguing right now, at least for me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 06, 2010, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 06, 2010, 01:59:20 PM
Tea Partiers for Obama (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26474.html):

QuoteThe dire outlook from CBO today is not the fault of the current administration or any one administration (LBJ may be the most to blame I guess for starting Medicare). In fact, if the Medicare cuts in the health care bill are to be believed and CBO's estimates pertaining to the health care bill are to be believed, Pres. Obama has already done more to reduce in magnitude the long-term budget problems for the U.S. than the previous administration, who undoubtedly made the problem worse (Chuck note: They're talking about Medicare D). That's true despite the amount added to the deficit from the stimulus bill and the costly coverage provisions in the health care bill. The obvious question is whether or not you believe the large cuts to Medicare will ever pan out. If not, Obama's fiscal record thus far is about as bad as the previous administration's.

Big if'd. (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/105453-house-approves-six-month-doc-fix)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 06, 2010, 03:03:22 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 06, 2010, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 06, 2010, 01:59:20 PM
Tea Partiers for Obama (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26474.html):

QuoteThe dire outlook from CBO today is not the fault of the current administration or any one administration (LBJ may be the most to blame I guess for starting Medicare). In fact, if the Medicare cuts in the health care bill are to be believed and CBO's estimates pertaining to the health care bill are to be believed, Pres. Obama has already done more to reduce in magnitude the long-term budget problems for the U.S. than the previous administration, who undoubtedly made the problem worse (Chuck note: They're talking about Medicare D). That's true despite the amount added to the deficit from the stimulus bill and the costly coverage provisions in the health care bill. The obvious question is whether or not you believe the large cuts to Medicare will ever pan out. If not, Obama's fiscal record thus far is about as bad as the previous administration's.

Wait a minute? Conservatives stopped to say "Is this Obama's fault?" Who you crappin'?

Also, is that site worth a shite? Reading stuff about tax policies is kind of intriguing right now, at least for me.

Not familiar with the Tax Foundation, but the Tax Policy Center is my preferred destination for nonpartisan tax stuff. It's a little wonky but not too bad.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 06, 2010, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 06, 2010, 03:03:22 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 06, 2010, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 06, 2010, 01:59:20 PM
Tea Partiers for Obama (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26474.html):

QuoteThe dire outlook from CBO today is not the fault of the current administration or any one administration (LBJ may be the most to blame I guess for starting Medicare). In fact, if the Medicare cuts in the health care bill are to be believed and CBO's estimates pertaining to the health care bill are to be believed, Pres. Obama has already done more to reduce in magnitude the long-term budget problems for the U.S. than the previous administration, who undoubtedly made the problem worse (Chuck note: They're talking about Medicare D). That's true despite the amount added to the deficit from the stimulus bill and the costly coverage provisions in the health care bill. The obvious question is whether or not you believe the large cuts to Medicare will ever pan out. If not, Obama's fiscal record thus far is about as bad as the previous administration's.

Wait a minute? Conservatives stopped to say "Is this Obama's fault?" Who you crappin'?

Also, is that site worth a shite? Reading stuff about tax policies is kind of intriguing right now, at least for me.

Not familiar with the Tax Foundation, but the Tax Policy Center is my preferred destination for nonpartisan tax stuff. It's a little wonky but not too bad.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog

Added to my Julie Feed
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 08:36:13 AM
Confirmation hearings are now unnecessary, or something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/health/policy/07recess.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

QuoteThe recess appointment was somewhat unusual because the Senate is in recess for less than two weeks and senators were still waiting for Dr. Berwick to submit responses to some of their requests for information. No confirmation hearing has been held or scheduled.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 07, 2010, 08:51:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 08:36:13 AM
Confirmation hearings are now unnecessary, or something.

Sooner or later, they'll fix the Senate.  Maybe with a neutron bomb.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 07, 2010, 09:52:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 08:36:13 AM
Confirmation hearings are now unnecessary, or something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/health/policy/07recess.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

QuoteThe recess appointment was somewhat unusual because the Senate is in recess for less than two weeks and senators were still waiting for Dr. Berwick to submit responses to some of their requests for information. No confirmation hearing has been held or scheduled.

Intrepid Reader: John Bolton

Yeah, recess appointments are a new thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 10:02:22 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 07, 2010, 09:52:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 08:36:13 AM
Confirmation hearings are now unnecessary, or something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/health/policy/07recess.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

QuoteThe recess appointment was somewhat unusual because the Senate is in recess for less than two weeks and senators were still waiting for Dr. Berwick to submit responses to some of their requests for information. No confirmation hearing has been held or scheduled.

Intrepid Reader: John Bolton

Yeah, recess appointments are a new thing.

Your stick-poke is noted.  I fart in your general direction.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 07, 2010, 10:12:46 AM
The Senate farts in the general direction (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/unemployment_benefits_are_not.html) of those lazy unemployed bastards who are too lazy to get that one job that's available for every five unemployed. (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/unemployed_workers_outnumbered_job_openings_five_to_one_in_april/)

QuoteLet's face it: those who use their "worry" about our longer-term fiscal outlook as a reason to oppose extended unemployment benefits don't want to reduce the deficit as much as they want to get rid of unemployment benefits.  It is just a convenient excuse to "mug" those benefits and deny many American families that assistance they so badly need.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 10:30:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 07, 2010, 10:12:46 AM
The Senate farts in the general direction (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/unemployment_benefits_are_not.html) of those lazy unemployed bastards who are too lazy to get that one job that's available for every five unemployed. (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/unemployed_workers_outnumbered_job_openings_five_to_one_in_april/)

QuoteLet's face it: those who use their "worry" about our longer-term fiscal outlook as a reason to oppose extended unemployment benefits don't want to reduce the deficit as much as they want to get rid of unemployment benefits.  It is just a convenient excuse to "mug" those benefits and deny many American families that assistance they so badly need.

But what about all that epic inflation? (http://washingtonindependent.com/87455/minority-whip-cantor-bets-against-u-s-bonds)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 10:38:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 07, 2010, 10:12:46 AM
The Senate farts in the general direction (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/unemployment_benefits_are_not.html) of those lazy unemployed bastards who are too lazy to get that one job that's available for every five unemployed. (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/unemployed_workers_outnumbered_job_openings_five_to_one_in_april/)

QuoteLet's face it: those who use their "worry" about our longer-term fiscal outlook as a reason to oppose extended unemployment benefits don't want to reduce the deficit as much as they want to get rid of unemployment benefits.  It is just a convenient excuse to "mug" those benefits and deny many American families that assistance they so badly need.

Normally I'd fart in your general direction and say "people respond to INCENTIVES, so let the benefits end!"  However, I think there is more of a case for extending benefits in this instance.  Why?  Because when you compare unemployment durations of benefits-eligible people and those not eligible, they are unemployed for similar amounts of time.  http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-12.html  Clearly something else is at work here, and the INCENTIVE to collect benefits while not working right up until they run out is not driving unemployment duration.

And Tank... I think Cantor's making a good trade there.  I'd be short Treasury Bonds, for sure, with yields on the 10-year under 3%.  The epic inflation is coming, it's just a question of when.  The government is going to have to inflate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 07, 2010, 10:40:17 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 10:38:37 AM
And Tank... I think Cantor's making a good trade there.  I'd be short Treasury Bonds, for sure, with yields on the 10-year under 3%.  The epic inflation is coming, it's just a question of when.  The government is going to have to inflate.

Refi your house.  Inflation insurance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 11:41:21 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 07, 2010, 10:40:17 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 10:38:37 AM
And Tank... I think Cantor's making a good trade there.  I'd be short Treasury Bonds, for sure, with yields on the 10-year under 3%.  The epic inflation is coming, it's just a question of when.  The government is going to have to inflate.

Refi your house
. Buy Fort Knox. (http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/10/19/einhorn-on-gold-sovereign-default-and-more/) Inflation insurance.

Greenlighted.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 11:41:21 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 07, 2010, 10:40:17 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 10:38:37 AM
And Tank... I think Cantor's making a good trade there.  I'd be short Treasury Bonds, for sure, with yields on the 10-year under 3%.  The epic inflation is coming, it's just a question of when.  The government is going to have to inflate.

Refi your house
. Buy Fort Knox. (http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/10/19/einhorn-on-gold-sovereign-default-and-more/) Inflation insurance.

Greenlighted.

Could be another fun ride coming...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-01/soros-signals-gold-bubble-as-goldman-predicts-record-update1-.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704792104575264863069565780.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704032704575268462477689760.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 12:31:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 11:41:21 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 07, 2010, 10:40:17 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 10:38:37 AM
And Tank... I think Cantor's making a good trade there.  I'd be short Treasury Bonds, for sure, with yields on the 10-year under 3%.  The epic inflation is coming, it's just a question of when.  The government is going to have to inflate.

Refi your house
. Buy Fort Knox. (http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/10/19/einhorn-on-gold-sovereign-default-and-more/) Inflation insurance.

Greenlighted.

Could be another fun ride coming...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-01/soros-signals-gold-bubble-as-goldman-predicts-record-update1-.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704792104575264863069565780.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704032704575268462477689760.html

Very true. However, David Einhorn hasn't been wrong about too much this past three or four years. His largest position right now continues to be gold.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 12:45:07 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 12:31:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 12:24:26 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 11:41:21 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 07, 2010, 10:40:17 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 07, 2010, 10:38:37 AM
And Tank... I think Cantor's making a good trade there.  I'd be short Treasury Bonds, for sure, with yields on the 10-year under 3%.  The epic inflation is coming, it's just a question of when.  The government is going to have to inflate.

Refi your house
. Buy Fort Knox. (http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/10/19/einhorn-on-gold-sovereign-default-and-more/) Inflation insurance.

Greenlighted.

Could be another fun ride coming...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-01/soros-signals-gold-bubble-as-goldman-predicts-record-update1-.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704792104575264863069565780.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704032704575268462477689760.html

Very true. However, David Einhorn hasn't been wrong about too much this past three or four years. His largest position right now continues to be gold.

For the completists, part 3 of Arends' WSJ series:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704080104575286712075144530.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 07, 2010, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Yeah, he's an angry, angry man.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gallagher,36622/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on July 07, 2010, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Quote"At last, after two hours of his tedious, hacky, right-wing manifesto, Gallagher gets to the part his (willing) hostages have been waiting for. It's time to smash some shit. There are the watermelons, there is some cottage cheese ("It's got the curds that blow up, just like on the news!"), there is sauerkraut and syrup and honey. Then Gallagher gets a tin pie plate. He opens a giant can of fruit cocktail and pours it in. He opens a can of some Asian vegetable—water chestnuts, maybe—and pours that in, too. "This is the China people and queers!!!" he screams and takes his sledgehammer to the thing with a fury that is no fun at all. Wet chunks of China people and queers fly everywhere. The hateful, bitter old man laughs. I cannot believe Bill Hicks is dead and this motherfucker is still touring."

THIS to the last sentence.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 07, 2010, 06:01:50 PM
Quote from: MAD on July 07, 2010, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Quote"At last, after two hours of his tedious, hacky, right-wing manifesto, Gallagher gets to the part his (willing) hostages have been waiting for. It's time to smash some shit. There are the watermelons, there is some cottage cheese ("It's got the curds that blow up, just like on the news!"), there is sauerkraut and syrup and honey. Then Gallagher gets a tin pie plate. He opens a giant can of fruit cocktail and pours it in. He opens a can of some Asian vegetable—water chestnuts, maybe—and pours that in, too. "This is the China people and queers!!!" he screams and takes his sledgehammer to the thing with a fury that is no fun at all. Wet chunks of China people and queers fly everywhere. The hateful, bitter old man laughs. I cannot believe Bill Hicks AND George Carlin is are dead and this motherfucker is still touring."

THIS to the last sentence.

Moreso'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 07, 2010, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 07, 2010, 06:01:50 PM
Quote from: MAD on July 07, 2010, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Quote"At last, after two hours of his tedious, hacky, right-wing manifesto, Gallagher gets to the part his (willing) hostages have been waiting for. It's time to smash some shit. There are the watermelons, there is some cottage cheese ("It's got the curds that blow up, just like on the news!"), there is sauerkraut and syrup and honey. Then Gallagher gets a tin pie plate. He opens a giant can of fruit cocktail and pours it in. He opens a can of some Asian vegetable—water chestnuts, maybe—and pours that in, too. "This is the China people and queers!!!" he screams and takes his sledgehammer to the thing with a fury that is no fun at all. Wet chunks of China people and queers fly everywhere. The hateful, bitter old man laughs. I cannot believe Bill Hicks AND George Carlin is are dead and this motherfucker is still touring."

THIS to the last sentence.

Moreso'd.

Doubleplusgood'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2010, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Yeah, he's an angry, angry man.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gallagher,36622/
Angry, angry = racist and unfunny?

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2010, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Yeah, he's an angry, angry man.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gallagher,36622/

Angry, angry = racist and unfunny?

Racist, unfunny and angry.

All told, this may be one of the strangest Q-and-A combos I've ever read:

QuoteAVC: Why has prop comedy been stagnating more and more?

G: I told you: an emphasis on the mediocre. You're giving the audience what they want, but, that's, I guess, a reflection on our society. It's so thin, it's a veneer, it's not deep, it doesn't have a moral direction. 'Cause we really don't know, we don't know.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 07:06:25 PM
Quote from: SalonSure, we suspected all was not right under that beret years ago...

Yah, nobody can afford an editor. Does this look like an extra from Fireworks in a stinking frog beret?

(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/teamfirecrotch/gallagher2.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 07, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2010, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Yeah, he's an angry, angry man.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gallagher,36622/

Angry, angry = racist and unfunny?

Racist, unfunny and angry.

All told, this may be one of the strangest Q-and-A combos I've ever read:

QuoteAVC: Why has prop comedy been stagnating more and more?

G: I told you: an emphasis on the mediocre. You're giving the audience what they want, but, that's, I guess, a reflection on our society. It's so thin, it's a veneer, it's not deep, it doesn't have a moral direction. 'Cause we really don't know, we don't know.

This gives me a new appreciation for Carrot Top.

At least he didn't go batshit crazy.

Probably.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on July 07, 2010, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 07, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2010, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Yeah, he's an angry, angry man.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gallagher,36622/

Angry, angry = racist and unfunny?

Racist, unfunny and angry.

All told, this may be one of the strangest Q-and-A combos I've ever read:

QuoteAVC: Why has prop comedy been stagnating more and more?

G: I told you: an emphasis on the mediocre. You're giving the audience what they want, but, that's, I guess, a reflection on our society. It's so thin, it's a veneer, it's not deep, it doesn't have a moral direction. 'Cause we really don't know, we don't know.

This gives me a new appreciation for Carrot Top.

At least he didn't go batshit crazy.

Probably. Yet.

Just give it about 15 years'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 07:32:36 PM
Quote from: MAD on July 07, 2010, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 07, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2010, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Yeah, he's an angry, angry man.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gallagher,36622/

Angry, angry = racist and unfunny?

Racist, unfunny and angry.

All told, this may be one of the strangest Q-and-A combos I've ever read:

QuoteAVC: Why has prop comedy been stagnating more and more?

G: I told you: an emphasis on the mediocre. You're giving the audience what they want, but, that's, I guess, a reflection on our society. It's so thin, it's a veneer, it's not deep, it doesn't have a moral direction. 'Cause we really don't know, we don't know.

This gives me a new appreciation for Carrot Top.

At least he didn't go batshit crazy.

Probably. Yet.

Just give it about 15 years'd.

Define "batshit crazy"...

(http://i.imgur.com/xGveS.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 07:34:45 PM
DPD...

http://news.makemeheal.com/celebrity-plastic-surgery/carrot-top-plastic-surgery/

QuoteCarrot Top is frequently cited as a top ten contender for most awful plastic surgery disasters, along with familiar faces like Michael Jackson, Jocelyn Wildenstein, and Kenny Rogers. The curly-haired comedian has become better known for his over-the-top appearance than he has for his comedy. Make Me Heal takes a look at this funnyman's funny look.

Although comedians often rely on making funny faces, Carrot Top, whose real name is Scott Thompson has had so much Botox that it looks like his face froze in an awkward position, the way your mother warned you it might as a child. Not only that, but his eyebrows are even more arched than Botox fan Nicole Kidman's (See Make Me Heal's story on Nicole Kidman's Botox)

(http://i.imgur.com/jltG4.jpg)

On his blog, Plastic Surgeon Dr. Anthony Youn notes, "He's undergone quite a few changes over the years, not the least of which is an excessively arched brow possibly due to a combination of Botox and a Browlift."

Make Me Heal noticed that for a 43-year old, Carrot Top's skin is also unusually smooth, probably due to laser treatments, like Fraxel and chemical peels, which may also explain why is face is less freckled looking than the rest of his bizarrely toned body.

Dr. Youn also says, "His face looks extremely smooth as well, and may be the result of laser treatments or chemical peels."

Plastic surgeon Dr. John Di Saia tells Make Me Heal, "Carrot Top has probably had facial peeling and/or skin care as the freckles are decreased relative to those seen on the rest of his body."

In addition to his odd facial appearance, including what look like drawn-on eyebrows, Carrot Top looks almost feminine and soft (an effect that is furthered by heavy eyeliner), which can be a side effect of steroids, which he almost certainly uses to achieve his hard and toned body.

If Carrot Top wanted to be made of fun rather than make the fun with witty remarks, then his plastic surgery goal was certainly achieved, although Make Me Heal thinks that his time would have been better spent coming up with new material than under the knife.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 07, 2010, 07:45:24 PM
Egad.  Why the hell do you people know so much about Carrot Top?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 07, 2010, 07:45:24 PM
Egad.  Why the hell do you people know so much about Carrot Top?

Who knows? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2008/oct/16/marc-maron-carrot-top-las-vegas)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 08, 2010, 02:07:15 PM
It's good to know one birther has abandoned wasting federal tax dollars contesting the validity of President Obama's birth certificate. Instead, she's wasting local county and municipal tax dollars contesting the validity of local candidates. (http://dailyherald.com/story/?id=392758)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 08, 2010, 02:35:29 PM
Q: Is this the untimely end of Milhouse Portuguese Playboy? (http://www.geekosystem.com/jesus-playboy-portugal/)

(http://i.imgur.com/xCCVY.jpg)

A: Yes. (http://gawker.com/5581888/playboy-kills-off-portuguese-edition-over-sexy-jesus-photo-shoot)

(NSFW pics here. (http://www.drunkenstepfather.com/index.php/2010/07/07/jesus-does-playboy-in-portugal-of-the-day))
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 08, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
I'm glad Congress is able to focus on what's really important about the financial industry and "Too Big To Fail."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 08, 2010, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 08, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
I'm glad Congress is able to focus on what's really important about the financial industry and "Too Big To Fail."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html

I agree - the financial industry needs more old white guys.

On to the fun stuff. The author is a senior fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute....which was started by "futurist and systems theorist" Herman Kahn...who once worked for...wait for it...the RAND Corporation!

Google search of the author also turned up this amusing exchange:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/21/al-franken-grills-hudson/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Saul Goodman on July 09, 2010, 01:49:57 AM
LeBron's douchery = RISE OF THE TEA PARTY (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/10/07/the-political-meaning-of-lebrons-move/59420/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 09, 2010, 07:14:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 08, 2010, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 08, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
I'm glad Congress is able to focus on what's really important about the financial industry and "Too Big To Fail."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html

I agree - the financial industry needs more old white guys.

On to the fun stuff. The author is a senior fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute....which was started by "futurist and systems theorist" Herman Kahn...who once worked for...wait for it...the RAND Corporation!

Google search of the author also turned up this amusing exchange:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/21/al-franken-grills-hudson/

So... is it right to be told to discriminate on the basis of race and gender, RV? If your employer comes in and tells you you're fired because of your race and gender, you'll be fine with that.

And oh my, another guy from a right-wing think tank must have no worthy arguments because it is right-wing.

Al Franken has no worthy arguments either because of his too cozy relationship with the entertainment industryeither.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 09, 2010, 07:54:47 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 09, 2010, 07:14:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 08, 2010, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 08, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
I'm glad Congress is able to focus on what's really important about the financial industry and "Too Big To Fail."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html

I agree - the financial industry needs more old white guys.

On to the fun stuff. The author is a senior fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute....which was started by "futurist and systems theorist" Herman Kahn...who once worked for...wait for it...the RAND Corporation!

Google search of the author also turned up this amusing exchange:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/21/al-franken-grills-hudson/

So... is it right to be told to discriminate on the basis of race and gender, RV? If your employer comes in and tells you you're fired because of your race and gender, you'll be fine with that.

And oh my, another guy from a right-wing think tank must have no worthy arguments because it is right-wing.

Al Franken has no worthy arguments either because of his too cozy relationship with the entertainment industry either.

If he had a cozy relationship with the entertainment industry, someone would have talked him out of "Stuart Saves His Family".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 09, 2010, 08:38:06 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 09, 2010, 07:14:32 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 08, 2010, 05:10:06 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 08, 2010, 03:35:43 PM
I'm glad Congress is able to focus on what's really important about the financial industry and "Too Big To Fail."

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/08/diversity_in_the_financial_sector_98562.html

I agree - the financial industry needs more old white guys.

On to the fun stuff. The author is a senior fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute....which was started by "futurist and systems theorist" Herman Kahn...who once worked for...wait for it...the RAND Corporation!

Google search of the author also turned up this amusing exchange:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/21/al-franken-grills-hudson/

So... is it right to be told to discriminate on the basis of race and gender, RV? If your employer comes in and tells you you're fired because of your race and gender, you'll be fine with that.

And oh my, another guy from a right-wing think tank must have no worthy arguments because it is right-wing.

Al Franken has no worthy arguments either because of his too cozy relationship with the entertainment industryeither.

I don't actually have a boner for hiring quotas or anything like that. So it's a good thing the bill doesn't mention quotas. I do get a kick out of the White People Freakout over stuff like this. THE BROWN FOLKS AND WOMEN R GUNNA TUK UR JUBS! WHITE MAN CAN'T CATCH A BREAK! And that these "exposes" (such as Betsy McCaughey "finding" the death panels in the legislation) always include breathless passages like this:

QuoteThis has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.

And I was just having some fun with the RAND Corporation stuff, man. Worthy arguments can come from anyone. Except MikeC. And the author isn't a guy - it's a woman. You fascimisogynist pig.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 13, 2010, 08:43:42 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/12/naacp-to-condemn-racism-of-the-tea-parties/

QuoteWashington (CNN) – On Tuesday the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People will offer a resolution to its members condemning what it believes to be rampant racism in the Tea Party movement.

The resolution could pass on Tuesday or later this week as the nation's oldest civil rights organization holds its 101st convention in Kansas City over six days.

NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous talked to CNN about the controversial, loose-knit groups that espouse a commitment to the Constitution.

"The Tea Party movement knows that there are tens of thousands of dedicated racists and ultra nationalists in their ranks," Jealous said. Those groups "must be repudiated by the regular, law-abiding members or they must take responsibility," Jealous added, saying "they can't have it both ways."

...

The Tea Party Express, a national Tea Party organization, is angry about the resolution.

"This is indeed the kettle calling the pot black," Mark Williams, national spokesman of the conservative grassroots group, told CNN.

"We're fighting the government programs that have emasculated the black family," Williams said.

He added: "It's the Obama administration that rolled back civil rights to a pre-civil rights era with 'Obamacare' in which they removed the concept of individual rights...it's the Obama administration that put a tax on white people with a tanning salon tax. I mean, this is the kind of stuff the Tea Party movement is fighting. We are fighting for the Constitution of this country, which, by definition, makes this a human rights movement – a civil rights movement."

"It's the 21st century and their rights as humans are absolutely at risk here. And the threat doesn't come from those people who love the Constitution. It comes from those people in power in Washington right now," Williams said.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 13, 2010, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

Looks like the WaPo is one of the SBox guests.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 13, 2010, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

So wouldn't that mean that instead of owing money to the items you chose not to highlight that we'd just owe a shitload of money to China? How is that just glossed over?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 13, 2010, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

So wouldn't that mean that instead of owing money to the items you chose not to highlight that we'd just owe a shitload of money to China? How is that just glossed over?

Well, technically Simpson chose to make it the focus of his sentence, but anyway, I think he chose those because they are big-ticket items and they add up to 100% of federal revenue?  Moreover, all three of those are going to grow - a lot - in the coming years, as we all know.  And thus, any meaningful attempt at deficit reduction, let alone actually reducing the national debt, is going to have to realistically address those big-ticket items (i.e., not say "we'll just squeeze waste, fraud and abuse out of the system!").  Yeah, tax revenue is going to have to increase somehow... but spending is going to have to go down.

And so we are back to the endless arguments about how to do that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 13, 2010, 12:18:12 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 13, 2010, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

So wouldn't that mean that instead of owing money to the items you chose not to highlight that we'd just owe a shitload of money to China? How is that just glossed over?

Well, technically Simpson chose to make it the focus of his sentence, but anyway, I think he chose those because they are big-ticket items and they add up to 100% of federal revenue?  Moreover, all three of those are going to grow - a lot - in the coming years, as we all know.  And thus, any meaningful attempt at deficit reduction, let alone actually reducing the national debt, is going to have to realistically address those big-ticket items (i.e., not say "we'll just squeeze waste, fraud and abuse out of the system!").  Yeah, tax revenue is going to have to increase somehow... but spending is going to have to go down.

And so we are back to the endless arguments about how to do that.

We could solve this whole thing by simply agreeing that all debt purchased by China will be paid back in the form of the US sending Baby Boomers over there to work in forced labor camps.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 13, 2010, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 13, 2010, 12:18:12 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 13, 2010, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

So wouldn't that mean that instead of owing money to the items you chose not to highlight that we'd just owe a shitload of money to China? How is that just glossed over?

Well, technically Simpson chose to make it the focus of his sentence, but anyway, I think he chose those because they are big-ticket items and they add up to 100% of federal revenue?  Moreover, all three of those are going to grow - a lot - in the coming years, as we all know.  And thus, any meaningful attempt at deficit reduction, let alone actually reducing the national debt, is going to have to realistically address those big-ticket items (i.e., not say "we'll just squeeze waste, fraud and abuse out of the system!").  Yeah, tax revenue is going to have to increase somehow... but spending is going to have to go down.

And so we are back to the endless arguments about how to do that.

We could solve this whole thing by simply agreeing that all debt purchased by China will be paid back in the form of the US sending Baby Boomers over there to work in forced labor camps.

CT for US Senate!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 13, 2010, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 13, 2010, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 13, 2010, 12:18:12 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 13, 2010, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

So wouldn't that mean that instead of owing money to the items you chose not to highlight that we'd just owe a shitload of money to China? How is that just glossed over?

Well, technically Simpson chose to make it the focus of his sentence, but anyway, I think he chose those because they are big-ticket items and they add up to 100% of federal revenue?  Moreover, all three of those are going to grow - a lot - in the coming years, as we all know.  And thus, any meaningful attempt at deficit reduction, let alone actually reducing the national debt, is going to have to realistically address those big-ticket items (i.e., not say "we'll just squeeze waste, fraud and abuse out of the system!").  Yeah, tax revenue is going to have to increase somehow... but spending is going to have to go down.

And so we are back to the endless arguments about how to do that.

We could solve this whole thing by simply agreeing that all debt purchased by China will be paid back in the form of the US sending Baby Boomers over there to work in forced labor camps.

CT for US Senate!

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 13, 2010, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 13, 2010, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 13, 2010, 12:18:12 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 13, 2010, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

So wouldn't that mean that instead of owing money to the items you chose not to highlight that we'd just owe a shitload of money to China? How is that just glossed over?

Well, technically Simpson chose to make it the focus of his sentence, but anyway, I think he chose those because they are big-ticket items and they add up to 100% of federal revenue?  Moreover, all three of those are going to grow - a lot - in the coming years, as we all know.  And thus, any meaningful attempt at deficit reduction, let alone actually reducing the national debt, is going to have to realistically address those big-ticket items (i.e., not say "we'll just squeeze waste, fraud and abuse out of the system!").  Yeah, tax revenue is going to have to increase somehow... but spending is going to have to go down.

And so we are back to the endless arguments about how to do that.

We could solve this whole thing by simply agreeing that all debt purchased by China will be paid back in the form of the US sending Baby Boomers over there to work in forced labor camps.

CT for US Senate!

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

I will only offer my support when CT signs the written "Jetsons Shit" pledge.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 13, 2010, 12:47:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 13, 2010, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 13, 2010, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 13, 2010, 12:18:12 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 13, 2010, 11:27:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

So wouldn't that mean that instead of owing money to the items you chose not to highlight that we'd just owe a shitload of money to China? How is that just glossed over?

Well, technically Simpson chose to make it the focus of his sentence, but anyway, I think he chose those because they are big-ticket items and they add up to 100% of federal revenue?  Moreover, all three of those are going to grow - a lot - in the coming years, as we all know.  And thus, any meaningful attempt at deficit reduction, let alone actually reducing the national debt, is going to have to realistically address those big-ticket items (i.e., not say "we'll just squeeze waste, fraud and abuse out of the system!").  Yeah, tax revenue is going to have to increase somehow... but spending is going to have to go down.

And so we are back to the endless arguments about how to do that.

We could solve this whole thing by simply agreeing that all debt purchased by China will be paid back in the form of the US sending Baby Boomers over there to work in forced labor camps.

CT for US Senate!

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

I will only offer my support when CT signs the written "Jetsons Shit" pledge.

(http://i28.tinypic.com/2prwbqf.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 14, 2010, 08:44:27 AM
Senators Kyl and McConnell, who are Very Serious about the deficit, have informed me that a temporary increase in spending (unemployment benefits) must be offset, while a long-term decrease in revenue, does not need to be offset. Because if you just believe hard enough that tax cuts always increase revenue, it'll come true. Huzzah for tax cuts! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php)

Quote"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

I guess I'll just ignore (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/mcconnell_no_evidence_whatsoev.html) the CBO, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Greg Mankiw, Mark Zandi, GDP numbers, and Alan Viard.

QuoteThe new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year.

QuoteHow about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018.

QuoteHow about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

QuoteThat's why Mark Zandi, an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign, estimated  (pdf) that a dollar spent extending the Bush tax cuts would generate .32 cents of taxable economic activity, while a dollar spent on unemployment benefits would generate $1.61 of taxable economic activity.

QuoteIn 2000, federal tax revenues were $2,025.46 billion, nominal GDP was $9,951.5 billion. In 2003, these amounts were $1,782.53 billion and $11,142.1 billion. So GDP rose 12% and federal revenues fell 12%.

Quote"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2010, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 08:44:27 AM
Senators Kyl and McConnell, who are Very Serious about the deficit, have informed me that a temporary increase in spending (unemployment benefits) must be offset, while a long-term decrease in revenue, does not need to be offset. Because if you just believe hard enough that tax cuts always increase revenue, it'll come true. Huzzah for tax cuts! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php)

Quote"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

I know!  Let's cut taxes to 0% and we'll have INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

In fact, if we had a negative income tax, we have MORE THAN INFINITE REVENUE!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2010, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 08:44:27 AM
Senators Kyl and McConnell, who are Very Serious about the deficit, have informed me that a temporary increase in spending (unemployment benefits) must be offset, while a long-term decrease in revenue, does not need to be offset. Because if you just believe hard enough that tax cuts always increase revenue, it'll come true. Huzzah for tax cuts! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php)

Quote"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

I know!  Let's cut taxes to 0% and we'll have INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

In fact, if we had a negative income tax, we have MORE THAN INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

I am finding myself agreeing with the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS around here on this one, as much as it pains me to do so... while the tax cuts did not result in a one-for-one loss in revenue (i.e., there was a strong positive effect on the economy from them which partially offset revenue losses from lower rates) there's no way they paid for themselves.  Now, when marginal tax rates were at 90% and they were cut, then maybe we could talk about such a strong supply side effect, but the Bush tax cuts were coming from levels much lower than that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 14, 2010, 09:32:49 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2010, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 08:44:27 AM
Senators Kyl and McConnell, who are Very Serious about the deficit, have informed me that a temporary increase in spending (unemployment benefits) must be offset, while a long-term decrease in revenue, does not need to be offset. Because if you just believe hard enough that tax cuts always increase revenue, it'll come true. Huzzah for tax cuts! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php)

Quote"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

I know!  Let's cut taxes to 0% and we'll have INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

In fact, if we had a negative income tax, we have MORE THAN INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

I am finding myself agreeing with the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS around here on this one, as much as it pains me to do so... while the tax cuts did not result in a one-for-one loss in revenue (i.e., there was a strong positive effect on the economy from them which partially offset revenue losses from lower rates) there's no way they paid for themselves.  Now, when marginal tax rates were at 90% and they were cut, then maybe we could talk about such a strong supply side effect, but the Bush tax cuts were coming from levels much lower than that.

morph agrees with me?

/thread
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 14, 2010, 09:38:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2010, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 08:44:27 AM
Senators Kyl and McConnell, who are Very Serious about the deficit, have informed me that a temporary increase in spending (unemployment benefits) must be offset, while a long-term decrease in revenue, does not need to be offset. Because if you just believe hard enough that tax cuts always increase revenue, it'll come true. Huzzah for tax cuts! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php)

Quote"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

I know!  Let's cut taxes to 0% and we'll have INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

In fact, if we had a negative income tax, we have MORE THAN INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

I am finding myself agreeing with the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS around here on this one, as much as it pains me to do so... while the tax cuts did not result in a one-for-one loss in revenue (i.e., there was a strong positive effect on the economy from them which partially offset revenue losses from lower rates) there's no way they paid for themselves.  Now, when marginal tax rates were at 90% and they were cut, then maybe we could talk about such a strong supply side effect, but the Bush tax cuts were coming from levels much lower than that.

So... for all of you out there... Where should the marginal rates be? Should you pay more or less in federal income taxes? State income taxes? Capital gains taxes? Property taxes? Sales taxes? Estate taxes?

Because the economy is not static, how can you effectively measure the effect of any change in tax rates on tax receipts? I tend to agree that the tax cuts probably didn't maximize revenues, but I don't want my government maximizing its revenues (at the point of a gun, I may add). I want it minimizing expenses.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 14, 2010, 09:41:20 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 14, 2010, 09:38:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2010, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 08:44:27 AM
Senators Kyl and McConnell, who are Very Serious about the deficit, have informed me that a temporary increase in spending (unemployment benefits) must be offset, while a long-term decrease in revenue, does not need to be offset. Because if you just believe hard enough that tax cuts always increase revenue, it'll come true. Huzzah for tax cuts! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php)

Quote"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

I know!  Let's cut taxes to 0% and we'll have INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

In fact, if we had a negative income tax, we have MORE THAN INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

I am finding myself agreeing with the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS around here on this one, as much as it pains me to do so... while the tax cuts did not result in a one-for-one loss in revenue (i.e., there was a strong positive effect on the economy from them which partially offset revenue losses from lower rates) there's no way they paid for themselves.  Now, when marginal tax rates were at 90% and they were cut, then maybe we could talk about such a strong supply side effect, but the Bush tax cuts were coming from levels much lower than that.

So... for all of you out there... Where should the marginal rates be? Should you pay more or less in federal income taxes? State income taxes? Capital gains taxes? Property taxes? Sales taxes? Estate taxes?

Because the economy is not static, how can you effectively measure the effect of any change in tax rates on tax receipts? I tend to agree that the tax cuts probably didn't maximize revenues, but I don't want my government maximizing its revenues (at the point of a gun, I may add). I want it minimizing expenses.

So, perhaps we shouldn't have gotten mixed up in two wars AND had our taxes cut at the same time?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 14, 2010, 10:05:13 AM
THI (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/13/4577487.html)

QuoteThe conventional wisdom is that Americans are fed up with their government. But our demands on policymakers are so inconsistent and irrational that we make governing nearly impossible. We hate big deficits, but oppose the actual tax increases or spending cuts that we need to dam the flood of the red ink. We are furious that government passed an $800 billion stimulus last year, but feel lawmakers are not doing enough to get the economy going. We want government to "do something" about the gulf oil spill but reject government interference in private business.

And that's just the beginning. Conservatives cry "states rights" when it comes to the new federal law requiring individuals to have health insurance, but are silent about the parallel federal requirement that insurance companies must sell to all comers. Liberals want to make Social Security benefits more generous, but only as long as they are paid for with higher taxes on the wealthy. Seniors oppose the "government take-over" of health care for those under 65, but will fight to the death to preserve their (government-run) Medicare.

We oppose new spending, but happily support targeted tax subsidies that are economically no different. And governors of both parties demand more federal money to pay their teachers and fund their Medicaid programs, but would rather complain about the accompanying red tape rather than repair their budgets by rationalizing their own hopelessly outdated tax systems. 

We are, collectively, four. We want what we want, and we want it now. And we want somebody else to pay for it.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:35:29 AM
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

QuoteSome critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush's policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).

The deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at nearly 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. If current policies are continued without changes, deficits will likely approach those figures in 2010 and remain near $1 trillion a year for the next decade.

(http://i.imgur.com/pOf4e.jpg)

QuoteBaseline projections depict the likely path of the federal budget if current policies remain unchanged. We base our estimates on CBO's latest ten-year projections, published in March 2010, with several adjustments to reflect what will happen if we continue current tax and spending policies.

Specifically, our baseline includes the budgetary effects of continuing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that are scheduled to expire after 2010, renewing certain other so-called "tax extenders" such as the research and development tax credit, and continuing relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Our baseline also assumes the effects of continuing to defer scheduled cuts in payments for Medicare providers, as has routinely occurred in recent years, and instead providing doctors with a payment increase based on the Medicare Economic Index. We also account for a gradual phase-down of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all cases we based our adjustments on estimates published by CBO.

Meanwhile...

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

(http://i.imgur.com/QFgZU.jpg)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010/0713/After-recession-middle-and-working-classes-lose-ground

QuoteMissing from almost all discussion of America's dizzying rate of unemployment is the brute fact that hourly wages of people with jobs have been dropping, adjusted for inflation. Average weekly earnings rose a bit this spring only because the typical worker put in more hours, but June's decline in average hours pushed weekly paychecks down at an annualized rate of 4.5 percent.

...

America's median wage, adjusted for inflation, has barely budged for decades. Between 2000 and 2007 it actually dropped. Under these circumstances the only way the middle class could boost its purchasing power was to borrow, as it did with gusto. As housing prices rose, Americans turned their homes into ATMs. But such borrowing has its limits. When the debt bubble finally burst, vast numbers of people couldn't pay their bills, and banks couldn't collect.

...

What we get from widening inequality is not only a more fragile economy but also an angrier politics. When virtually all the gains from growth go to a small minority at the top — and the broad middle class can no longer pretend it's richer than it is by using homes as collateral for deepening indebtedness — the result is deep-seated anxiety and frustration. This is an open invitation to demagogues who misconnect the dots and direct the anger toward immigrants, the poor, foreign nations, big government, "socialists," "intellectual elites," or even big business and Wall Street. The major fault line in American politics is no longer between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, but between the "establishment" and an increasingly mad-as-hell populace determined to "take back America" from it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 14, 2010, 11:09:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 14, 2010, 09:38:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2010, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 08:44:27 AM
Senators Kyl and McConnell, who are Very Serious about the deficit, have informed me that a temporary increase in spending (unemployment benefits) must be offset, while a long-term decrease in revenue, does not need to be offset. Because if you just believe hard enough that tax cuts always increase revenue, it'll come true. Huzzah for tax cuts! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php)

Quote"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

I know!  Let's cut taxes to 0% and we'll have INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

In fact, if we had a negative income tax, we have MORE THAN INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

I am finding myself agreeing with the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS around here on this one, as much as it pains me to do so... while the tax cuts did not result in a one-for-one loss in revenue (i.e., there was a strong positive effect on the economy from them which partially offset revenue losses from lower rates) there's no way they paid for themselves.  Now, when marginal tax rates were at 90% and they were cut, then maybe we could talk about such a strong supply side effect, but the Bush tax cuts were coming from levels much lower than that.

So... for all of you out there... Where should the marginal rates be? Should you pay more or less in federal income taxes? State income taxes? Capital gains taxes? Property taxes? Sales taxes? Estate taxes?

Because the economy is not static, how can you effectively measure the effect of any change in tax rates on tax receipts? I tend to agree that the tax cuts probably didn't maximize revenues, but I don't want my government maximizing its revenues (at the point of a gun, I may add). I want it minimizing expenses.

Marginal rates: I think we should add some additional brackets at the high end, with higher rates. Right now all income over $372k is taxed at 35%. Just spitballing here, but I'd be in favor of income over $1M being taxed at 38%, and income over $10M being taxed at 40%. Wouldn't go much higher than that or you get into the confiscatory discussion.

State rates: At the very least, Illinois needs to institute tax brackets. The 3% flat rate is ridiculous - right now Yeti pays the same rate as morph. Haven't looked at the income distributions enough to make any kind of judgment on what the brackets should be, though.

You won't be surprised that I don't buy the starve the beast argument (neither does Bruce Bartlett (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/2010/07/14/Bartletts-Notations-Do-Tax-Cuts-Starve-the-Beast.aspx)).

QuoteStarve the beast theory has been the subject of much recent academic research, all of it showing that there is no truth to it whatsoever. Indeed, the literature shows that the effect is actually perverse; leading to higher spending because the tax-cost is reduced by tax cuts.

You are correct that we can't completely and accurately capture the effect of a change in tax rate - dynamic scoring is the ultimate goal. But tax receipts as a percentage of GDP is a decent enough measure to account for changes in the overall economy. And by that count revenues decreased after the Bush tax cuts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on July 14, 2010, 11:52:07 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 11:09:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 14, 2010, 09:38:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 09:17:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2010, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 08:44:27 AM
Senators Kyl and McConnell, who are Very Serious about the deficit, have informed me that a temporary increase in spending (unemployment benefits) must be offset, while a long-term decrease in revenue, does not need to be offset. Because if you just believe hard enough that tax cuts always increase revenue, it'll come true. Huzzah for tax cuts! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php)

Quote"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

I know!  Let's cut taxes to 0% and we'll have INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

In fact, if we had a negative income tax, we have MORE THAN INFINITE REVENUE!!!!

I am finding myself agreeing with the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS around here on this one, as much as it pains me to do so... while the tax cuts did not result in a one-for-one loss in revenue (i.e., there was a strong positive effect on the economy from them which partially offset revenue losses from lower rates) there's no way they paid for themselves.  Now, when marginal tax rates were at 90% and they were cut, then maybe we could talk about such a strong supply side effect, but the Bush tax cuts were coming from levels much lower than that.

So... for all of you out there... Where should the marginal rates be? Should you pay more or less in federal income taxes? State income taxes? Capital gains taxes? Property taxes? Sales taxes? Estate taxes?

Because the economy is not static, how can you effectively measure the effect of any change in tax rates on tax receipts? I tend to agree that the tax cuts probably didn't maximize revenues, but I don't want my government maximizing its revenues (at the point of a gun, I may add). I want it minimizing expenses.

Marginal rates: I think we should add some additional brackets at the high end, with higher rates. Right now all income over $372k is taxed at 35%. Just spitballing here, but I'd be in favor of income over $1M being taxed at 38%, and income over $10M being taxed at 40%. Wouldn't go much higher than that or you get into the confiscatory discussion.

State rates: At the very least, Illinois needs to institute tax brackets. The 3% flat rate is ridiculous - right now Yeti pays the same rate as morph. Haven't looked at the income distributions enough to make any kind of judgment on what the brackets should be, though.

You won't be surprised that I don't buy the starve the beast argument (neither does Bruce Bartlett (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/2010/07/14/Bartletts-Notations-Do-Tax-Cuts-Starve-the-Beast.aspx)).

QuoteStarve the beast theory has been the subject of much recent academic research, all of it showing that there is no truth to it whatsoever. Indeed, the literature shows that the effect is actually perverse; leading to higher spending because the tax-cost is reduced by tax cuts.

You are correct that we can't completely and accurately capture the effect of a change in tax rate - dynamic scoring is the ultimate goal. But tax receipts as a percentage of GDP is a decent enough measure to account for changes in the overall economy. And by that count revenues decreased after the Bush tax cuts.

We already go to about 40% on the Federal side, once you take into account the fact that certain deductions are phased out once you go higher and higher from $372.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 11:54:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:35:29 AM

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault


I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

QuoteIn terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on July 14, 2010, 12:01:39 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 11:54:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:35:29 AM

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault


I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

QuoteIn terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

Morph, interesting way of looking at things. But the question I have is what has happened to the Middle Quartiles? 

[Also, I would still prefer "only" a 10% raise from a top 20% base top to a doubling of my near- poverty level wage.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 14, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 11:54:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:35:29 AM

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault


I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

QuoteIn terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

Another question - any idea if that IRS study controlled for age? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is it possible that those who were in the bottom 20% were mostly younger people (who would logically show big increases in earnings over their first 10 years or so of employment) and the top 10% was mostly older people whose income jumps flatten as they are already established?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 14, 2010, 12:30:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 14, 2010, 09:38:18 AM
So... for all of you out there... Where should the marginal rates be? Should you pay more or less in federal income taxes? State income taxes? Capital gains taxes? Property taxes? Sales taxes? Estate taxes?

Because the economy is not static, how can you effectively measure the effect of any change in tax rates on tax receipts? I tend to agree that the tax cuts probably didn't maximize revenues, but I don't want my government maximizing its revenues (at the point of a gun, I may add). I want it minimizing expenses.

I really don't care how you take my slice.  I'm willing to pay my fair share.  I think the deal we have here in the US is awesome: We'll give you the ability to earn as much as you want without limitation and provide defense, police, fire, schools and roads in exchange for $0.50 of every dollar you make.  I don't think there's another place that offers such a good deal as that.

What I want back from the other side is pretty much this: Don't engage in social engineering via tax policy.  Figure out how much you need for defense, police, fire, schools and roads and charge me.

The purpose of taxes should be to fund government, not to encourage me to do certain things.

Am I willing to give up my tax credit for my mortgage?  Yes.  For my property taxes?  Yes.  For my kids?  Yes.

What do I want back?  How about no debt for my kids to have to be taxed to repay.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 12:38:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 11:54:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:35:29 AM

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault


I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

QuoteIn terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

If you're gonna ridicule me for quoting the CBPP's use of CBO data, I'm gonna mock you roundly for quoting Thomas Sowell, who's just plain retarded.

Better for everyone's sanity to actually point to the study that (I presume) he's referring to itself:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/pIiN8.png)

(And my point above wasn't so much to decry income inequality in general as to point out how we built a huge deficit on the Bush tax cuts even as the gap between upper and lower income levels continued to widen.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 12:42:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 14, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 11:54:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:35:29 AM

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault


I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

QuoteIn terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

Another question - any idea if that IRS study controlled for age? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but is it possible that those who were in the bottom 20% were mostly younger people (who would logically show big increases in earnings over their first 10 years or so of employment) and the top 10% was mostly older people whose income jumps flatten as they are already established?

I'd say it's likely that you would observe younger people in the bottom quintile and older people in the top quintile in any given year; the IRS data is for 25-and-older, I believe.  I don't think that would change my conclusion that income quintile statistics such as those used by the CBPP are misleading because they don't take this into account.

I also found a University of Michigan longitudinal study (the Panel Study of Income Dynamics) that I'm just starting to dive into.  Here's an interesting study that uses its data.

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppdp/2004/ppdp0403.pdf
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 12:53:05 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 12:38:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 11:54:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:35:29 AM

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault


I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

QuoteIn terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

If you're gonna ridicule me for quoting the CBPP's use of CBO data, I'm gonna mock you roundly for quoting Thomas Sowell, who's just plain retarded.

Better for everyone's sanity to actually point to the study that (I presume) he's referring to itself:

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/pIiN8.png)

(And my point above wasn't so much to decry income inequality in general as to point out how we built a huge deficit on the Bush tax cuts even as the gap between upper and lower income levels continued to widen.)

Sowell is a retarded guy who has written textbooks on economics.  Shoah.  (If we're going to talk about retarded economics pundits, I think Paul Krugman would easily win out in that contest.)  And my point is that the second half of your statement "even as the gap between upper and lower income levels continued to widen" is misleading, because income distribution statistics ("top quintile vs. bottom quintile") do not tell you that somehow "inequality rose" for the reasons that I have illustrated above.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 14, 2010, 12:54:41 PM
To be fair, Texas is proving that retarded people really can write textbooks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 14, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Krugman is a retarded guy who has won the Nobel Prize in Economics.  Shoah.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 14, 2010, 01:00:05 PM
Krugman is a retarded guy who has won the Nobel Prize in Economics.  Shoah.

Krugman's early work on trade, which is how he won the Nobel prize, is excellent.  However, since he became a columnist I think "retard" fits him better than "economist."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 14, 2010, 01:39:30 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 14, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

Now let's move on to the Rob Liefeld question... Yea or nay?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 14, 2010, 03:35:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

Now let's move on to the Rob Liefeld question... Yea or nay?

[shakes fist]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:09:24 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 03:35:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

Now let's move on to the Rob Liefeld question... Yea or nay?

[shakes fist]

Yea on upper bodies, nay on lower bodies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:09:24 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 03:35:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

Now let's move on to the Rob Liefeld question... Yea or nay?

[shakes fist]

Yea on upper bodies, nay on lower bodies.

(http://i.imgur.com/j25Cx.jpg)

"I'm CT and I support this comically tragic crime against anatomy."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 14, 2010, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:09:24 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 03:35:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

Now let's move on to the Rob Liefeld question... Yea or nay?

[shakes fist]

Yea on upper bodies, nay on lower bodies.

(http://i.imgur.com/j25Cx.jpg)

"I'm CT and I support this comically tragic crime against anatomy."

No deal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:09:24 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 03:35:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

Now let's move on to the Rob Liefeld question... Yea or nay?

[shakes fist]

Yea on upper bodies, nay on lower bodies.

(http://i.imgur.com/j25Cx.jpg)

"I'm CT and I support this comically tragic crime against anatomy."

No deal.

Upon further review, Rob Liefeld will also be sent to a forced labor camp in China.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 14, 2010, 04:20:32 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:19:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 04:17:34 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:09:24 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 03:35:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 01:17:39 PM
Just send Sowell and Krugman over to Switzerland to beat up Roman Polanski.  Problem solved.

Damnit, will you sign the "Jetsons Shit Pledge" already?

Consider it done, as long as Bort will sign my pledge to reinstitute hilarious anachronisms.

Consarn it, I reckon I'm hornswaggled. I'll scrawl my "Bort Q. Public" on the pledge.

Now let's move on to the Rob Liefeld question... Yea or nay?

[shakes fist]

Yea on upper bodies, nay on lower bodies.

(http://i.imgur.com/j25Cx.jpg)

"I'm CT and I support this comically tragic crime against anatomy."

No deal.

Upon further review, Rob Liefeld will also be sent to a forced labor camp in China.

Deal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:30:14 PM
Executive Order #6427 will give all US Navy and Air Force aircraft standing orders to open fire on Spirit Airlines planes operating in US Airspace.  And on their corporate HQ, if they happen to be in the neighborhood.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/spirit-airlines-ceo-defends-luggage-fees-tells-congress/story?id=11162586&page=1
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 14, 2010, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:30:14 PM
Executive Order #6427 will give all US Navy and Air Force aircraft standing orders to open fire on Spirit Airlines planes operating in US Airspace.  And on their corporate HQ, if they happen to be in the neighborhood.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/spirit-airlines-ceo-defends-luggage-fees-tells-congress/story?id=11162586&page=1

Can Air Defense Artillery join in?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on July 14, 2010, 04:38:30 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:30:14 PM
Executive Order #6427 will give all US Navy and Air Force aircraft standing orders to open fire on Spirit Airlines planes operating in US Airspace.  And on their corporate HQ, if they happen to be in the neighborhood.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/spirit-airlines-ceo-defends-luggage-fees-tells-congress/story?id=11162586&page=1

We better be charging Spirit for the ordinance used.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 14, 2010, 06:18:27 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 14, 2010, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 04:30:14 PM
Executive Order #6427 will give all US Navy and Air Force aircraft standing orders to open fire on Spirit Airlines planes operating in US Airspace.  And on their corporate HQ, if they happen to be in the neighborhood.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/spirit-airlines-ceo-defends-luggage-fees-tells-congress/story?id=11162586&page=1

Can Air Defense Artillery join in?

Spirit Airlines is just gnat, TEC.  You're going to have much more important stuff to do once we get these bad boys re-commissioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:22:34 PM
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7043384.html

Fuck it, I'm quoting the whole thing:

QuoteTaliban trains 'monkey terrorists' to attack U.S. troops
14:03, June 28, 2010

(http://i.imgur.com/pvP0s.jpg)
Taliban soldiers train monkeys

Afghanistan's Taliban warlords have developed a bizarre way to deal with foreign forces: they have trained monkeys who love to eat bananas and peanuts to be killers.

Taliban forces have taught monkeys how to use the Kalashnikov, Bren light machine gun and trench mortars. They also teach them how to identify and attack soldiers wearing U.S. military uniforms.

Ironically, the idea of training monkeys to fight was first invented by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA in the Vietnam War initiated a program that used the peanuts and bananas as prizes to train some "monkey soldiers" to kill Vietnamese in the jungle, according to a report by British media on June 27, 2010.

It is reported that these monkey soldiers are mainly composed of macaques and baboons hunted at an early age in the jungle and sold to the Taliban. These monkey babies who lost their mothers are sent to a secret Taliban training base one-by-one to become killer monkeys. Taliban militants use a series of rewards and punishments to gradually teach them how to use the lethal weapons.

Recently, a British journalist went to Pakistan and Afghanistan border of Waziristan's tribal region where he witnessed a few of the monkey soldiers armed with an AK-47 rifle and Bren light machine gun. Taliban militants in the past have strictly kept the program secret.

However, Taliban leaders have recently taken the initiative show monkey soldiers to tourists of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area. Apparently, the Taliban look on monkeys as "propaganda tools."

"If a person who loves animals knows the monkeys may be injured in the war, they might pressure the government to force the withdrawal of western forces in Afghanistan," said one Taliban insider.

A senior U.S. military source confirmed the existence of the Taliban monkey soldiers, military experts call armed monkeys "monkey terrorists."

By People's Daily Online

(http://i.imgur.com/pbrB0.jpg)
"Monkey soldiers" use machine guns in target practice

Mr. President, we must not allow a monkey soldier gap!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 14, 2010, 10:26:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:22:34 PM
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7043384.html

Fuck it, I'm quoting the whole thing:

QuoteTaliban trains 'monkey terrorists' to attack U.S. troops
14:03, June 28, 2010

(http://i.imgur.com/pvP0s.jpg)
Taliban soldiers train monkeys

Afghanistan's Taliban warlords have developed a bizarre way to deal with foreign forces: they have trained monkeys who love to eat bananas and peanuts to be killers.

Taliban forces have taught monkeys how to use the Kalashnikov, Bren light machine gun and trench mortars. They also teach them how to identify and attack soldiers wearing U.S. military uniforms.

Ironically, the idea of training monkeys to fight was first invented by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA in the Vietnam War initiated a program that used the peanuts and bananas as prizes to train some "monkey soldiers" to kill Vietnamese in the jungle, according to a report by British media on June 27, 2010.

It is reported that these monkey soldiers are mainly composed of macaques and baboons hunted at an early age in the jungle and sold to the Taliban. These monkey babies who lost their mothers are sent to a secret Taliban training base one-by-one to become killer monkeys. Taliban militants use a series of rewards and punishments to gradually teach them how to use the lethal weapons.

Recently, a British journalist went to Pakistan and Afghanistan border of Waziristan's tribal region where he witnessed a few of the monkey soldiers armed with an AK-47 rifle and Bren light machine gun. Taliban militants in the past have strictly kept the program secret.

However, Taliban leaders have recently taken the initiative show monkey soldiers to tourists of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area. Apparently, the Taliban look on monkeys as "propaganda tools."

"If a person who loves animals knows the monkeys may be injured in the war, they might pressure the government to force the withdrawal of western forces in Afghanistan," said one Taliban insider.

A senior U.S. military source confirmed the existence of the Taliban monkey soldiers, military experts call armed monkeys "monkey terrorists."

By People's Daily Online

(http://i.imgur.com/pbrB0.jpg)
"Monkey soldiers" use machine guns in target practice

Mr. President, we must not allow a monkey soldier gap!

Even the French are ahead of us.

(http://comiccoverage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345158e369e200e5538fd0158833-320wi)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 14, 2010, 10:29:24 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 10:26:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:22:34 PM
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7043384.html

Fuck it, I'm quoting the whole thing:

QuoteTaliban trains 'monkey terrorists' to attack U.S. troops
14:03, June 28, 2010

(http://i.imgur.com/pvP0s.jpg)
Taliban soldiers train monkeys

Afghanistan's Taliban warlords have developed a bizarre way to deal with foreign forces: they have trained monkeys who love to eat bananas and peanuts to be killers.

Taliban forces have taught monkeys how to use the Kalashnikov, Bren light machine gun and trench mortars. They also teach them how to identify and attack soldiers wearing U.S. military uniforms.

Ironically, the idea of training monkeys to fight was first invented by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA in the Vietnam War initiated a program that used the peanuts and bananas as prizes to train some "monkey soldiers" to kill Vietnamese in the jungle, according to a report by British media on June 27, 2010.

It is reported that these monkey soldiers are mainly composed of macaques and baboons hunted at an early age in the jungle and sold to the Taliban. These monkey babies who lost their mothers are sent to a secret Taliban training base one-by-one to become killer monkeys. Taliban militants use a series of rewards and punishments to gradually teach them how to use the lethal weapons.

Recently, a British journalist went to Pakistan and Afghanistan border of Waziristan's tribal region where he witnessed a few of the monkey soldiers armed with an AK-47 rifle and Bren light machine gun. Taliban militants in the past have strictly kept the program secret.

However, Taliban leaders have recently taken the initiative show monkey soldiers to tourists of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area. Apparently, the Taliban look on monkeys as "propaganda tools."

"If a person who loves animals knows the monkeys may be injured in the war, they might pressure the government to force the withdrawal of western forces in Afghanistan," said one Taliban insider.

A senior U.S. military source confirmed the existence of the Taliban monkey soldiers, military experts call armed monkeys "monkey terrorists."

By People's Daily Online

(http://i.imgur.com/pbrB0.jpg)
"Monkey soldiers" use machine guns in target practice

Mr. President, we must not allow a monkey soldier gap!

Even the French are ahead of us.

(http://comiccoverage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345158e369e200e5538fd0158833-320wi)

Yeah, but we still have the Brotherhood of Dada.

(http://www.asitecalledfred.com/comics101/images/2004/jul7/dada.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 14, 2010, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 10:29:24 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 10:26:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:22:34 PM
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7043384.html

Fuck it, I'm quoting the whole thing:

QuoteTaliban trains 'monkey terrorists' to attack U.S. troops
14:03, June 28, 2010

(http://i.imgur.com/pvP0s.jpg)
Taliban soldiers train monkeys

Afghanistan's Taliban warlords have developed a bizarre way to deal with foreign forces: they have trained monkeys who love to eat bananas and peanuts to be killers.

Taliban forces have taught monkeys how to use the Kalashnikov, Bren light machine gun and trench mortars. They also teach them how to identify and attack soldiers wearing U.S. military uniforms.

Ironically, the idea of training monkeys to fight was first invented by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA in the Vietnam War initiated a program that used the peanuts and bananas as prizes to train some "monkey soldiers" to kill Vietnamese in the jungle, according to a report by British media on June 27, 2010.

It is reported that these monkey soldiers are mainly composed of macaques and baboons hunted at an early age in the jungle and sold to the Taliban. These monkey babies who lost their mothers are sent to a secret Taliban training base one-by-one to become killer monkeys. Taliban militants use a series of rewards and punishments to gradually teach them how to use the lethal weapons.

Recently, a British journalist went to Pakistan and Afghanistan border of Waziristan's tribal region where he witnessed a few of the monkey soldiers armed with an AK-47 rifle and Bren light machine gun. Taliban militants in the past have strictly kept the program secret.

However, Taliban leaders have recently taken the initiative show monkey soldiers to tourists of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area. Apparently, the Taliban look on monkeys as "propaganda tools."

"If a person who loves animals knows the monkeys may be injured in the war, they might pressure the government to force the withdrawal of western forces in Afghanistan," said one Taliban insider.

A senior U.S. military source confirmed the existence of the Taliban monkey soldiers, military experts call armed monkeys "monkey terrorists."

By People's Daily Online

(http://i.imgur.com/pbrB0.jpg)
"Monkey soldiers" use machine guns in target practice

Mr. President, we must not allow a monkey soldier gap!

Even the French are ahead of us.

(http://comiccoverage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345158e369e200e5538fd0158833-320wi)

Yeah, but we still have the Brotherhood of Dada.

(http://www.asitecalledfred.com/comics101/images/2004/jul7/dada.jpg)

(http://www.freebostonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/monkeyGun.JPG)

(http://iggydonnelly.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/monkey_glock1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on July 14, 2010, 10:55:32 PM
(http://www.resourcesforlife.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/20091118we-banksy-laugh-now-but-one-day-we-will-be-in-charge-monkey-chimpanzee.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 11:03:43 PM
Quote from: powen01 on July 14, 2010, 10:55:32 PM
(http://www.resourcesforlife.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/20091118we-banksy-laugh-now-but-one-day-we-will-be-in-charge-monkey-chimpanzee.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/C3lCz.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on July 14, 2010, 11:05:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 11:03:43 PM
Quote from: powen01 on July 14, 2010, 10:55:32 PM
(http://www.resourcesforlife.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/20091118we-banksy-laugh-now-but-one-day-we-will-be-in-charge-monkey-chimpanzee.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/C3lCz.jpg)
(http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/Evil_Monkey_301.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 15, 2010, 08:02:11 AM
(http://i26.tinypic.com/11r5h00.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 15, 2010, 11:26:30 AM
(http://www.hypebeast.com/image/2008/12/classic-planet-apes-hot-toys-7.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on July 15, 2010, 11:32:38 AM
(http://www.hobo-bonobo.co.uk/newsdesk/images/070406104859.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on July 15, 2010, 11:42:27 AM
(http://warhistorian.org/blog1/images/chimpanzee-glock.gif)

Wait--what are we doing?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MAD on July 15, 2010, 11:46:14 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 14, 2010, 10:49:06 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 14, 2010, 10:29:24 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 14, 2010, 10:26:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:22:34 PM
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7043384.html

Fuck it, I'm quoting the whole thing:

QuoteTaliban trains 'monkey terrorists' to attack U.S. troops
14:03, June 28, 2010

(http://i.imgur.com/pvP0s.jpg)
Taliban soldiers train monkeys

Afghanistan's Taliban warlords have developed a bizarre way to deal with foreign forces: they have trained monkeys who love to eat bananas and peanuts to be killers.

Taliban forces have taught monkeys how to use the Kalashnikov, Bren light machine gun and trench mortars. They also teach them how to identify and attack soldiers wearing U.S. military uniforms.

Ironically, the idea of training monkeys to fight was first invented by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA in the Vietnam War initiated a program that used the peanuts and bananas as prizes to train some "monkey soldiers" to kill Vietnamese in the jungle, according to a report by British media on June 27, 2010.

It is reported that these monkey soldiers are mainly composed of macaques and baboons hunted at an early age in the jungle and sold to the Taliban. These monkey babies who lost their mothers are sent to a secret Taliban training base one-by-one to become killer monkeys. Taliban militants use a series of rewards and punishments to gradually teach them how to use the lethal weapons.

Recently, a British journalist went to Pakistan and Afghanistan border of Waziristan's tribal region where he witnessed a few of the monkey soldiers armed with an AK-47 rifle and Bren light machine gun. Taliban militants in the past have strictly kept the program secret.

However, Taliban leaders have recently taken the initiative show monkey soldiers to tourists of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area. Apparently, the Taliban look on monkeys as "propaganda tools."

"If a person who loves animals knows the monkeys may be injured in the war, they might pressure the government to force the withdrawal of western forces in Afghanistan," said one Taliban insider.

A senior U.S. military source confirmed the existence of the Taliban monkey soldiers, military experts call armed monkeys "monkey terrorists."

By People's Daily Online

(http://i.imgur.com/pbrB0.jpg)
"Monkey soldiers" use machine guns in target practice

Mr. President, we must not allow a monkey soldier gap!

Even the French are ahead of us.

(http://comiccoverage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345158e369e200e5538fd0158833-320wi)

Yeah, but we still have the Brotherhood of Dada.

(http://www.asitecalledfred.com/comics101/images/2004/jul7/dada.jpg)

(http://www.freebostonblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/monkeyGun.JPG)

(http://iggydonnelly.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/monkey_glock1.jpg)

DAMMIT!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 15, 2010, 11:46:30 AM
Quote from: MAD on July 15, 2010, 11:42:27 AM
(http://warhistorian.org/blog1/images/chimpanzee-glock.gif)

Wait--what are we doing?
WE'RE DOING HE GETS RESULTS YOU STUPID CHIEF.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 15, 2010, 11:51:31 AM
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2bxsus.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 15, 2010, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 15, 2010, 11:51:31 AM
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2bxsus.jpg)

Surprising. Very surprising
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on July 15, 2010, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 15, 2010, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 15, 2010, 11:51:31 AM
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2bxsus.jpg)

Surprising. Very surprising

The only surprising part is that Morph hasn't PShopped that photo yet to include Oleg as Mickey Dolenz

Yes, I had to look that up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 15, 2010, 12:59:42 PM
Quote from: PenPho on July 15, 2010, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 15, 2010, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 15, 2010, 11:51:31 AM
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2bxsus.jpg)

Surprising. Very surprising

The only surprising part is that Morph hasn't PShopped that photo yet to include Oleg as Mickey Dolenz

Yes, I had to look that up.

He already added my sideburns to Mike Nesmith.

No, I did not have to look that up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 15, 2010, 01:24:01 PM
Quote from: PenPho on July 15, 2010, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 15, 2010, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 15, 2010, 11:51:31 AM
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2bxsus.jpg)

Surprising. Very surprising

The only surprising part is that Morph hasn't PShopped that photo yet to include Oleg as Mickey Dolenz

Yes, I had to look that up.

Find better looking-up places. There's no "e" in Micky Dolenz's name.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 15, 2010, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 15, 2010, 12:59:42 PM
Quote from: PenPho on July 15, 2010, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 15, 2010, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 15, 2010, 11:51:31 AM
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2bxsus.jpg)

Surprising. Very surprising

The only surprising part is that Morph hasn't PShopped that photo yet to include Oleg as Mickey Dolenz

Yes, I had to look that up.

He already added my sideburns to Mike Nesmith.

No, I did not have to look that up.

That's not even Michael Nesmith's real hat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 15, 2010, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 15, 2010, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 15, 2010, 12:59:42 PM
Quote from: PenPho on July 15, 2010, 12:49:50 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 15, 2010, 12:29:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 15, 2010, 11:51:31 AM
(http://i28.tinypic.com/2bxsus.jpg)

Surprising. Very surprising

The only surprising part is that Morph hasn't PShopped that photo yet to include Oleg as Mickey Dolenz

Yes, I had to look that up.

He already added my sideburns to Mike Nesmith.

No, I did not have to look that up.

That's not even Michael Nesmith's real hat.

The Monkees weren't about music, Tank. They were about rebellion, about political and social upheaval!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 15, 2010, 04:07:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

Am I missing something? Using these numbers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/), I get $1.518 trillion spent on those three programs.

Revenue is $2.57 trillion.

So I guess if I tell Alan Simpson to fully consume my penis, he'd only take in 59% of it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 15, 2010, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 15, 2010, 04:07:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

Am I missing something? Using these numbers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/), I get $1.518 trillion spent on those three programs.

Revenue is $2.57 trillion.

So I guess if I tell Alan Simpson to fully consume my penis, he'd only take in 59% of it.

This is the monkey picture thread.  Stop hijacking it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 15, 2010, 04:37:18 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 15, 2010, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 15, 2010, 04:07:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2010, 08:51:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071101956.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe commission leaders said that, at present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans -- the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries," Simpson said.

Great?

Am I missing something? Using these numbers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/), I get $1.518 trillion spent on those three programs.

Revenue is $2.57 trillion.

So I guess if I tell Alan Simpson to fully consume my penis, he'd only take in 59% of it.

This is the monkey picture thread.  Stop hijacking it.

What if it's a monkey hijack?

(http://www.funnypictures.com/files/funny-monkey-attack-car.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 15, 2010, 08:14:05 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 15, 2010, 04:37:18 PM
What if it's a monkey hijack?

(http://youbentmywookie.com/wookie/gallery/03_09_monkey_art/monkey_art_19.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 15, 2010, 10:20:48 PM
Now the circle is complete.

(http://x40.xanga.com/8edb7455411a0259518832/w6885164.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2010, 04:54:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lacrosse_iroquois_passports

QuoteNEW YORK – Time ran out on Friday for a team of Iroquois lacrosse players who have been blocked from traveling to a tournament in England because of a passport dispute.

The 23 members of the Iroquois Nationals — whose ancestors helped invent the sport as much as 1,000 years ago — refuse to use U.S. or Canadian passports, and the United Kingdom won't recognize their passports issued by the Iroquois confederacy.

After a week of appeals to British officials, the answer was still "no." The team is planning to bow out of the tournament because there is no longer time to get to the games, manager Ansley Jemison said. The Nationals already missed their first scheduled game of the World Lacrosse Championships and were bumped to a lower division.

...

The U.S. initially barred the team from traveling, saying the Iroquois passports lacked the necessary security features for border crossings.

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened, the team got a one-time waiver, but the British government still refused to budge.

Team representatives had requested a face-to-face meeting with British consular officials. The National Congress of American Indians, a large tribal advocacy organization, wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron, asking him to intervene.

But the players received a letter from British officials, reaffirming that they would not be issued travel visas based on their Iroquois documents.

The Iroquois have finished in 4th place behind the US, Canada and Australia in each of the three past World Championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lacrosse_Championship) they've competed in.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2010, 04:54:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lacrosse_iroquois_passports

QuoteNEW YORK – Time ran out on Friday for a team of Iroquois lacrosse players who have been blocked from traveling to a tournament in England because of a passport dispute.

The 23 members of the Iroquois Nationals — whose ancestors helped invent the sport as much as 1,000 years ago — refuse to use U.S. or Canadian passports, and the United Kingdom won't recognize their passports issued by the Iroquois confederacy.

After a week of appeals to British officials, the answer was still "no." The team is planning to bow out of the tournament because there is no longer time to get to the games, manager Ansley Jemison said. The Nationals already missed their first scheduled game of the World Lacrosse Championships and were bumped to a lower division.

...

The U.S. initially barred the team from traveling, saying the Iroquois passports lacked the necessary security features for border crossings.

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened, the team got a one-time waiver, but the British government still refused to budge.

Team representatives had requested a face-to-face meeting with British consular officials. The National Congress of American Indians, a large tribal advocacy organization, wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron, asking him to intervene.

But the players received a letter from British officials, reaffirming that they would not be issued travel visas based on their Iroquois documents.

The Iroquois have finished in 4th place behind the US, Canada and Australia in each of the three past World Championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lacrosse_Championship) they've competed in.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2010, 04:54:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lacrosse_iroquois_passports

QuoteNEW YORK – Time ran out on Friday for a team of Iroquois lacrosse players who have been blocked from traveling to a tournament in England because of a passport dispute.

The 23 members of the Iroquois Nationals — whose ancestors helped invent the sport as much as 1,000 years ago — refuse to use U.S. or Canadian passports, and the United Kingdom won't recognize their passports issued by the Iroquois confederacy.

After a week of appeals to British officials, the answer was still "no." The team is planning to bow out of the tournament because there is no longer time to get to the games, manager Ansley Jemison said. The Nationals already missed their first scheduled game of the World Lacrosse Championships and were bumped to a lower division.

...

The U.S. initially barred the team from traveling, saying the Iroquois passports lacked the necessary security features for border crossings.

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened, the team got a one-time waiver, but the British government still refused to budge.

Team representatives had requested a face-to-face meeting with British consular officials. The National Congress of American Indians, a large tribal advocacy organization, wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron, asking him to intervene.

But the players received a letter from British officials, reaffirming that they would not be issued travel visas based on their Iroquois documents.

The Iroquois have finished in 4th place behind the US, Canada and Australia in each of the three past World Championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lacrosse_Championship) they've competed in.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois.jpg)


Uhh...

what?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2010, 04:54:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lacrosse_iroquois_passports

QuoteNEW YORK – Time ran out on Friday for a team of Iroquois lacrosse players who have been blocked from traveling to a tournament in England because of a passport dispute.

The 23 members of the Iroquois Nationals — whose ancestors helped invent the sport as much as 1,000 years ago — refuse to use U.S. or Canadian passports, and the United Kingdom won't recognize their passports issued by the Iroquois confederacy.

After a week of appeals to British officials, the answer was still "no." The team is planning to bow out of the tournament because there is no longer time to get to the games, manager Ansley Jemison said. The Nationals already missed their first scheduled game of the World Lacrosse Championships and were bumped to a lower division.

...

The U.S. initially barred the team from traveling, saying the Iroquois passports lacked the necessary security features for border crossings.

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened, the team got a one-time waiver, but the British government still refused to budge.

Team representatives had requested a face-to-face meeting with British consular officials. The National Congress of American Indians, a large tribal advocacy organization, wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron, asking him to intervene.

But the players received a letter from British officials, reaffirming that they would not be issued travel visas based on their Iroquois documents.

The Iroquois have finished in 4th place behind the US, Canada and Australia in each of the three past World Championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lacrosse_Championship) they've competed in.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois.jpg)


Uhh...

what?
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois2.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on July 18, 2010, 01:53:08 PM
LOLZ Benicio Sheikh Van Jeremy plays lacrosse.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 02:17:37 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on July 18, 2010, 01:53:08 PM
LOLZ Benicio Sheikh Van Jeremy plays lacrosse.

Guess I should've gone with a masked terrorist brandishing a bazooka?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 06:19:02 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2010, 04:54:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lacrosse_iroquois_passports

QuoteNEW YORK – Time ran out on Friday for a team of Iroquois lacrosse players who have been blocked from traveling to a tournament in England because of a passport dispute.

The 23 members of the Iroquois Nationals — whose ancestors helped invent the sport as much as 1,000 years ago — refuse to use U.S. or Canadian passports, and the United Kingdom won't recognize their passports issued by the Iroquois confederacy.

After a week of appeals to British officials, the answer was still "no." The team is planning to bow out of the tournament because there is no longer time to get to the games, manager Ansley Jemison said. The Nationals already missed their first scheduled game of the World Lacrosse Championships and were bumped to a lower division.

...

The U.S. initially barred the team from traveling, saying the Iroquois passports lacked the necessary security features for border crossings.

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened, the team got a one-time waiver, but the British government still refused to budge.

Team representatives had requested a face-to-face meeting with British consular officials. The National Congress of American Indians, a large tribal advocacy organization, wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron, asking him to intervene.

But the players received a letter from British officials, reaffirming that they would not be issued travel visas based on their Iroquois documents.

The Iroquois have finished in 4th place behind the US, Canada and Australia in each of the three past World Championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lacrosse_Championship) they've competed in.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois.jpg)


Uhh...

what?
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois2.jpg)


No, I saw the change. I just didn't understand the reasoning/logic/humor/anything.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on July 18, 2010, 06:32:59 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 06:19:02 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2010, 04:54:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lacrosse_iroquois_passports

QuoteNEW YORK – Time ran out on Friday for a team of Iroquois lacrosse players who have been blocked from traveling to a tournament in England because of a passport dispute.

The 23 members of the Iroquois Nationals — whose ancestors helped invent the sport as much as 1,000 years ago — refuse to use U.S. or Canadian passports, and the United Kingdom won't recognize their passports issued by the Iroquois confederacy.

After a week of appeals to British officials, the answer was still "no." The team is planning to bow out of the tournament because there is no longer time to get to the games, manager Ansley Jemison said. The Nationals already missed their first scheduled game of the World Lacrosse Championships and were bumped to a lower division.

...

The U.S. initially barred the team from traveling, saying the Iroquois passports lacked the necessary security features for border crossings.

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened, the team got a one-time waiver, but the British government still refused to budge.

Team representatives had requested a face-to-face meeting with British consular officials. The National Congress of American Indians, a large tribal advocacy organization, wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron, asking him to intervene.

But the players received a letter from British officials, reaffirming that they would not be issued travel visas based on their Iroquois documents.

The Iroquois have finished in 4th place behind the US, Canada and Australia in each of the three past World Championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lacrosse_Championship) they've competed in.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois.jpg)


Uhh...

what?
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois2.jpg)


No, I saw the change. I just didn't understand the reasoning/logic/humor/anything.

I didn't think it was that unfunny. But I'm a dumbass and KSM is comedy some kind of precious metal. Zinc?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 06:59:14 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 06:19:02 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2010, 04:54:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lacrosse_iroquois_passports

QuoteNEW YORK – Time ran out on Friday for a team of Iroquois lacrosse players who have been blocked from traveling to a tournament in England because of a passport dispute.

The 23 members of the Iroquois Nationals — whose ancestors helped invent the sport as much as 1,000 years ago — refuse to use U.S. or Canadian passports, and the United Kingdom won't recognize their passports issued by the Iroquois confederacy.

After a week of appeals to British officials, the answer was still "no." The team is planning to bow out of the tournament because there is no longer time to get to the games, manager Ansley Jemison said. The Nationals already missed their first scheduled game of the World Lacrosse Championships and were bumped to a lower division.

...

The U.S. initially barred the team from traveling, saying the Iroquois passports lacked the necessary security features for border crossings.

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened, the team got a one-time waiver, but the British government still refused to budge.

Team representatives had requested a face-to-face meeting with British consular officials. The National Congress of American Indians, a large tribal advocacy organization, wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron, asking him to intervene.

But the players received a letter from British officials, reaffirming that they would not be issued travel visas based on their Iroquois documents.

The Iroquois have finished in 4th place behind the US, Canada and Australia in each of the three past World Championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lacrosse_Championship) they've competed in.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois.jpg)


Uhh...

what?
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois2.jpg)


No, I saw the change. I just didn't understand the reasoning/logic/humor/anything.

Just figured that the Brits have clear concern of brown-skinned terrorists infiltrating the brown-skinned Iroquois lacross team in order to sneak into their whitebread country, since the Indian passports aren't up to snuff security-wise. 

But since I had to explain it, clearly, it sucked some serious ass.  But I bet you fuckers couldn't see the smudge tool.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on July 18, 2010, 11:52:26 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 06:19:02 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 18, 2010, 12:22:47 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 18, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2010, 04:54:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100717/ap_on_sp_ot/us_lacrosse_iroquois_passports

QuoteNEW YORK – Time ran out on Friday for a team of Iroquois lacrosse players who have been blocked from traveling to a tournament in England because of a passport dispute.

The 23 members of the Iroquois Nationals — whose ancestors helped invent the sport as much as 1,000 years ago — refuse to use U.S. or Canadian passports, and the United Kingdom won't recognize their passports issued by the Iroquois confederacy.

After a week of appeals to British officials, the answer was still "no." The team is planning to bow out of the tournament because there is no longer time to get to the games, manager Ansley Jemison said. The Nationals already missed their first scheduled game of the World Lacrosse Championships and were bumped to a lower division.

...

The U.S. initially barred the team from traveling, saying the Iroquois passports lacked the necessary security features for border crossings.

After Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened, the team got a one-time waiver, but the British government still refused to budge.

Team representatives had requested a face-to-face meeting with British consular officials. The National Congress of American Indians, a large tribal advocacy organization, wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron, asking him to intervene.

But the players received a letter from British officials, reaffirming that they would not be issued travel visas based on their Iroquois documents.

The Iroquois have finished in 4th place behind the US, Canada and Australia in each of the three past World Championships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Lacrosse_Championship) they've competed in.

(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois.jpg)


Uhh...

what?
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j74/KurtEvans/iroquois2.jpg)


No, I saw the change. I just didn't understand the reasoning/logic/humor/anything.

So it wasn't just me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 19, 2010, 07:44:16 AM
Is this thread about UFOs?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 19, 2010, 07:44:16 AMIs this thread about UFOs?

I'm sure we have multiple agencies in place (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/print/) to deal with intergalactic threats.

Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 19, 2010, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 19, 2010, 07:44:16 AMIs this thread about UFOs?

I'm sure we have multiple agencies in place (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/print/) to deal with intergalactic threats.

Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

There are 14 agencies whose only function is to monitor Desipio.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 19, 2010, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 19, 2010, 06:15:11 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 19, 2010, 07:44:16 AMIs this thread about UFOs?

I'm sure we have multiple agencies in place (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/print/) to deal with intergalactic threats.

Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

There are 14 agencies whose only function is to monitor Desipio.

Yeah, but Gil is on vacation, so from 1:45pm to 3:38pm CST its like we're practically unsupervised.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on July 19, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

854,000 people holding the nation's highest security clearance makes it seem not so exclusive -- nor secure. That's about 2 out of every 300 employed persons in the US. I would hate to see what the numbers for "Secret" look like.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 19, 2010, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 19, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

854,000 people holding the nation's highest security clearance makes it seem not so exclusive -- nor secure. That's about 2 out of every 300 employed persons in the US. I would hate to see what the numbers for "Secret" look like.



Are there not -- minimally -- six different levels of "top secret" clearance?

I'd assume that some of those top secret employees basically only have privileges to get into their places of work....
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on July 19, 2010, 06:56:17 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 19, 2010, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 19, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

854,000 people holding the nation's highest security clearance makes it seem not so exclusive -- nor secure. That's about 2 out of every 300 employed persons in the US. I would hate to see what the numbers for "Secret" look like.



Are there not -- minimally -- six different levels of "top secret" clearance?

I'd assume that some of those top secret employees basically only have privileges to get into their places of work....

I know the key code to get into my building, does that mean I have top secret clearance?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 19, 2010, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: PenPho on July 19, 2010, 06:56:17 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 19, 2010, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 19, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

854,000 people holding the nation's highest security clearance makes it seem not so exclusive -- nor secure. That's about 2 out of every 300 employed persons in the US. I would hate to see what the numbers for "Secret" look like.



Are there not -- minimally -- six different levels of "top secret" clearance?

I'd assume that some of those top secret employees basically only have privileges to get into their places of work....

I know the key code to get into my building, does that mean I have top secret clearance?

Is your building in Area 51?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 19, 2010, 07:00:32 PM
So it appears as though there are three levels of secure, with Top Secret being the highest, although there are still various levels of clearance.  So, Joe Security at the Top Secret Tech Development Base isn't privy to Barry O'President's data on upcoming terrorist strikes, but I'm assuming that there are way, way more than "six levels" of clearance as I ignorantly assumed there to be.

So ... a lot of people have top secret clearance.  Big fucking deal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 19, 2010, 07:24:46 PM
Quote from: PenPho on July 19, 2010, 06:56:17 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 19, 2010, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 19, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

854,000 people holding the nation's highest security clearance makes it seem not so exclusive -- nor secure. That's about 2 out of every 300 employed persons in the US. I would hate to see what the numbers for "Secret" look like.



Are there not -- minimally -- six different levels of "top secret" clearance?

I'd assume that some of those top secret employees basically only have privileges to get into their places of work....

I know the key code to get into my building, does that mean I have top secret clearance?

The only thing more secretive than the codes are the deals.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on July 19, 2010, 07:27:24 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 19, 2010, 07:24:46 PM
Quote from: PenPho on July 19, 2010, 06:56:17 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 19, 2010, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 19, 2010, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 19, 2010, 12:53:10 PM
Quote* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

854,000 people holding the nation's highest security clearance makes it seem not so exclusive -- nor secure. That's about 2 out of every 300 employed persons in the US. I would hate to see what the numbers for "Secret" look like.



Are there not -- minimally -- six different levels of "top secret" clearance?

I'd assume that some of those top secret employees basically only have privileges to get into their places of work....

I know the key code to get into my building, does that mean I have top secret clearance?

The only thing more secretive than the codes are the deals.

Well, they are GREAT deals.

We're not just going to offer them to everyone.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on July 20, 2010, 08:39:45 AM
More JournoList fun...

QuoteOthers went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists."

Seems to be a favorite tactic of Democrats since Obama has arrived on the scene. Call everyone racists....the latest being the NAACP towards the Tea Party movement, and Think Progress putting together a highly edited and totally fabricated video proof of all those racist Tea Party people that no one can find. There is still a $100,000 reward for proof of when Democrats said racial slurs were hurled at them the day health care was passed.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 20, 2010, 08:43:47 AM
(http://images.hollywoodpix.net/kelly-brook-picture-1984694021.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 20, 2010, 08:48:25 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 20, 2010, 08:39:45 AM
Seems to be a favorite tactic of Democrats since Obama has arrived on the scene. Call everyone racists....the latest being the NAACP towards the Tea Party movement, and Think Progress putting together a highly edited and totally fabricated video proof of all those racist Tea Party people that no one can find. There is still a $100,000 reward for proof of when Democrats said racial slurs were hurled at them the day health care was passed.

How about the guy who wrote the following?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/07/a-final-thought/59924/

QuoteDear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew
NAACP Head Colored Person

Black people sure are a bunch of lazy layabouts on welfare, amiright?

And the NAACP... They're the real racists!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 20, 2010, 04:32:44 PM
THIS (and I would link to the WSJ article, but I can't remember how to circumvent the subscriber only content there. I thought there was a way.) (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/20/4583279.html)

QuoteThese tax rules—because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government—are equivalent to direct government expenditures... If Congress is serious about cutting government spending, it has to go after many of them.

        Neither party has focused on controlling this kind of spending...Many tax expenditures are refundable, so the government sends the individual a check for the benefit even if he owes no tax. Democrats can thus cleverly avoid the traditional accusation of being the party of "tax and spend."

        Republicans also are reluctant to cut these tax perks, because they regard the additional revenue collected by the federal government as a "tax increase"—even though the increased revenue is really the effect of a de facto spending cut. A Republican who would vote to cut or eliminate an ordinary spending program therefore won't do so if it is packaged as a tax benefit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 20, 2010, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 20, 2010, 04:32:44 PM
THIS (and I would link to the WSJ article, but I can't remember how to circumvent the subscriber only content there. I thought there was a way.) (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/20/4583279.html)

http://google.com/url?q=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365450087744876.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 20, 2010, 05:14:48 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 20, 2010, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 20, 2010, 04:32:44 PM
THIS (and I would link to the WSJ article, but I can't remember how to circumvent the subscriber only content there. I thought there was a way.) (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/7/20/4583279.html)

http://google.com/url?q=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704518904575365450087744876.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Thanks, Internet Master
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 21, 2010, 12:12:12 AM
Well, I'm pretty sure this (http://cities.sulekha.com/chicago/events/Spiritual/2010/07/divine-satsang-with-monks-from-around-the-world-entertainment.htm) is no coincidence (http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/006128.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on July 22, 2010, 08:48:53 AM
JournoList is like a gift that keeps on giving....

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/22/when-mccain-picked-palin-liberal-journalists-coordinated-the-best-line-of-attack/

Ohhh it's just harmless E-mails between journalists, they aren't co-ordinating how to shape news cycles to best help Democrats at all.

Quote"Okay, let's get deadly serious, folks.  Grating voice or not, 'inexperienced' or not, Sarah Palin's just been introduced to the country as a brave, above-party, oil-company-bashing, pork-hating maverick 'outsider'," Kilgore said, "What we can do is to expose her ideology.
[/b]

And thats exactly what they did. They covered up for Wright, they used baseless Racist claims, and now a co-ordinated effort to discredit a political candidate. If your the managing editor of a newspaper and your journalists were involved in Journolist they should be fired on the spot for using the power of the paper to shape a political agenda, and if the managing editor is involved, then the owners of the newspaper need to clean house. You kinda see why print media is dying, its because of efforts by people in Journolist that have destroyed consumer confidence in their own industry.

We haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg in these Journolist leaks, its gonna be a long slow leak to the elections. Just to keep everyone reminded that journalists as a whole can't be trusted and they do a shit load of covering for Democrats.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 22, 2010, 09:01:15 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 22, 2010, 08:48:53 AM
JournoList is like a gift that keeps on giving....

Praise from Caesar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 22, 2010, 09:10:24 AM
What, Mike... nothing on the latest Breitbart joint to drop?

You know, the one that proves that the NAACP are the real racists?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 22, 2010, 09:41:15 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 22, 2010, 09:10:24 AM
What, Mike... nothing on the latest Breitbart joint to drop?

You know, the one that proves that the NAACP are the real racists?

Now your just being mean.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on July 23, 2010, 07:22:06 AM
Quote
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 22, 2010, 09:10:24 AM
What, Mike... nothing on the latest Breitbart joint to drop?

You know, the one that proves that the NAACP are the real racists?

Well the obvious silence about Journolist members conspiring to call people racists to deflect attention away from their favored candidates is pretty telling around here. When something you know is wrong, but can't bring yourself to say is wrong, it becomes non-news to you guys. Just like Journolist members wanting to change the subject.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 23, 2010, 07:40:59 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 23, 2010, 07:22:06 AM
Quote
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 22, 2010, 09:10:24 AM
What, Mike... nothing on the latest Breitbart joint to drop?

You know, the one that proves that the NAACP are the real racists?

Well the obvious silence about Journolist members conspiring to call people racists to deflect attention away from their favored candidates is pretty telling around here. When something you know is wrong, but can't bring yourself to say is wrong, it becomes non-news to you guys. Just like Journolist members wanting to change the subject.



So people talking on a message board means they're actually devising a strategy?

Shit, guys...we're doing this all wrong.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 23, 2010, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 23, 2010, 07:40:59 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 23, 2010, 07:22:06 AM
Quote
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 22, 2010, 09:10:24 AM
What, Mike... nothing on the latest Breitbart joint to drop?

You know, the one that proves that the NAACP are the real racists?

Well the obvious silence about Journolist members conspiring to call people racists to deflect attention away from their favored candidates is pretty telling around here. When something you know is wrong, but can't bring yourself to say is wrong, it becomes non-news to you guys. Just like Journolist members wanting to change the subject.



So people talking on a message board over email means they're actually devising a strategy?

Shit, guys...we're doing this all wrong.

HOW SINISTER'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 23, 2010, 08:39:57 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 23, 2010, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 23, 2010, 07:40:59 AM
Quote from: MikeC on July 23, 2010, 07:22:06 AM
Quote
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 22, 2010, 09:10:24 AM
What, Mike... nothing on the latest Breitbart joint to drop?

You know, the one that proves that the NAACP are the real racists?

Well the obvious silence about Journolist members conspiring to call people racists to deflect attention away from their favored candidates is pretty telling around here. When something you know is wrong, but can't bring yourself to say is wrong, it becomes non-news to you guys. Just like Journolist members wanting to change the subject.



So people talking on a message board over email means they're actually devising a strategy?

Shit, guys...we're doing this all wrong.

HOW SINISTER'd

I thought is was in an online forum. So maybe you guys are doing it right, and I'm doing it wrong. Shit.

*walks away hanging head while Charlie Brown music plays*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 23, 2010, 09:16:45 AM
Cross-posted in the "2010-2011 Bears: The Last Time You'll See Utler Alive" thread:

Glenn Beck an Urlacher fan, then? (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/sports/nfl/bears/glenn-beck-brian-urlacher-neo-nazi-chicago-bears-20100723) Or not? (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35761_Glenn_Beck_Exposes_Truther_Tea_Party_Candidate_Hypes_Theocratic_Fanatic)

Bizarre.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 23, 2010, 11:53:54 AM
I have always assumed that if Glen Beck called someone a Neo-Nazi it was intended as a compliment. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 23, 2010, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 23, 2010, 11:53:54 AM
I have always assumed that if Glen Beck called someone a Neo-Nazi it was intended as a compliment. 

That's not a farfetched assumption.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 23, 2010, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 23, 2010, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 23, 2010, 11:53:54 AM
I have always assumed that if Glen Beck called someone a Neo-Nazi it was intended as a compliment. 

That's not a farfetched assumption.

I just heard the tape on the radio.  He said, "I don't know these people at all.  That one's Madona.  I think that one (Urlacher) is a neo-Nazi."

Does he really think he's being cute by being flippant about people he admits he doesn't know who they are even by sight?  What does this say about the people who listen to him?  About the network that gives him airtime?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 23, 2010, 01:38:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 23, 2010, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 23, 2010, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 23, 2010, 11:53:54 AM
I have always assumed that if Glen Beck called someone a Neo-Nazi it was intended as a compliment. 

That's not a farfetched assumption.

I just heard the tape on the radio.  He said, "I don't know these people at all.  That one's Madona.  I think that one (Urlacher) is a neo-Nazi."

Does he really think he's being cute by being flippant about people he admits he doesn't know who they are even by sight?  What does this say about the people who listen to him?  About the network that gives him airtime?

It says that he has massive ratings and millions of people find him entertaining as hell.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 23, 2010, 01:44:26 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 23, 2010, 01:38:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 23, 2010, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 23, 2010, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 23, 2010, 11:53:54 AM
I have always assumed that if Glen Beck called someone a Neo-Nazi it was intended as a compliment. 

That's not a farfetched assumption.

I just heard the tape on the radio.  He said, "I don't know these people at all.  That one's Madona.  I think that one (Urlacher) is a neo-Nazi."

Does he really think he's being cute by being flippant about people he admits he doesn't know who they are even by sight?  What does this say about the people who listen to him?  About the network that gives him airtime?

It says that he has massive ratings and millions of people find him entertaining as hell.

Most of Beck's viewers want to be affirmed, not entertained.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 23, 2010, 03:28:14 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 23, 2010, 01:44:26 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 23, 2010, 01:38:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 23, 2010, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 23, 2010, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 23, 2010, 11:53:54 AM
I have always assumed that if Glen Beck called someone a Neo-Nazi it was intended as a compliment. 

That's not a farfetched assumption.

I just heard the tape on the radio.  He said, "I don't know these people at all.  That one's Madona.  I think that one (Urlacher) is a neo-Nazi."

Does he really think he's being cute by being flippant about people he admits he doesn't know who they are even by sight?  What does this say about the people who listen to him?  About the network that gives him airtime?

It says that he has massive ratings and millions of people find him entertaining as hell.

Most of Beck's viewers want to be affirmed, not entertained.

I'd believe they get both of that. My family loves these clowns. It's essentially watching them spout their nonsense and yelling "YES! THAT'S SO RIGHT!" Then they regurgitate it back to me because I "love Obama".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 24, 2010, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: MikeC on July 23, 2010, 07:22:06 AM
Well the obvious silence about Journolist members conspiring to call people racists to deflect attention away from their favored candidates is pretty telling around here. When something you know is wrong, but can't bring yourself to say is wrong, it becomes non-news to you guys. Just like Journolist members wanting to change the subject. Fuck its silent in here.......

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/when_tucker_carlson_asked_to_j.html

QuoteI hoped to let my quick accounting of the constant inaccuracies in the Daily Caller's selective quotations from Journolist stand as my last word on the matter. But Tucker Carlson's sanctimonious and evasive statement on the way his site has been covering this story deserves a response. So allow me one more post.

Tucker's note doesn't bother to mention the actual questions that have been raised: That his stories have misstated fact, misled readers, and omitted evidence that would contradict his thesis. He doesn't explain how a thread in which no journalists suggested shutting down Fox News can be headlined "Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News." He doesn't tell us why an article about the open letter that originated on the list left out the fact that I subsequently banned any future letters from the list. He doesn't detail why his stories haven't mentioned that one of his own reporters was on the list -- his readers would presumably be interested to know that the Daily Caller was part of the liberal media conspiracy.

Instead, Tucker says, well, trust him. "I edited the first four stories myself," he writes, "and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with."

If this series now rests on Tucker's credibility, then let's talk about something else he doesn't mention: I tried to add him to the list. I tried to give him access to the archives. Voluntarily. Because though I believed it was important for the conversation to be off-the-record, I didn't believe there was anything to hide.

...

I then wrote this e-mail to Journolist:

QuoteAs folks know, there are a couple of rules for J List membership. One is that you can't be working for the government. Another is that you're center to left of center, as that was something various people wanted back in the day. [Update: I should also note that I didn't allow media reporters onto the list, just so I've got all the rules down.] I've gotten a couple of recent requests from conservatives who want to be added (and who are people I think this list might benefit from), however, and so it seems worth asking people whether they'd like to see the list opened up. Back in the day, I'd probably have let this lie, but given that Journolist now leaks like a sieve, it seems worth revisiting some of the decisions made when it was meant to be a more protected space.

As I see it, the pro of this is that it could make for more fun conversations. The con of it is that it becomes hard to decide who to add and who to leave off (I don't want to have to make subjective judgments, but I'm also not going to let Michelle Malkin hop onto the list), and it also could create even more possible leaks -- and now, they'd be leaks with more of an agenda, which could be much more destructive to trust on the list.

I want to be very clear about what I was suggesting: Adding someone to the list meant giving them access to the entirety of the archives. That didn't bother me very much. Sure, you could comb through tens of thousands of e-mails and pull intemperate moments and inartful wording out of context to embarrass people, but so long as you weren't there with an eye towards malice, you'd recognize it for what it was: A wonkish, fun, political yelling match. If it had been an international media conspiracy, I'd have never considered opening it up.

The idea was voted down. People worried about opening the archives to individuals who could help their careers by ripping e-mails out of context, misrepresenting the nature of the ongoing conversation, and bringing the world an exclusive look into The Great Journolist Conspiracy, as opposed to the daily life of Journolist, which even Carlson describes as "actually pretty banal."

Apologetically, I went back to Tucker and delivered the bad news. But I still liked the idea of a broader e-mail list, and I offered to partner with him to start one. "There was interest," I told him, "in creating a separate e-mail forum with a more bipartisan flavor (such that Journolist could keep its character, but something else could provide the service we're talking about), and if that's something you want to do, I'd be glad to work on it with you."

...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 24, 2010, 03:59:25 PM
(continuing)

Quote... At every turn, he's known about evidence that substantially complicates his picture of an international media conspiracy. He knows I tried to let him in, odd behavior for someone with so much to hide and so much to lose. He knows I let one of his reporters remain a member. He knows I banned -- and enforced the ban -- on the sort of coordinated letter that served as example one of the list's conspiracy. He knows -- and never, to my knowledge, corrected -- that his reporter misrepresented the dates of Dave Weigel's posts to make it look like things he wrote at the Washington Independent were written at the Washington Post. And that's not even to mention the more prosaic deceptions of his selective choice of threads, truncated quotations, and misleading headlines.

When I e-mailed him to ask about some of these omissions, his response was admission mixed with misdirection. "I don't have nearly the grounding in this that Strong does, but according to him you often come off as a voice for moderation, and I'm pretty sure he will make that clear in a subsequent story." Ah, the old "we'll be more truthful later."

Tucker chose the good story over the real story. His traffic numbers reflect the popularity of his choice. Journolist has taken the Daily Caller from about 50,000 hits a day to more than 200,000. There are a lot more answers in those numbers, I fear, than in his editor's note.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 26, 2010, 10:03:32 PM
For whatever it's worth, just on entertainment alone, I found this amusing:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ex-tea-party-spokesman-mark-williams
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 27, 2010, 02:49:39 AM
Quote from: Slaky on July 26, 2010, 10:03:32 PM
For whatever it's worth, just on entertainment alone, I found this amusing:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ex-tea-party-spokesman-mark-williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4e9SUwL4JM
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on July 26, 2010, 10:03:32 PM
For whatever it's worth, just on entertainment alone, I found this amusing:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ex-tea-party-spokesman-mark-williams

Somewhat relatedly, this is the lamest attempt to smear Shirley Sherrod I've seen yet...

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/26/sherrod-story-false/

QuoteIt isn't true.

Shirley Sherrod's story in her now famous speech about the lynching of a relative is not true. The veracity and credibility of the onetime Agriculture Department bureaucrat at the center of the explosive controversy between the NAACP and conservative media activist Andrew Breitbart is now directly under challenge. By nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court. All of them dead.

...

In her speech, Ms. Sherrod says this:

QuoteI should tell you a little about Baker County. In case you don't know where it is, it's located less than 20 miles southwest of Albany. Now, there were two sheriffs from Baker County that -- whose names you probably never heard but I know in the case of one, the thing he did many, many years ago still affect us today. And that sheriff was Claude Screws. Claude Screws lynched a black man. And this was at the beginning of the 40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder but of depriving Bobby Hall -- and I should say that Bobby Hall was a relative -- depriving him of his civil rights.

Plain as day, Ms. Sherrod says that Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative, was lynched. As she puts it, describing the actions of the 1940s-era Sheriff Claude Screws: "Claude Screws lynched a black man."

This is not true. It did not happen...

This sounds like some hard-hitting stuff.

What's his evidence that she fabricated the "lynching" story?

QuoteHow do we know this?

The case, Screws vs. the U.S. Government (http://supreme.justia.com/us/325/91/case.html), as she accurately says in the next two paragraphs, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which, with the agreement of all nine Justices of the day -- which is to say May 7, 1945 -- stated the facts of the killing of Bobby Hall this way:

QuoteThe arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to "get" him.

...

In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the basic facts of the case agreed to by all nine Justices in Screws vs. the U.S. Government, says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched. Why? Because it never happened.

So why in the world would Ms. Sherrod say something like this?

No idea...

You can't make this up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 08:31:10 AM
He then goes on for another 3000 words about "what appears to be a straight-out fabrication" by "a liberal or progressive political activist" who appears "prone to exaggeration if not worse."

You know... Because Bobby Hall's extrajudicial killing at the hands of a mob and with the complicity of white authorities didn't even involve a rope at all. The nerve of this woman who "stood up in front of the NAACP and said something that was completely, totally, untrue"!

QuoteAgain, I have no idea what Sherrod's motivation in saying something so factually untrue could be. Is she simply ignorant of the facts? A serial exaggerator who got caught? A political activist hard at work spinning for credibility? No idea. I simply know she said something --indeed made a big deal of it -- that is factually, provably untrue.

And her new liberal media buddies, predictably, are unwilling to call her on it.

There's more.

Typical liberal media buddies.

The "there's more" is another fact that Sherrod lied about, this time through omission—a damning truth that liberal or progressive political activists don't want you to know: namely, that Hugo Black, Robert Byrd and Richard Russell, Jr. all prove that liberals and progressives are the real racists.

Shameful.

But there's hope.

QuoteThere is no reason in the world this episode cannot move race relations forward. Ms. Sherrod seems like a good person. But as with alcoholics and drug addicts, those addicted to the potent political cocktail of the progressive racism variety need somehow to be able to summon the guts to stand up and say the problem is not with Fox News or Andrew Breitbart or Tea Parties or anyone else.

Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Bobby Hall and then overturned his conviction.

Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Shirley Sherrod's father in 1965.

And Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who went out of their way to honor Hugo Black and Richard Russell with a Supreme Court nomination and the naming of a Senate Office Building.

We know who did these things. And when Shirley Sherrod finally gets a minute's peace -- so should she.

Then we can all finally move on from our shameful progressive racist past.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 27, 2010, 08:43:10 AM
Whatever Tank.  Anything you can do to distract from the fact that all those liberal journalists you voted for are attempting to make us all queer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 27, 2010, 08:43:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 08:31:10 AM
He then goes on for another 3000 words about "what appears to be a straight-out fabrication" by "a liberal or progressive political activist" who appears "prone to exaggeration if not worse."

You know... Because Bobby Hall's extrajudicial killing at the hands of a mob and with the complicity of white authorities didn't even involve a rope at all. The nerve of this woman who "stood up in front of the NAACP and said something that was completely, totally, untrue"!

QuoteAgain, I have no idea what Sherrod's motivation in saying something so factually untrue could be. Is she simply ignorant of the facts? A serial exaggerator who got caught? A political activist hard at work spinning for credibility? No idea. I simply know she said something --indeed made a big deal of it -- that is factually, provably untrue.

And her new liberal media buddies, predictably, are unwilling to call her on it.

There's more.

Typical liberal media buddies.

The "there's more" is another fact that Sherrod lied about, this time through omission—a damning truth that liberal or progressive political activists don't want you to know: namely, that Hugo Black, Robert Byrd and Richard Russell, Jr. all prove that liberals and progressives are the real racists.

Shameful.

But there's hope.

QuoteThere is no reason in the world this episode cannot move race relations forward. Ms. Sherrod seems like a good person. But as with alcoholics and drug addicts, those addicted to the potent political cocktail of the progressive racism variety need somehow to be able to summon the guts to stand up and say the problem is not with Fox News or Andrew Breitbart or Tea Parties or anyone else.

Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Bobby Hall and then overturned his conviction.

Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who killed Shirley Sherrod's father in 1965.

And Fox News and Andrew Breitbart are not the ones who went out of their way to honor Hugo Black and Richard Russell with a Supreme Court nomination and the naming of a Senate Office Building.

We know who did these things. And when Shirley Sherrod finally gets a minute's peace -- so should she.

Then we can all finally move on from our shameful progressive racist past.

I'm kind of disappointed Taibbi didn't wait a couple days to write this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/184697/83512) so he could have included Lord's jaw-dropping obliviousness in it.

QuoteOn the Tea Party side, I've decided it isn't even necessary to have the debate over whether or not the Tea Partiers are racists. It's enough to point out that the Tea Party and its sympathizers contain too many people like Andrew Breitbart (the idiot blogger from the Big Government website who originally posted the Sherrod video), Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck, all of whom popped huge public woodies the moment the Sherrod video surfaced.

It's just not necessary to say whether or not these people are racists. All that needs to be pointed out is that when they get a chance to gape at a video purporting to show a black Obama official confessing to having mistreated a white farmer (it turned out to be the opposite of that, of course), or a tape of Black Panther King Shamir talking about "killing cracker babies," the word that best describes the emotions they display at these times is glee.

They enjoy these morbid stories about offenses to white dignity way too much.
I caught Glenn Beck talking about some case involving a Black Panther who was intimidating people at a voting booth back in 2008 – the guy had this pervy smile on his face that made him look exactly like one of those creepy dudes sitting hunched over at the edge of the bed playing the cuckold in cheating-wife porn videos. Over the Black Panthers! Who the hell has even seen a Black Panther since the seventies? The whole thing reminds me of that Chris Rock routine about Native Americans – "When was the last time you saw two Indians?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 08:44:09 AM
For what it's worth:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/sherrod-story-true

QuoteWhat on Earth is Jeffrey Lord talking about on the mainpage? He says that the sentence "Claude Screws lynched a black man" is untrue. Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people). The fatal beating of Bobby Hall most certainly qualifies.  Radley Balko expounds on the specifics, but honestly, even if you mistakenly believe that only hanging qualifies as lynching (which, again, is simply not true), zeroing in on this particular hair as one worth splitting strikes me as utterly bizarre.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/taking-issue-with-jeff-lord

QuoteA regular part of writing for a political magazine or website is that you sometimes disagree with what is written, or even with decisions to publish certain articles. Such is my sentiment today with Jeff Lord's  piece on Shirley Sherrod. I am rendered speechless by a 4,000-word article that is based around the suggestion that somebody is a liar for saying that a black man was lynched, when he was merely beaten to death by a white sheriff who evidence suggests had previously threatened to "get him."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 27, 2010, 09:17:24 AM
Beck is a genius panderer who, let's face it, probably believes about 25% of what he says.  And he's rich because of it. 

Keep that in mind -- if you can figure out a way to say things that fill people like MikeC with unbridled joy and affirmation, and if you can say it to a large enough audience, you'll be rich. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 27, 2010, 09:17:24 AM
Beck is a genius panderer who, let's face it, probably believes about 25% of what he says.

That's more Bill O'Reilly's game: pure cynicism.

I'm fairly confident that Beck is a genuinely crazy person who gets high on his own supply of bullshit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 27, 2010, 09:31:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 27, 2010, 09:17:24 AM
Beck is a genius panderer who, let's face it, probably believes about 25% of what he says.

That's more Bill O'Reilly's game: pure cynicism.

I'm fairly confident that Beck is a genuinely crazy person who gets high on his own supply of bullshit.

He cries on command.  And he actually rehearses (http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/15/4021703-glenn-beck-rehearses-crying-staffers-say-) it first.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 27, 2010, 09:58:29 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 27, 2010, 09:17:24 AM
Beck is a genius panderer who, let's face it, probably believes about 25% of what he says.  And he's rich because of it. 

Keep that in mind -- if you can figure out a way to say things that fill people like MikeC with unbridled joy and affirmation, and if you can say it to a large enough audience, you'll be rich. 

But then you run the risk of getting sued, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 27, 2010, 10:06:20 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 27, 2010, 09:17:24 AM
Beck is a genius panderer who, let's face it, probably believes about 25% of what he says.

That's more Bill O'Reilly's game: pure cynicism.

I'm fairly confident that Beck is a genuinely crazy person who gets high on his own supply of bullshit.

I think Hannity is the most genuine out of all of them. He seems like he really believes what he's saying.

Beck is milking the cash cow for all it's worth. I think he's playing a game to see how far he can take it. Like, he comes up with stuff and wonders aloud if his audience will swallow it - and when they do he just laughs incredulously and thinks of something to one-up himself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 27, 2010, 10:08:45 AM
Quote from: Slaky on July 27, 2010, 10:06:20 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 27, 2010, 09:17:24 AM
Beck is a genius panderer who, let's face it, probably believes about 25% of what he says.

That's more Bill O'Reilly's game: pure cynicism.

I'm fairly confident that Beck is a genuinely crazy person who gets high on his own supply of bullshit.

I think Hannity is the most genuine out of all of them. He seems like he really believes what he's saying.

Beck is milking the cash cow for all it's worth. I think he's playing a game to see how far he can take it. Like, he comes up with stuff and wonders aloud if his audience will swallow it - and when they do he just laughs incredulously and thinks of something to one-up himself.

I can listen/watch Bill and Hannity.  Beck and the rest are beyond the pale.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 27, 2010, 10:09:56 AM
Glenn Beck says (http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m4d8-Video-Glenn-Beck-claims-he-is-only-an-entertainer-not-interested-in-the-political-process) he doesn't "give a flying crap about the political process."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 27, 2010, 12:54:25 PM
This really isn't a political article, but it's an outstanding read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande?printable=true
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: smg on July 27, 2010, 10:52:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 27, 2010, 12:54:25 PM
This really isn't a political article, but it's an outstanding read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande?printable=true

I just read that earlier this evening.  I second the recommendation, except for expectant parents, who should avoid at all costs.  Oops.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on July 28, 2010, 04:19:53 AM
Quote from: smg on July 27, 2010, 10:52:14 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 27, 2010, 12:54:25 PM
This really isn't a political article, but it's an outstanding read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande?printable=true

I just read that earlier this evening.  I second the recommendation, except for expectant parents, who should avoid at all costs.  Oops.

I was sharing a flat in Munich with an old friend when I split up with my last pre-STonk girlfriend.  I was reasonably upset about it, and a couple of days after it happened I came home to find a book on my bed.  It was Nick Hornby's "High Fidelity", and attached to it was a post-it which said "anybody who's ever split up with a girlfriend should read this book".  It was a very kind thought, and I read it from cover to cover - and then had to explain to my mate why anybody who has ever split up with a girlfriend should really, really not read this book.

On the subject of expectant mothers, by the way - I hope you're prepared for the fact that you are probably going to become acutely unable to deal with any kind of juvenile suffering once your child arrives.  Programmes about childrens' hospitals?  No chance.  Tragic stories in the newspaper about young kids getting sick, or injured, or killed?  Fuhgeddaboudit...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 28, 2010, 08:50:13 AM
Quote from: Tonker on July 28, 2010, 04:19:53 AM
I hope you're prepared for the fact that you are probably going to become acutely unable to deal with any kind of juvenile suffering once your child arrives.  Programmes about childrens' hospitals?  No chance.  Tragic stories in the newspaper about young kids getting sick, or injured, or killed?  Fuhgeddaboudit...
So, no more fun at all?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 28, 2010, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: Tonker on July 28, 2010, 04:19:53 AM

On the subject of expectant mothers, by the way - I hope you're prepared for the fact that you are probably going to become acutely unable to deal with any kind of juvenile suffering once your child arrives.  Programmes about childrens' hospitals?  No chance.  Tragic stories in the newspaper about young kids getting sick, or injured, or killed?  Fuhgeddaboudit...

Camera shots of kids at Cub games...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 28, 2010, 09:03:53 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 28, 2010, 08:58:44 AM
Quote from: Tonker on July 28, 2010, 04:19:53 AM

On the subject of expectant mothers, by the way - I hope you're prepared for the fact that you are probably going to become acutely unable to deal with any kind of juvenile suffering once your child arrives.  Programmes about childrens' hospitals?  No chance.  Tragic stories in the newspaper about young kids getting sick, or injured, or killed?  Fuhgeddaboudit...

Camera shots of kids at Cub games...

Lil Casey's gonna be a season ticket holder, thus showing that mom secretly wants him to be punished for life like she is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 28, 2010, 09:10:41 AM
Quote from: Tonker on July 28, 2010, 04:19:53 AM
On the subject of expectant mothers, by the way - I hope you're prepared for the fact that you are probably going to become acutely unable to deal with any kind of juvenile suffering once your child arrives.  Programmes about childrens' hospitals?  No chance.  Tragic stories in the newspaper about young kids getting sick, or injured, or killed?  Fuhgeddaboudit...

Exactly.  You never forget the first time after you've had a child and you see a story about another child who is suffering.  It hits you a completely different way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on July 28, 2010, 09:34:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 28, 2010, 09:10:41 AM
Quote from: Tonker on July 28, 2010, 04:19:53 AM
On the subject of expectant mothers, by the way - I hope you're prepared for the fact that you are probably going to become acutely unable to deal with any kind of juvenile suffering once your child arrives.  Programmes about childrens' hospitals?  No chance.  Tragic stories in the newspaper about young kids getting sick, or injured, or killed?  Fuhgeddaboudit...

Exactly.  You never forget the first time after you've had a child and you see a story about another child who is suffering.  It hits you a completely different way.

Yeah. Now whenever someone talks about child labor, Morph just sees a bunch of dollar signs walking around his house.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 28, 2010, 09:36:38 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 28, 2010, 09:34:10 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 28, 2010, 09:10:41 AM
Quote from: Tonker on July 28, 2010, 04:19:53 AM
On the subject of expectant mothers, by the way - I hope you're prepared for the fact that you are probably going to become acutely unable to deal with any kind of juvenile suffering once your child arrives.  Programmes about childrens' hospitals?  No chance.  Tragic stories in the newspaper about young kids getting sick, or injured, or killed?  Fuhgeddaboudit...

Exactly.  You never forget the first time after you've had a child and you see a story about another child who is suffering.  It hits you a completely different way.

Yeah. Now whenever someone talks about child labor, Morph just sees a bunch of dollar signs walking around his house.
I almost did a spit take.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 28, 2010, 09:15:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 27, 2010, 08:44:09 AM
For what it's worth:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/sherrod-story-true

QuoteWhat on Earth is Jeffrey Lord talking about on the mainpage? He says that the sentence "Claude Screws lynched a black man" is untrue. Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people). The fatal beating of Bobby Hall most certainly qualifies.  Radley Balko expounds on the specifics, but honestly, even if you mistakenly believe that only hanging qualifies as lynching (which, again, is simply not true), zeroing in on this particular hair as one worth splitting strikes me as utterly bizarre.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/taking-issue-with-jeff-lord

QuoteA regular part of writing for a political magazine or website is that you sometimes disagree with what is written, or even with decisions to publish certain articles. Such is my sentiment today with Jeff Lord's  piece on Shirley Sherrod. I am rendered speechless by a 4,000-word article that is based around the suggestion that somebody is a liar for saying that a black man was lynched, when he was merely beaten to death by a white sheriff who evidence suggests had previously threatened to "get him."

Jeffrey Lord doubles down on stupid...

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/27/jeff-lord-defends-jeffrey-lord

QuoteFirst, for the definition issue.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines lynching as: "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority."

I have read the Court's decision. Three people are not a "mob." A mob is defined as a "large crowd." So there was no "mob action" because there was no mob. Second, the Supreme Court specifically said the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted "under color of law." Which means they had legal authority.

So to say that Bobby Hall was lynched is, factually, according to the Supreme Court and, if you prefer, Webster's, not true. No mob. Therefore no "mob action." And the three had "legal authority." So my new friend Radley "Boo" Balko over at Reason pounced (http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/26/the-american-spectators-mistak)...and got it wrong instantly.

Sorry.

Second. The larger point. My colleagues seem not to understand the connection between what they are seeing in the headlines everyday -- and history.  There is, I'm sorry to say, a direct connection between Southern racists of yore and, say, the Obama Administration policy in Arizona..  The Black Panther case. And what Ms. Sherrod was doing in her speech when she ever so casually linked criticism of health care  to racism, which is to say not supporting a (her words) "black President."

This is all of a piece. Intimately connected by philosophy, party, time, heritage and party culture.

So when Ms. Sherrod uses the highly inflammatory word "lynching" -- when it is quite specifically not so because of the above reasons -- what is she doing? Why is she doing it?  She was factually wrong. She was legally wrong. She did it anyway.

There's more. Later.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/sherrod-critic-she-used-lynching-to-gin-up-democratic-voters.php

Quote"What is the difference, really, between Jimmy Byrnes trying to pursue a "white" agenda, and Sonia Sotomayor's wise Latina comment?" Lord asked rhetorically.

For Lord, the key inconsistency is that Democratic southerners were to blame both for Hall's murder, and for ultimately overturning the conviction of his killers, and yet, decades later, Sherrod sympathizes with the Democratic party.

"I understand that people on the other side are going to go poopoopoo and the Nixon Southern Strategy and all that kind of thing," Lord said. "To think that this was just, all these people just switched their party and made the Republican party segregationist is just nuts. I was there."

...

Lord says he doesn't want Sherrod to lose her job, and urges his fellow conservatives to work toward winning over black voters. "Get out there and engage on race," Lord said. "There's no reason in the world that we can't be getting the black vote. But it's our job to separate black from left and talk about left and right."

With a playbook like this, how could he expect them to possibly fail?


Lone wacko disclaimer:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/re-jeff-lord-john-tabin-and-ph
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/27/defining-lynching-down
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 28, 2010, 10:12:53 PM
Basil Marceaux > George Hutchins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hvaeHllwtw
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 28, 2010, 10:51:13 PM
Basil Marceaux = Floyd R. Turbo

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:10:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

Drudge scares me too, because that's where I saw this.

Welcome to Thunderdome, indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:23:33 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

And these people vote too.

Witness the failure of the American education system.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

I somehow think you're implying that I shouldn't be afraid of Hillary Clinton teaming with the ALL-POWERFUL UNITED NATIONS to take away my guns.

Seriously, though, why do I always drive past signs in redneck country saying "Get U.S. out of the UN"? What the hell are they afraid of? Has the United Nations done anything since Korea that implies any kind of ability to enforce anything?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

I somehow think you're implying that I shouldn't be afraid of Hillary Clinton teaming with the ALL-POWERFUL UNITED NATIONS to take away my guns.

Seriously, though, why do I always drive past signs in redneck country saying "Get U.S. out of the UN"? What the hell are they afraid of? Has the United Nations done anything since Korea that implies any kind of ability to enforce anything?

The UN is filled with brown people from other countries that don't speak American.  It's pretty obvious why they hate it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:37:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

I somehow think you're implying that I shouldn't be afraid of Hillary Clinton teaming with the ALL-POWERFUL UNITED NATIONS to take away my guns.

Seriously, though, why do I always drive past signs in redneck country saying "Get U.S. out of the UN"? What the hell are they afraid of? Has the United Nations done anything since Korea that implies any kind of ability to enforce anything?

The UN is filled with brown people from other countries that don't speak American.  It's pretty obvious why they hate it.

Right. But the first time I had someone explain to me that the UN was going to take all of our guns away they simply went blank when I responded with "Right. And who's going to enforce that law?" It's the League of Nations with slightly more street cred.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 29, 2010, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:37:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

I somehow think you're implying that I shouldn't be afraid of Hillary Clinton teaming with the ALL-POWERFUL UNITED NATIONS to take away my guns.

Seriously, though, why do I always drive past signs in redneck country saying "Get U.S. out of the UN"? What the hell are they afraid of? Has the United Nations done anything since Korea that implies any kind of ability to enforce anything?

The UN is filled with brown people from other countries that don't speak American.  It's pretty obvious why they hate it.

Right. But the first time I had someone explain to me that the UN was going to take all of our guns away they simply went blank when I responded with "Right. And who's going to enforce that law?" It's the League of Nations with slightly more street cred.

I will not sit idly by while you disparage Woodrow Wilson. That man was one of our finest racist presidents.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on July 29, 2010, 09:42:28 AM
I always thought they were just angry because the U.N. tried to impede us from blowing people up all the time. Nothing more nuanced than that. Taking away guns sounds like a red herring.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:37:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

I somehow think you're implying that I shouldn't be afraid of Hillary Clinton teaming with the ALL-POWERFUL UNITED NATIONS to take away my guns.

Seriously, though, why do I always drive past signs in redneck country saying "Get U.S. out of the UN"? What the hell are they afraid of? Has the United Nations done anything since Korea that implies any kind of ability to enforce anything?

The UN is filled with brown people from other countries that don't speak American.  It's pretty obvious why they hate it.

Right. But the first time I had someone explain to me that the UN was going to take all of our guns away they simply went blank when I responded with "Right. And who's going to enforce that law?" It's the League of Nations with slightly more street cred.

I will not sit idly by while you disparage Woodrow Wilson. That man was one of our finest racist presidents.

"it is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true".  (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0004972/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 10:11:30 AM
They could just dislike paying $600 million in US taxpayer money every year to provide shitty countries with a platform to bitch about the US and Israel.  $600 million a year can't even buy badass uniforms.  Instead we get this:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5fiC8OWSexw/SWuNoslEJ3I/AAAAAAAAAFc/uy6yvrW49PY/s320/UN+helmet.jpg)

BONUS: source is this (http://www.pompculture.com/2009/01/iron-maiden-vs-world.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 10:15:48 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 10:11:30 AM
They could just dislike paying $600 million in US taxpayer money every year to provide shitty countries with a platform to bitch about the US and Israel.  $600 million a year can't even buy badass uniforms.  Instead we get this:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5fiC8OWSexw/SWuNoslEJ3I/AAAAAAAAAFc/uy6yvrW49PY/s320/UN+helmet.jpg)

BONUS: source is this (http://www.pompculture.com/2009/01/iron-maiden-vs-world.html).

Is there a facebook group for that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 10:16:49 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 10:11:30 AM
They could just dislike paying $600 million in US taxpayer money every year to provide shitty countries with a platform to bitch about the US and Israel.  $600 million a year can't even buy badass uniforms.  Instead we get this:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5fiC8OWSexw/SWuNoslEJ3I/AAAAAAAAAFc/uy6yvrW49PY/s320/UN+helmet.jpg)

BONUS: source is this (http://www.pompculture.com/2009/01/iron-maiden-vs-world.html).

$600 million a year is what the DOD spends on Post-its.

Again, I think my analysis stands.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 29, 2010, 10:17:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 09:40:47 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:37:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 29, 2010, 09:28:39 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

I somehow think you're implying that I shouldn't be afraid of Hillary Clinton teaming with the ALL-POWERFUL UNITED NATIONS to take away my guns.

Seriously, though, why do I always drive past signs in redneck country saying "Get U.S. out of the UN"? What the hell are they afraid of? Has the United Nations done anything since Korea that implies any kind of ability to enforce anything?

The UN is filled with brown people from other countries that don't speak American.  It's pretty obvious why they hate it.

Right. But the first time I had someone explain to me that the UN was going to take all of our guns away they simply went blank when I responded with "Right. And who's going to enforce that law?" It's the League of Nations with slightly more street cred.

I will not sit idly by while you disparage Woodrow Wilson. That man was one of our finest racist presidents.

That's something the NAACP doesn't want you to know.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 10:26:10 AM
Fascinating Scary report found here:  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 10:26:10 AM
Fascinating Scary report found here:  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf

Medicare, Defense, Social Security.  In order of importance.  Talk of anything else, and one's committment towards defecit reduction is a joke.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 29, 2010, 10:55:58 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 10:26:10 AM
Fascinating Scary report found here:  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf

Unfortunately, raising taxes/cutting spending isn't an "or". It's an "and".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 11:48:59 AM
I just wish we could live in a country that is fiscally responsible ...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 12:21:51 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 11:48:59 AM
I just wish we could live in a country that is fiscally responsible ...

Canada still fucking sucks kiddie balls.  ALMOST as much as you do.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on July 29, 2010, 12:24:21 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 12:21:51 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 11:48:59 AM
I just wish we could live in a country that is fiscally responsible ...

Canada still fucking sucks kiddie balls.  ALMOST as much as you do.

The first post I understand in the this thread.  Thanks Yeebs Gil.  I get it b/c KURT IS A CHILD MOLESTER.  He's also a schoolteacher, but first and foremost. . . .KURT EVANS MOLESTS CHILDREN.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 29, 2010, 12:28:52 PM

EIGHT YEAR OLDS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 29, 2010, 12:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:23:33 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

And these people vote too.

Witness the failure of the American education system.

On the other hand, if you are in the business of manufacturing and selling tinfoil hats it would be great to communicate with these folks.  You can do it via the fillings in their tooth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 29, 2010, 12:35:25 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 29, 2010, 12:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 09:23:33 AM
Quote from: fiveouts on July 29, 2010, 09:19:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 29, 2010, 09:06:55 AM
This seems like the right place to link this.  DOOOOOOOOOM!

http://www.infowars.com/the-year-america-dissolved/

I'm building my stockpile of copper and guns and ammo right now.

The comment section under that story is a goldmine. 

And these people vote too.

Witness the failure of the American education system.

On the other hand, if you are in the business of manufacturing and selling tinfoil hats it would be great to communicate with these folks.  You can do it via the fillings in their tooth.

Sounds like you'd be better off producing tooth filling communication devices instead.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 29, 2010, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?

Apparently, the green font isn't legible on Canadian computers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:51:16 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?

Apparently, the green font isn't legible on Canadian computers.

Just the opposite.  The green font doesn't accurately transfer from Canada back to the States. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:52:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?

Apparently, the green font isn't legible on Canadian computers.

I used exclamation points in lieu of the green font. I figured it would be clear since I never use them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 29, 2010, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:52:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?

Apparently, the green font isn't legible on Canadian computers.

I used exclamation points in lieu of the green font. I figured it would be clear since I never use them.

Whatever it is you guys are doing here, it sucks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 29, 2010, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 29, 2010, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:52:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?

Apparently, the green font isn't legible on Canadian computers.

I used exclamation points in lieu of the green font. I figured it would be clear since I never use them.

Whatever it is you guys are doing here, it sucks.

Well we were planning your surprise party, but I guess if it sucks...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 02:12:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 29, 2010, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:52:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?

Apparently, the green font isn't legible on Canadian computers.

I used exclamation points in lieu of the green font. I figured it would be clear since I never use them.

Whatever it is you guys are doing here, it Kurt sucks off little boys.

/TDubbs'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on July 29, 2010, 02:22:07 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 02:12:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 29, 2010, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:52:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?

Apparently, the green font isn't legible on Canadian computers.

I used exclamation points in lieu of the green font. I figured it would be clear since I never use them.

Whatever it is you guys are doing here, it Kurt sucks off little boys.

/TDubbs'd

That's disgusting.  Why would you write that about yourself?  You're sick, dude.  Real sick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on July 29, 2010, 02:28:46 PM
Quote from: JD on July 29, 2010, 02:22:07 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 02:12:51 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 29, 2010, 02:06:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:52:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on July 29, 2010, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:35:19 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 29, 2010, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 12:35:11 PM
so... ANGRY... and yet, so FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE (http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+avoids+worst+Great+Recession+StatsCan/2910476/story.html), bitches

That's pretty helpful. I think we've all just decided to move to Canada. Let's go everyone! I hear it's really easy!

No no, that's where you're mistaken.  You actually have to be able to do something "that no Canadian can do" to get a work visa here.*  On the other hand, you could always marry some poor pot smoking Canadian hippie chick and bail on her (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/14/bc-marriagefraud.html) once you get here...

(*c'mon, somebody's going to bite on that one, right?)

It's really, really hard to get residence in Canada - especially if you're American. Correct?

Apparently, the green font isn't legible on Canadian computers.

I used exclamation points in lieu of the green font. I figured it would be clear since I never use them.

Whatever it is you guys are doing here, it Kurt sucks off little boys.

/TDubbs'd

That's disgusting.  Why would you write that about yourself?  You're sick, dude.  Real sick.

Yeah, but it's still the least surprising thing I'll read about something something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 29, 2010, 02:48:41 PM
Canada is too cold.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on July 29, 2010, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 29, 2010, 02:48:41 PM
Canada is too cold.

Those bastards are planning an invasion. You know they have like 90% of their population on OUR border?!?!? The audacity of those mountie bastards. Fuck 'em. We'd level their asses.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 29, 2010, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 29, 2010, 02:48:41 PM
Canada is too cold.

Those bastards are planning an invasion. You know they have like 90% of their population on OUR border?!?!? The audacity of those mountie bastards. Fuck 'em. We'd level their asses.

Just keep the teens away from the Toronto front.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 29, 2010, 11:17:47 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 29, 2010, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 29, 2010, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 29, 2010, 02:48:41 PM
Canada is too cold.

Those bastards are planning an invasion. You know they have like 90% of their population on OUR border?!?!? The audacity of those mountie bastards. Fuck 'em. We'd level their asses.

Just keep the teens away from the Toronto front.

But what if we want Yeti to visit?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on July 30, 2010, 07:10:31 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 29, 2010, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 29, 2010, 02:48:41 PM
Canada is too cold.

Those bastards are planning an invasion. You know they have like 90% of their population on OUR border?!?!? The audacity of those mountie bastards. Fuck 'em. We'd level their asses.

That's so they can leech our Wi-Fi.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Let's pass it so we can find out what's in it! (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8)

Oh, and that's only about a third of what's in there... they couldn't fit any more on the page.  Source. (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeNews&ContentRecord_id=bb302d88-3d0d-4424-8e33-3c5d2578c2b0)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 30, 2010, 08:40:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Let's pass it so we can find out what's in it! (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8)

Oh, and that's only about a third of what's in there... they couldn't fit any more on the page.  Source. (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeNews&ContentRecord_id=bb302d88-3d0d-4424-8e33-3c5d2578c2b0)

That's still better than the old HC system (http://www.digitalscrapbookplace.com/gallery/data/2936/Blank_Page.jpg).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 30, 2010, 09:04:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Let's pass it so we can find out what's in it! (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8)

Oh, and that's only about a third of what's in there... they couldn't fit any more on the page.  Source. (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeNews&ContentRecord_id=bb302d88-3d0d-4424-8e33-3c5d2578c2b0)

Morph has discovered that there is red tape in government!  STOP THE PRESSES!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 30, 2010, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Let's pass it so we can find out what's in it! (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8)

Oh, and that's only about a third of what's in there... they couldn't fit any more on the page.  Source. (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeNews&ContentRecord_id=bb302d88-3d0d-4424-8e33-3c5d2578c2b0)

Things could be so much more simple.

(http://i31.tinypic.com/2e58u35.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 09:06:45 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 30, 2010, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Let's pass it so we can find out what's in it! (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8)

Oh, and that's only about a third of what's in there... they couldn't fit any more on the page.  Source. (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeNews&ContentRecord_id=bb302d88-3d0d-4424-8e33-3c5d2578c2b0)

Things could be so much more simple.

(http://i31.tinypic.com/2e58u35.jpg)

Give him the power.  Do it now.  5,4,3,2.... give it to him now.  Now.  Now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 30, 2010, 11:44:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Let's pass it so we can find out what's in it! (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8)

Oh, and that's only about a third of what's in there... they couldn't fit any more on the page.  Source. (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeNews&ContentRecord_id=bb302d88-3d0d-4424-8e33-3c5d2578c2b0)

I feel bad for whatever poor bastard of an intern in Brownback's office was tasked with drawing all those scary shapes and connecting them with scary lines.

In other news, Weiner swells with anger (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/anthony_weiners_rant_captures.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 30, 2010, 12:03:12 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 09:06:45 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 30, 2010, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 30, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Let's pass it so we can find out what's in it! (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8)

Oh, and that's only about a third of what's in there... they couldn't fit any more on the page.  Source. (http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeNews&ContentRecord_id=bb302d88-3d0d-4424-8e33-3c5d2578c2b0)

Things could be so much more simple.

(http://i31.tinypic.com/2e58u35.jpg)

Give him the power.  Do it now.  5,4,3,2.... give it to him now.  Now.  Now.

I love that the chart includes Mose, Heindl, Shirley, Vater and Mutter.

And a menstruation legend.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 30, 2010, 10:52:16 PM
Dave Otto is bringing the shabbat tov, I say.

[Yes, it was meant for another thread. It's not a mess, I put it there.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 02, 2010, 09:14:03 AM
So, about that crippling inflation (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703787904575403204077239996.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) that was surely on the way thanks to socialism:

QuoteSome of the world's leading investors are becoming more worried about deflation and are re-shaping their portfolios to prepare for a possible period of falling prices.

Some of the world's leading investors are becoming more worried about deflation and re-shaping portfolios to prepare for a possible period of falling prices. Rick Brooks and David Weidner discuss. Also, August is a good month for stocks. Mark Hulbert tells you how to prepare.

Bond-fund heavyweight Bill Gross, investment manager Jeremy Grantham and hedge-fund managers David Tepper and Alan Fournier are among the best-known investors who are bracing for a possible bout of deflation, a development that could cripple global economies and world stock markets.

The investors cite weak economic figures and a mounting consensus that global policy makers are reluctant, or unable, to take further steps to boost economic growth as reasons for their market positions.

Or maybe these guys are all just Glenn Beck plants driving down the price of that sweet, sweet gold so his loyal viewers can scoop it up in anticipation of the UN invasion.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/GoldlineGlennBeck4.jpg
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on August 03, 2010, 03:52:10 PM
Howard Gleckman holds the key to my heart (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/8/3/4595474.html)

QuoteWashington  is about to spend months trying to answer the wrong question. Instead of reprising their partisan, tiresome, and largely unproductive argument about what to do with the Bush tax cuts, President Obama and Congress ought to be asking a very different question: How do we build a tax system capable of generating the revenues we need to fund the government we want in the most efficient and fair way possible?

The debate over the Bush tax cut will get us nowhere. Already, Republicans are accusing Democrats of wanting to raise everyone's taxes. Democrats accuse Republicans of pandering to their rich pals. They are like eight-year olds: "Did not. Did too. Did not."

QuoteJust think how much more productive it would be if we reframed the entire debate. I was asked about this today on the syndicated NPR show Here and Now, and it is a fair question. Why have we allowed ourselves to remain trapped by decision made nearly a decade ago? Some pols would have us believe the 2001 tax cuts were the Ten Commandments, fixed and immutable for all time. But why not think outside this particularly small box?  What sort of government do we want? And how should we pay for it?

QuoteMaybe they are right about the politics. Who knows? But I do know this: Until Obama and Congress ask the right question, there isn't much chance they will come upon the correct answer.     



Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 03, 2010, 04:03:58 PM
QuoteMaybe they are right about the politics. Who knows? But I do know this: Until Obama and Congress ask the right question, there isn't much chance they will come upon the correct answer.     

We just need representatives there to serve and not to have a cool job for themselves.

(Bort will now accuse me of platituding).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 03, 2010, 04:06:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 03, 2010, 04:03:58 PM
QuoteMaybe they are right about the politics. Who knows? But I do know this: Until Obama and Congress ask the right question, there isn't much chance they will come upon the correct answer.     

We just need representatives there to serve and not to have a cool job for themselves.

(Bort will now accuse me of platituding).

Now you're just platituding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 03, 2010, 04:07:26 PM
I'm just trying to comprehend why Republicans hate the 14th Amendment now.

Also, this story was interesting: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/bob-inglis-tea-party-casualty
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 03, 2010, 07:19:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 03, 2010, 04:07:26 PM
I'm just trying to comprehend why Republicans hate the 14th Amendment now.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_akLbxNKanGc/TEVU3g2-QBI/AAAAAAAADIY/xa0c3W-hh1o/s400/Five+Circles+of+Conservatie+Hell+3.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 04, 2010, 12:05:25 PM
So, it turns out that Jimmy Carter WASN'T history's greatest monster.

That title is hereby returned to Richard Milhouse Nixon.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=76042
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on August 04, 2010, 12:17:19 PM
Here is one of those moments in time where you can stick your head in the sand and say liberals don't control the media, its all conservatives all the time in charge....

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13852

QuoteA deal to sell Newsweek to a 91-year-old stereo equipment magnate will be announced later this afternoon, a move that will signal the end of a half-century of ownership by the Washington Post Company....

According to several people who have been briefed on the process, Mr. Harman's bid appealed to Mr. Graham and the Post Company because Mr. Harman has said he would retain a significant number of the magazine's 325 employees. The financial details of the sale were not known, though one person with knowledge of Mr. Harman's bid said last week that he would pay $1 in exchange for absorbing Newsweek's considerable financial liabilities.

So let's be fair, $1.00 isn't exactly the market value, it's actually much less than that since apparently Mr. Harman is going to take on significant financial liabilities in exchange for the right to lose money from here to eternity on this white elephant. The Washington Post is quite literally giving the entire operation away just to be out from under the obligations – and that tells you all you need to know about what they think the future holds for Newsweek.

But in a fascinating twist, the Post appears to have several offers that were much better than this, offers which would have given their own shareholders a much better return on these assets and on all the money that's been wasted this past year.   So why did they turn down those offers and instead, make their own shareholders take a beating by giving Newsweek away for free?  Because those nasty high bidders might have actually fired some employees and <gasp> CHANGED the editorial direction of the Magazine!  We can't have that, oh heaven forbid, we can't have that!  So better to take a huge loss and  auger this entire operation into the dirt before even considering whether maybe, just maybe, they've been doing things wrong.

Harmon's wife is Jane Harmon a Democrat congresswoman from California.........yep better to give it away and keep it in the DNC family. I bet it was some nasty evil Republicans trying to monopolize even more of the media. Way to stick it to them Wash Post. Aren't you the same guys that are ignoring the Black Panter/Eric Holder scandal? And don't you employ Journolist founder Ezra Klein? Wait he writes columns for NewsWeek as well.

I am sure its all just a coincidence........glad to know shareholders took it in the ass to have liberals keep a job. Would that be saving or creating a job? Stimulus works!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 04, 2010, 12:05:25 PM
So, it turns out that Jimmy Carter WASN'T history's greatest monster.

That title is hereby returned to Richard Milhouse Nixon.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=76042

Quote from: Bort on June 16, 2010, 04:14:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/upk4E.jpgg)

(http://i.imgur.com/1AY6r.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 04, 2010, 12:19:55 PM
I had always assumed that those clowns were simply the drunken hallucinations of Pat Nixon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 12:27:34 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 04, 2010, 12:05:25 PM
So, it turns out that Jimmy Carter WASN'T history's greatest monster.

That title is hereby returned to Richard Milhouse Nixon.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=76042
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 04, 2010, 12:05:25 PM
So, it turns out that Jimmy Carter WASN'T history's greatest monster.

That title is hereby returned to Richard Milhouse Nixon.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=76042

Quote from: Bort on June 16, 2010, 04:14:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/upk4E.jpgg)

(http://i.imgur.com/1AY6r.jpg)

You fucking people are bringing down a great President...again.  Can't you just let him rest in peace, you insensitive fucks?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 12:28:58 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 04, 2010, 12:17:19 PM
Aren't you the same guys that are ignoring the Black Panter/Eric Holder scandal? And don't you employ Journolist founder Ezra Klein?

There was a quote at the end of the movie "Tears of the Sun": "The only thing Black Panters and people who use email to communicate privately need to prosper is for the massive debt liabilities of a dying newsweekly to be taken on by a billionaire industrialist who isn't a Republican."

Maybe Dem's should stop and think about that for a moment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 12:30:27 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 04, 2010, 12:17:19 PM
Here is one of those moments in time where you can stick your head in the sand and say liberals don't control the media, its all conservatives all the time in charge....

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13852

QuoteA deal to sell Newsweek to a 91-year-old stereo equipment magnate will be announced later this afternoon, a move that will signal the end of a half-century of ownership by the Washington Post Company....

According to several people who have been briefed on the process, Mr. Harman's bid appealed to Mr. Graham and the Post Company because Mr. Harman has said he would retain a significant number of the magazine's 325 employees. The financial details of the sale were not known, though one person with knowledge of Mr. Harman's bid said last week that he would pay $1 in exchange for absorbing Newsweek's considerable financial liabilities.

So let's be fair, $1.00 isn't exactly the market value, it's actually much less than that since apparently Mr. Harman is going to take on significant financial liabilities in exchange for the right to lose money from here to eternity on this white elephant. The Washington Post is quite literally giving the entire operation away just to be out from under the obligations – and that tells you all you need to know about what they think the future holds for Newsweek.

But in a fascinating twist, the Post appears to have several offers that were much better than this, offers which would have given their own shareholders a much better return on these assets and on all the money that's been wasted this past year.   So why did they turn down those offers and instead, make their own shareholders take a beating by giving Newsweek away for free?  Because those nasty high bidders might have actually fired some employees and <gasp> CHANGED the editorial direction of the Magazine!  We can't have that, oh heaven forbid, we can't have that!  So better to take a huge loss and  auger this entire operation into the dirt before even considering whether maybe, just maybe, they've been doing things wrong.

Harmon's wife is Jane Harmon a Democrat congresswoman from California.........yep better to give it away and keep it in the DNC family. I bet it was some nasty evil Republicans trying to monopolize even more of the media. Way to stick it to them Wash Post. Aren't you the same guys that are ignoring the Black Panter/Eric Holder scandal? And don't you employ Journolist founder Ezra Klein? Wait he writes columns for NewsWeek as well.

I am sure its all just a coincidence........glad to know shareholders took it in the ass to have liberals keep a job. Would that be saving or creating a job? Stimulus works!

I'm shocked, shocked, to find out that the media isn't covering the latest manufactured issue coming from the Right.  SHOCKED, I TELLS YA!!!

This should be issue number one, seeing as we've solved that jobs thingy, the oil spill, the national debt, two wars, and everything else that matters more than these silly non-issues.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 04, 2010, 12:49:17 PM
Forget it, the real issue us the WaPo's advancing of the Liberal agenda by known Lefties like Charles Krauthammer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 04, 2010, 12:49:17 PM
Forget it, the real issue us the WaPo's advancing of the Liberal agenda by known Lefties like Charles Krauthammer.

You laugh, but the man spent the better part of the last decade providing cover for American Trotskyism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on August 04, 2010, 01:11:53 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 12:28:58 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 04, 2010, 12:17:19 PM
Aren't you the same guys that are ignoring the Black Panter/Eric Holder scandal? And don't you employ Journolist founder Ezra Klein?

There was a quote at the end of the movie "Tears of the Sun": "The only thing Black Panters and people who use email to communicate privately need to prosper is for the massive debt liabilities of a dying newsweekly to be taken on by a billionaire industrialist who isn't a Republican."

Maybe Dem's should stop and think about that for a moment.

Was it cool to like that movie? Because I liked that movie.

Oh and nice job on the American Trotskyism. TEC and his cabal of neo-conservatives had us all fooled.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on August 04, 2010, 01:18:21 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 04, 2010, 01:11:53 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 12:28:58 PM
Quote from: MikeC on August 04, 2010, 12:17:19 PM
Aren't you the same guys that are ignoring the Black Panter/Eric Holder scandal? And don't you employ Journolist founder Ezra Klein?

There was a quote at the end of the movie "Tears of the Sun": "The only thing Black Panters and people who use email to communicate privately need to prosper is for the massive debt liabilities of a dying newsweekly to be taken on by a billionaire industrialist who isn't a Republican."

Maybe Dem's should stop and think about that for a moment.

Was it cool to like that movie? Because I liked that movie.

Oh and nice job on the American Trotskyism. TEC and his cabal of neo-conservatives had us all fooled.

I thought it was a great film. So to answer your question, it is decidedly uncool to like that movie. Wait, I was thinking of Empire of the Sun. No idea what Tears is about but I assume it offers a healthy dose of Bruce Willis looking all like Bruce Willis and shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 01:18:56 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 04, 2010, 01:11:53 PM
Oh and nice job on the American Trotskyism.

To be fair, the Trotskyite charge is probably a bit tendentious. (And possibly a hair's breadth away from just calling them all "Jews.")

That said, Red-baiting is never not fun.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on August 04, 2010, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 01:18:56 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 04, 2010, 01:11:53 PM
Oh and nice job on the American Trotskyism.

To be fair, the Trotskyite charge is probably a bit tendentious. (And possibly a hair's breadth away from just calling them all "Jews.")

That said, Red-baiting is never not fun.

We've got to eradicate Goldsteinism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on August 04, 2010, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!

Thanks for rubbing it in.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on August 04, 2010, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 04, 2010, 04:38:51 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!

Thanks for rubbing it in.

Gay.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!

I'm curious what Mike C.'s position on the issue of gay marriage rights is.

And how does he feel its importance compares to that of issues we already know he cares about?

Is it more or less important than holding our Black President's and Black Attorney General's black feet to the fire because a black member of a marginal wacko black hate group, who showed up at a polling place in a black neighborhood once and failed to intimidate any voters with his police baton before being escorted away by police, wasn't given the death penalty or something?

More or less important than the scandal of people he doesn't like carrying on like "private citizens" over electronic mail and having the temerity to not make every word that they ever write, every thought that they ever share and every argument that they ever have publicly available for the scrutiny of ideologues who disagree with them?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 04, 2010, 06:26:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!

I'm curious what Mike C.'s position on the issue of gay marriage rights is.

And how does he feel its importance compares to that of issues we already know he cares about?

Is it more or less important than holding our Black President's and Black Attorney General's black feet to the fire because a black member of a marginal wacko black hate group, who showed up at a polling place in a black neighborhood once and failed to intimidate any voters with his police baton before being escorted away by police, wasn't given the death penalty or something?

More or less important than the scandal of people he doesn't like carrying on like "private citizens" over electronic mail and having the temerity to not make every word that they ever write, every thought that they ever share and every argument that they ever have publicly available for the scrutiny of ideologues who disagree with them?

What are you, readin' this right out of your playbook?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 07:39:55 PM
I guess someone forgot to tell the Mayor of New York City to "never forget"...

http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/bloombergs-speech-ground-zero-mosque
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-up-for-mosque.html

QuoteWhatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, "What God do you pray to? What beliefs do you hold?"

The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

Bloomberg is totally gay for terrorists.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 07:57:44 PM
Que an aggrieved mick...

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/41855445.html

QuoteCatholic League president Bill Donohue comments on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's remarks yesterday endorsing the building of a mosque near Ground Zero:

Never have we heard Mayor Bloomberg more eloquent in his defense of religious liberty. Too bad it took the proposed building of a mosque at a spot where Islamic fanatics declared war on America to do so.

Regrettably, Mayor Bloomberg's record in dealing with issues affecting Catholics has not been so robust. Just last month, he was almost alone in his refusal to criticize Empire State Building owner Anthony Malkin's decision not to honor Mother Teresa on August 26; he simply said it was Malkin's call. Over the last few years, when the Catholic League and New York City Councilman Tony Avella sought to get his support for putting a nativity scene alongside a menorah in the public schools, he refused to cooperate.

Our Next Republican Presidents...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38282

QuoteApologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America's commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.

In fact, they're partially correct—this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.

http://gothamist.com/2010/07/19/just_what_the_ground_zero_mosque_fi.php

QuoteWorried that the debate over the proposed mosque/community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site isn't hysterical enough? Here comes Sarah Palin to stick her oar in. Yesterday the former beauty pageant contestant weighed in on the mosque via Twitter, writing, "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate." But that was just Palin's first draft...

When East Coast liberal elites snickered that "refudiate" is not a word, Palin deleted her tweet, changing it to, "Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real." Of course, as Little Green Footballs points out, while "refute" has the virtue of being an actual word, it doesn't really make sense here.

Wait... Alaska is the "heartland"?

Some other nut...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38400

QuoteEnough is enough Mr. President. Peaceful Muslims can build mosques anywhere they want -- but to allow a million dollar mosque to be erected where American blood was spilled in the name of Allah is pledging allegiance to the wrong country.

History is written by the victors, and we are losing.

That tea**gger who recently declared the NAACP the real racists...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php

QuoteThe animals of allah for whom any day is a great day for a massacre are drooling over the positive response that they are getting from New York City officials over a proposal to build a 13 story monument to the 9/11 Muslims who hijacked those 4 airliners.

The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a "cultural center" to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult.

A TV ad the liberal media doesn't want you to see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0

QuoteOn Sept 11, they declared war against us. And to celebrate that murder of three thousand Americans, they want to build a monstrous thirteen story mosque at Ground Zero. This ground is sacred. Where we weep, they rejoice. That mosque is a monument to their victory and an invitation to more. A mosque at Ground Zero must not stand. The political class says nothing. The politicians are doing nothing to stop it. But we Americans will be heard. Join the fight to kill the Ground Zero Mosque. Go to www.goptrust.com.

"An invitation to more"?

Here's potential RSVP...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/28/mosque-bombing-ny/

QuoteAnd I'll tell you this: If you do build a mosque, I hope somebody blows it up. ... I hope the mosque isn't built, and if it is, I hope it's blown up. And I mean that. ... It's right-wing radicals like me that are going to keep this country safe for you and everyone else from the people who are flying the planes from the country you fled from. If you want to identify with those people, go live with them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 04, 2010, 09:17:23 PM
QuoteAnd I'll tell you this: If you do build a mosque, I hope somebody blows it up. ... I hope the mosque isn't built, and if it is, I hope it's blown up. And I mean that. ... It's right-wing radicals like me that are going to keep this country safe for you and everyone else from the people who are flying the planes from the country you fled from. If you want to identify with those people, go live with them.
[/quote]

Signed,

Thomas McVeigh
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 09:33:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 04, 2010, 09:17:23 PM
QuoteAnd I'll tell you this: If you do build a mosque, I hope somebody blows it up. ... I hope the mosque isn't built, and if it is, I hope it's blown up. And I mean that. ... It's right-wing radicals like me that are going to keep this country safe for you and everyone else from the people who are flying the planes from the country you fled from. If you want to identify with those people, go live with them.

Signed,

Thomas McVeigh

Timothy's brother?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.

Gil's right...

19 terrorists died too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:28:16 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.

Gil's right...

19 terrorists died too.

"Aside from the approximately 2,669 United States casualties, 310 foreign nationals  (excluding the nineteen perpetrators) also perished in the attacks. The following is a list of their nationalities (not accounting for at least some cases of dual-citizenship). By far the foreign country with the largest loss of life was the United Kingdom, with 67 deaths (including the overseas territory of Bermuda). India had 41, South Korea had 28 and Canada and Japan had 24 each. Colombia had seventeen and Jamaica, Mexico and the Philippines had sixteen each. Australia and Germany had eleven each, while Italy had ten."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:47:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:28:16 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.

Gil's right...

19 terrorists died too.

"Aside from the approximately 2,669 United States casualties, 310 foreign nationals  (excluding the nineteen perpetrators) also perished in the attacks. The following is a list of their nationalities (not accounting for at least some cases of dual-citizenship). By far the foreign country with the largest loss of life was the United Kingdom, with 67 deaths (including the overseas territory of Bermuda). India had 41, South Korea had 28 and Canada and Japan had 24 each. Colombia had seventeen and Jamaica, Mexico and the Philippines had sixteen each. Australia and Germany had eleven each, while Italy had ten."

310 and not one fucking Irishman in the group?

Nice choice, terrorists.



Edit: United Kingdom, eh? Never mind.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:59:07 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:47:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:28:16 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.

Gil's right...

19 terrorists died too.

"Aside from the approximately 2,669 United States casualties, 310 foreign nationals  (excluding the nineteen perpetrators) also perished in the attacks. The following is a list of their nationalities (not accounting for at least some cases of dual-citizenship). By far the foreign country with the largest loss of life was the United Kingdom, with 67 deaths (including the overseas territory of Bermuda). India had 41, South Korea had 28 and Canada and Japan had 24 each. Colombia had seventeen and Jamaica, Mexico and the Philippines had sixteen each. Australia and Germany had eleven each, while Italy had ten."

310 and not one fucking Irishman in the group?

Nice choice, terrorists.



Edit: United Kingdom, eh? Never mind.

Well, it's technically the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which to some, is the only Ireland you really need.  Although, to be fair, I'm sure you were referring to the brief period of time from 1801 to 1922 when both islands were under the control of the Protestant crown and were collectively known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  You might get Éamon de Valera (that's an Irish name?) and Michael Collins spinning in their peat moss graves, though.  But if we really want to get technical, the Republic of Ireland lost 6 countrymen that September morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Non-American_casualties

Thanks for the playing though.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:01:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:59:07 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:47:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:28:16 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.

Gil's right...

19 terrorists died too.

"Aside from the approximately 2,669 United States casualties, 310 foreign nationals  (excluding the nineteen perpetrators) also perished in the attacks. The following is a list of their nationalities (not accounting for at least some cases of dual-citizenship). By far the foreign country with the largest loss of life was the United Kingdom, with 67 deaths (including the overseas territory of Bermuda). India had 41, South Korea had 28 and Canada and Japan had 24 each. Colombia had seventeen and Jamaica, Mexico and the Philippines had sixteen each. Australia and Germany had eleven each, while Italy had ten."

310 and not one fucking Irishman in the group?

Nice choice, terrorists.



Edit: United Kingdom, eh? Never mind.

Well, it's technically the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which to some, is the only Ireland you really need.  Although, to be fair, I'm sure you were referring to the brief period of time from 1801 to 1922 when both islands were under the control of the Protestant crown and were collectively known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  You might get Éamon de Valera (that's an Irish name?) and Michael Collins spinning in their peat moss graves, though.  But if we really want to get technical, the Republic of Ireland lost 6 countrymen that September morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Non-American_casualties

Thanks for the playing though.

What does any of this have to do with a Mosque?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 05, 2010, 01:03:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.

If you can call not being American "living."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:15:54 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:01:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:59:07 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:47:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:28:16 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.

Gil's right...

19 terrorists died too.

"Aside from the approximately 2,669 United States casualties, 310 foreign nationals  (excluding the nineteen perpetrators) also perished in the attacks. The following is a list of their nationalities (not accounting for at least some cases of dual-citizenship). By far the foreign country with the largest loss of life was the United Kingdom, with 67 deaths (including the overseas territory of Bermuda). India had 41, South Korea had 28 and Canada and Japan had 24 each. Colombia had seventeen and Jamaica, Mexico and the Philippines had sixteen each. Australia and Germany had eleven each, while Italy had ten."

310 and not one fucking Irishman in the group?

Nice choice, terrorists.



Edit: United Kingdom, eh? Never mind.

Well, it's technically the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which to some, is the only Ireland you really need.  Although, to be fair, I'm sure you were referring to the brief period of time from 1801 to 1922 when both islands were under the control of the Protestant crown and were collectively known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  You might get Éamon de Valera (that's an Irish name?) and Michael Collins spinning in their peat moss graves, though.  But if we really want to get technical, the Republic of Ireland lost 6 countrymen that September morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Non-American_casualties

Thanks for the playing though.

What does any of this have to do with a Mosque?

Did you read this? http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg222146#msg222146
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:22:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:15:54 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:01:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:59:07 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:47:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 12:28:16 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 12:26:29 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
I love how some people think only Americans died that day.  Pity.

Gil's right...

19 terrorists died too.

"Aside from the approximately 2,669 United States casualties, 310 foreign nationals  (excluding the nineteen perpetrators) also perished in the attacks. The following is a list of their nationalities (not accounting for at least some cases of dual-citizenship). By far the foreign country with the largest loss of life was the United Kingdom, with 67 deaths (including the overseas territory of Bermuda). India had 41, South Korea had 28 and Canada and Japan had 24 each. Colombia had seventeen and Jamaica, Mexico and the Philippines had sixteen each. Australia and Germany had eleven each, while Italy had ten."

310 and not one fucking Irishman in the group?

Nice choice, terrorists.



Edit: United Kingdom, eh? Never mind.

Well, it's technically the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which to some, is the only Ireland you really need.  Although, to be fair, I'm sure you were referring to the brief period of time from 1801 to 1922 when both islands were under the control of the Protestant crown and were collectively known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  You might get Éamon de Valera (that's an Irish name?) and Michael Collins spinning in their peat moss graves, though.  But if we really want to get technical, the Republic of Ireland lost 6 countrymen that September morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Non-American_casualties

Thanks for the playing though.

What does any of this have to do with a Mosque?

Did you read this? http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg222146#msg222146

Just the first 6000 words.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 05, 2010, 08:32:12 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!

THI

I'm not even at the two month mark and the luster has fallen off of my sham marriage now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 05, 2010, 08:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 05, 2010, 08:32:12 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!

THI

I'm not even at the two month mark and the luster has fallen off of my sham marriage now.

You need an anchor baby.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on August 05, 2010, 08:41:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 05, 2010, 08:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 05, 2010, 08:32:12 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!

THI

I'm not even at the two month mark and the luster has fallen off of my sham marriage now.

You need an anchor baby.

*whips out dong*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 09:04:46 AM
Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2010, 08:41:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 05, 2010, 08:39:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 05, 2010, 08:32:12 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 04, 2010, 04:33:25 PM
Now that Prop 8 has been overturned, I'd like to point how threatened my two-month-old marriage seems, seeing all of these happy gay couples together.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/same-sex_marriage.html

I don't even know why I bothered.  Shut it down!

THI

I'm not even at the two month mark and the luster has fallen off of my sham marriage now.

You need an anchor baby.

*whips out dong*

Dude, babies now?  I mean, 6 year olds were one thing, but babies?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on August 05, 2010, 10:08:47 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 07:57:44 PM
That tea**gger who recently declared the NAACP the real racists...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php

QuoteThe animals of allah for whom any day is a great day for a massacre are drooling over the positive response that they are getting from New York City officials over a proposal to build a 13 story monument to the 9/11 Muslims who hijacked those 4 airliners.

The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a "cultural center" to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult.

Wait a second.  Did someone say monkey-God?  I've been a fool!

Call me MuhhamOleg!  AllOleg?  Whatever!  I'm in!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 05, 2010, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on August 05, 2010, 10:08:47 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 07:57:44 PM
That tea**gger who recently declared the NAACP the real racists...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php

QuoteThe animals of allah for whom any day is a great day for a massacre are drooling over the positive response that they are getting from New York City officials over a proposal to build a 13 story monument to the 9/11 Muslims who hijacked those 4 airliners.

The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a "cultural center" to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult.

Wait a second.  Did someone say monkey-God?  I've been a fool!

Call me MuhhamOleg!  AllOleg?  Whatever!  I'm in!

Ali ibn Abi Oleg.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 05, 2010, 10:21:08 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 05, 2010, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on August 05, 2010, 10:08:47 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2010, 07:57:44 PM
That tea**gger who recently declared the NAACP the real racists...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea_party_leader_allah_is_monkey_god.php

QuoteThe animals of allah for whom any day is a great day for a massacre are drooling over the positive response that they are getting from New York City officials over a proposal to build a 13 story monument to the 9/11 Muslims who hijacked those 4 airliners.

The monument would consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god and a "cultural center" to propagandize for the extermination of all things not approved by their cult.

Wait a second.  Did someone say monkey-God?  I've been a fool!

Call me MuhhamOleg!  AllOleg?  Whatever!  I'm in!

Ali ibn Abi Oleg.
Hazrat Isma'oleg Bey Effendi
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:24:00 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

I'm basically doing Yeti a favor at this point.

But sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 05, 2010, 01:30:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:24:00 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

I'm basically doing Yeti a favor at this point.

But sure.

I dig that new avatar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 05, 2010, 01:33:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 05, 2010, 01:33:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

(http://i35.tinypic.com/2rp90yg.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 05, 2010, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

As much as I'd like to devote my entire life to destroying PenFoe, I have to admit that made me laugh. Heartily.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 05, 2010, 01:39:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 05, 2010, 01:33:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations.  

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

(http://i35.tinypic.com/2rp90yg.jpg)

I plan to steal that image.

EDIT: DPD
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 05, 2010, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 05, 2010, 01:33:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

Fuck, I'd forgotten about that. Good times.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on August 05, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

I had that one good post that one time, dickblick
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

I had that one good post that one time, dickblick

I was really talking more about style than substance, but I'm certainly not sad it was interpreted the other way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 02:10:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

I had that one good post that one time, dickblick

Don't use that fine art supply company as an insult.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 05, 2010, 02:12:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 02:10:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 05, 2010, 01:36:57 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Again, I started reading the first sentance thinking Yeti wrote it and got completely confused. You might want to address that.

If you thought Yeti wrote that then you've never read a single one of Yeti's post in your life.

I had that one good post that one time, dickblick

Don't use that fine art supply company as an insult.

Yeti's such a Utrecht.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 05, 2010, 03:12:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 05, 2010, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 05, 2010, 01:33:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

Fuck, I'd forgotten about that. Good times.

How could you forget this?

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/2808158365_622d59a349_d.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on August 05, 2010, 03:20:51 PM
Elana Kagan, a SCOTUS judge.

With a who's who (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/elena-kagan-confirmation_n_672315.html#s123024) of Senate douchebags who opposed her nomination.

How's that for poke-sticking?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 05, 2010, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on August 05, 2010, 03:20:51 PM
Elana Kagan, a SCOTUS judge.

With a who's who (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/elena-kagan-confirmation_n_672315.html#s123024) of Senate douchebags who opposed her nomination.

How's that for poke-sticking?

Why/how is Ben Nelson a Democrat? When's the last time he actually did something to help the Democratic caucus?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 05, 2010, 03:46:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 05, 2010, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on August 05, 2010, 03:20:51 PM
Elana Kagan, a SCOTUS judge.

With a who's who (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/elena-kagan-confirmation_n_672315.html#s123024) of Senate douchebags who opposed her nomination.

How's that for poke-sticking?

Why/how is Ben Nelson a Democrat? When's the last time he actually did something to help the Democratic caucus?

He fills the vital "dickhead that argues on everything role" now that Lieberman is not around?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 04:06:39 PM
That Paul's got one even tan.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 05, 2010, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 04:06:39 PM
That Paul's got one even tan.

So that's what we've come to, Apex?  Stealing JD's material?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 05, 2010, 04:16:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 05, 2010, 03:46:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 05, 2010, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Oleg on August 05, 2010, 03:20:51 PM
Elana Kagan, a SCOTUS judge.

With a who's who (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/elena-kagan-confirmation_n_672315.html#s123024) of Senate douchebags who opposed her nomination.

How's that for poke-sticking?

Why/how is Ben Nelson a Democrat? When's the last time he actually did something to help the Democratic caucus?

He fills the vital "dickhead that argues on everything role" now that Lieberman is not around?

Hey now! Joementum's still going strong in the Dem caucus, Jon...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112323-lieberman-pause-to-development-of-islamic-center-near-ground-zero

Quote"I'd say I'm troubled by it, but I don't know enough to say that it ought to be prohibited," Lieberman said on "Imus in the Morning" on the Fox Business Network. "But frankly I've heard enough about it and read enough about it that I wish somebody in New York would just put the brakes on for a while and take a look at this."

Concern troll is concerned.

Quote"I've also read some things about some of the people involved that make me wonder about their motivations. So I don't know enough to reach a conclusion, but I know enough to say that this thing is only going to create more division in our society, and somebody ought to put the brakes on it," he said. "Give these people a chance to come out and explain who they are, where their money's coming from."

Now, I don't know nothin' 'bout no mosque buildin', no, sir. But I done heard some things what make me wonder 'bout these things I don't know nothin' 'bout. Yes, sir.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 05, 2010, 04:18:27 PM
Joe Lieberman and his Willy Tanner voice can go drown in a pool of dicks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 04:27:03 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 05, 2010, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 04:06:39 PM
That Paul's got one even tan.

So that's what we've come to, Apex?  Stealing JD's material?

I wasn't stealing it. I was paying homage to it. Oh-Mahj.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 05, 2010, 04:49:56 PM
The meat of the Perry decision, when addressing due process and the question of whether or not Prop 8 infringed on a fundamental right...

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

QuoteMarriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States.  See FF 19, 34-35.  Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household.  FF 20, 34.  The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents.  FF 34-35, 37.  The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.  FF 35-37.  The state respects an individual's choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual's life.  See Bowers v Hardwick, 478 US 186, 204-205 (1986) (Blackmun, J, dissenting).

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse.  FF 21.  "[ I ]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse."  Lawrence, 539 US at 567.  The Supreme Court recognizes that, wholly apart from procreation, choice and privacy play a pivotal role in the marital relationship.  See Griswold, 381 US at 485-486.

Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25.  When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change.  388 US at 12.  Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry.  Id.

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman's legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband's upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals.  FF 26-27, 32.  As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse's role within a marriage.  FF 26-27, 32.  Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals.  Id.  Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.

The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.  The evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion, including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason to challenge the restriction, FF 43.  The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage.  The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry.  FF 21.  Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage.  That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household.  FF 19-20, 34-35.  Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage.  FF 33.  Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses' obligations to each other and to their dependents.  Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law.  FF 48.  Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

...

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right.  To characterize plaintiffs' objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage.  Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 05, 2010, 05:03:17 PM
In addressing the equal protection issues, this jumped out at me...

QuoteProposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.  One example of a legitimate state interest in not issuing marriage licenses to a particular group might be a scarcity of marriage licenses or county officials to issue them.  But marriage licenses in California are not a limited commodity, and the existence of 18,000 same-sex married couples in California shows that the state has the resources to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to wed.  See Background to Proposition 8 above.

Proponents put forth several rationales for Proposition 8, see Doc #605 at 12-15, which the court now examines in turn: (1) reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship from marriage; (2) proceeding with caution when implementing social changes; (3) promoting opposite- sex parenting over same-sex parenting; (4) protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples; (5) treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and (6) any other conceivable interest.

Liberals are so quick to get up on their high horses talking about the "rights" of cry-baby minorities to live their private lives as they see fit.

But where are those hypocrites when it comes time to defend the rights of bigots to hate these minorities, huh? Talk about double standards.

QuotePURPORTED INTEREST #4: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES

Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 protects the First Amendment freedom of those who disagree with allowing marriage for couples of the same sex.  Proponents argue that Proposition 8: (1) preserves "the prerogative and responsibility of parents to provide for the ethical and moral development and education of their own children"; and (2) accommodates "the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same- sex marriage on religious or moral grounds."  Doc #605 at 14.

These purported interests fail as a matter of law. Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children.  See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 451-452.  Californians are prevented from distinguishing between same-sex partners and opposite-sex spouses in public accommodations, as California antidiscrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite- sex marriages.  Koebke v Bernardo Heights Country Club, 115 P3d 1212, 1217-1218 (Cal 2005).  The evidence shows that Proposition 8 does nothing other than eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.  See FF 57, 62.  Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex.  FF 62.

To the extent proponents argue that one of the rights of those morally opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, as explained presently those individuals' moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to enact a legislative classification.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 05, 2010, 05:06:05 PM
Another money shot:

QuoteA PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents' case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) ("[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.").

The evidence shows that Proposition 8 was a hard-fought campaign and that the majority of California voters supported the initiative. See Background to Proposition 8 above, FF 17-18, 79- 80. The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. 539 US at 571. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code." Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). "[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest," has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579.

Proponents' purported rationales are nothing more than post-hoc justifications. While the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit post-hoc rationales, they must connect to the classification drawn. Here, the purported state interests fit so poorly with Proposition 8 that they are irrational, as explained above. What is left is evidence that Proposition 8 enacts a moral view that there is something "wrong" with same-sex couples. See FF 78-80.

The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples. FF 79-80. The campaign relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and focused on protecting children from inchoate threats vaguely associated with gays and lesbians. FF 79-80; See PX0016 Video, Have You Thought About It? (video of a young girl asking whether the viewer has considered the consequences to her of Proposition 8 but not explaining what those consequences might be).

At trial, proponents' counsel attempted through cross- examination to show that the campaign wanted to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school. See PX0390A Video, Ron Prentice Addressing Supporters of Proposition 8, Excerpt; Tr 132:25-133:3 (proponents' counsel to Katami: "But the fact is that what the Yes on 8 campaign was pointing at, is that kids would be taught about same-sex relationships in first and second grade; isn't that a fact, that that's what they were referring to?"). The evidence shows, however, that Proposition 8 played on a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual. FF 79; PX0099 Video, It's Already Happened (mother's expression of horror upon realizing her daughter now knows she can marry a princess).

The testimony of George Chauncey places the Protect Marriage campaign advertisements in historical context as echoing messages from previous campaigns to enact legal measures to disadvantage gays and lesbians. FF 74, 77-80. The Protect Marriage campaign advertisements ensured California voters had these previous fear-inducing messages in mind. FF 80. The evidence at trial shows those fears to be completely unfounded. FF 47-49, 68-73, 76-80.

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 ("[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected."). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 05, 2010, 05:19:17 PM
QPD...

Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/prop.html

QuoteA reader writes:

QuoteWhat strikes me about Judge Walker's opinion is the amount of evidence he included there - numbered, paraphrased facts with direct citation to and quotation from the trial record. As a lawyer, I can't say that I have ever seen a judge include that much of the trial transcript in an opinion. He would have done this to make his record so that when the case is appealed - as everyone knows it will be - he has included enough direct evidence produced at trial to support his application of the law. His clerks made that trial record their bitch, and Judge Walker took that dog for a walk.

Whether the appeals court overturns on the application of law is a different issue. But it's not going to be a fact issue that does it. And then the way that he completely flicks away Prop 8 proponents' experts' testimony. The man is smart.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 05, 2010, 08:07:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 05, 2010, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 05, 2010, 01:33:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

Fuck, I'd forgotten about that. Good times.

Ut was the first thing I thought of.

Oh, how...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on August 05, 2010, 11:20:44 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 05, 2010, 08:07:15 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 05, 2010, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 05, 2010, 01:33:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations. 

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

Scorpion Secks Magic?

Also, too, great post.

Fuck, I'd forgotten about that. Good times.

Utler was the first thing I thought of.

(http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/files/2010/04/JayCutler.jpg)
Oh, how...

SUPA BEARS SUPA BOWE SUPA BEARS SUPA BOWE'd

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 06, 2010, 12:30:43 PM
OMG CONSPIRACY...YOU CONSERVATIVES ARE RUNNING THE MEDIA...MAYBE U SHUD THINK ABUT THAT!!! (http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2010, 04:31:38 PM
This column about how ugly liberals are was clearly written while jerking off to fake nudes of Sarah Palin...

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/29/the-men-of-journolist/

QuoteMaybe there is some correlation between beauty and conservatism. Perhaps pretty people don't have to deal with as much humiliation early in life, and therefore don't become bitter with resentment. They get dates, get picked for teams, they make out. And the conservatives who are less attractive learn and accept that the world is not fair. They make their peace with God. They don't become utopians, trying to create a world where they will be loved and appreciated if only they can force the world to flip right side up and be what they want it to be. They feel no need to go work for the Nation. Is it a coincidence that Andrew Sullivan's liberalism has increased in proportion to his hotness decreasing? Twenty years ago he was a thin, winsome Tory posing in a GAP ad. Today he looks like something making noise after washing up on a San Francisco pier.

Sullivan, of course, brings us to Sarah Palin. Andrew Sullivan's obsessive hatred of Palin goes far beyond the cynicism of a journalist; there is a kind of primordial spasm of rage against something so marvelously lovely, so downright awesome. It's like that guy a few years ago who took a hammer to Da Vinci's sculpting of David. The beauty was unbearable! Palin is an archetype that the left does not know how to contain or control: the hot female jock who also happens to be cool. The left hates good-looking Republican women and jocks, so combining the two is like an exorcist hitting a demon with not only prayers, but water blessed by the Pope.

There's usually one hot female jock like Palin in every school. It's a girl who is so stunning that even teachers find themselves staring, yet she is too modest to acknowledge her beauty. She plays it down or changes the subject when someone brings it up. It may be because she was raised with good values, the desire to be humble, but it could also be because she wants to be taken seriously as a jock. Palin is a triple threat: a pretty jock who is also incredibly sexy (pretty and sexy are two different things). In high school she was the kind of girl that the school newspaper nerds – the future Journolisters – despised. Pummeled with so much raw beauty, athleticism and sex appeal – and she's nice, too, goddamn her – these fearless chroniclers of reality were left sputtering – and seething.

Sarah Palin is the Da Vinci's sculpting of David of incredibly sexy, yet modest, archetypal teenage girls.

You know the ones...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 08, 2010, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2010, 04:31:38 PM
This column about how ugly liberals are was clearly written while jerking off to fake nudes of Sarah Palin...

It's not Liberty Leading the People, but still (http://www.zazzle.com/sarah_para_bellum_2012_poster-228118176066278091).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 08, 2010, 06:39:04 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2010, 01:13:58 PM
In reading the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision, can I just point out the exceptional quality of the writing and the opinion?  Beyond that, this is clearly a decision designed for one person and one person only.  Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy was the swing vote in Lawrence and will be the swing vote in this case once it makes its way to SCOTUS, barring any deaths or resignations.  

The bigger picture is how the justices will look at this case.  I think most, if not all, will view this case as probably the most significant civil rights case they'll ever hear (maybe the second amendment cases for the conservatives) and that their opinions will be judged and scrutinized for years to come.  Kennedy will probably be looking to leave some kind of legacy on the court and this would be huge.

That said, the decision's due process logic is probably the most compelling; that is, there exists no rational basis (one of the tiers of strict scrutiny) for the restriction of SSM.  I think Boies and Olsen did a phenomenal job in their presentation of the case and their organization of the witnesses.  If I were an opponent of marriage equality, I'd be looking for new legal reasons to oppose SSM.  And before anyone else notes this, Judge Walker is a Republican (said he joined the party in the Nixon era [BOOYAH!!!]) and was appointed by both Reagan and Bush the Elder.

On a personal note, it feels imminently gratifying to see that despite the demagoguery of a campaign and the inherent nastiness that democracy can produce, when the result of said democracy is challenged in court, one better have a better argument than fear and ignorance.  Because it didn't work here.

Bring it on, MikeC.

All of the cases that I have handled before Walker have been labor cases in which I was representing unions.  Walker has never been friendly towards unions so wins were few and far between.  He wasn't nasty but he just never gave us a break that he didn't have to give us.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 08, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 08, 2010, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2010, 04:31:38 PM
This column about how ugly liberals are was clearly written while jerking off to fake nudes of Sarah Palin...

It's not Liberty Leading the People, but still (http://www.zazzle.com/sarah_para_bellum_2012_poster-228118176066278091).

That is breathtaking.

(http://i.imgur.com/fZKHL.jpg)

The proportion of her head to the rest of her body is clearly a rebuke of that nancyboy eurofag Vitruvius.

But isn't the idea of the Gadsden Flag to not tread on the rattlesnake?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 08, 2010, 07:18:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 08, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 08, 2010, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2010, 04:31:38 PM
This column about how ugly liberals are was clearly written while jerking off to fake nudes of Sarah Palin...

It's not Liberty Leading the People, but still (http://www.zazzle.com/sarah_para_bellum_2012_poster-228118176066278091).

That is breathtaking.

He's veritably bursting with ideas (http://daletoons.blogspot.com/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 08, 2010, 07:45:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 08, 2010, 07:18:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 08, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 08, 2010, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2010, 04:31:38 PM
This column about how ugly liberals are was clearly written while jerking off to fake nudes of Sarah Palin...

It's not Liberty Leading the People, but still (http://www.zazzle.com/sarah_para_bellum_2012_poster-228118176066278091).

That is breathtaking.

He's veritably bursting with ideas (http://daletoons.blogspot.com/).

He definitely loves America...

(http://i.imgur.com/ClPhU.jpg)

This guy may be my new favorite latter-day drug-addled surrealist...

(http://i.imgur.com/iGbEv.jpg)

http://daletoons.blogspot.com/2010/05/jay-watcher.html

QuoteOne-time Tonight Show host, Conan O'Brien finally breaks his silence and seems to have Leno on the brain. Look into the eyes of true misery. A misery that even a 32 million dollar severance package and a new job in the fall can't cure. If you are an unemployed factory worker still looking for work in the hope-topia that all these late-night liberal clowns helped foist on us, whose severance package consisted of a pat on the head and a hearty "good luck", I hope you'll gain some perspective. –Dale

Posted by Dale

(http://i.imgur.com/pW34M.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/A9kiv.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/xDMrE.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/AhHpe.jpg)

There's no way this guy is not a Yippie.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 08, 2010, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 08, 2010, 07:45:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 08, 2010, 07:18:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 08, 2010, 07:09:47 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 08, 2010, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2010, 04:31:38 PM
This column about how ugly liberals are was clearly written while jerking off to fake nudes of Sarah Palin...

It's not Liberty Leading the People, but still (http://www.zazzle.com/sarah_para_bellum_2012_poster-228118176066278091).

That is breathtaking.

He's veritably bursting with ideas (http://daletoons.blogspot.com/).

He definitely loves America...

(http://i.imgur.com/ClPhU.jpg)

This guy may be my new favorite latter-day drug-addled surrealist...

(http://i.imgur.com/iGbEv.jpg)

http://daletoons.blogspot.com/2010/05/jay-watcher.html

QuoteOne-time Tonight Show host, Conan O'Brien finally breaks his silence and seems to have Leno on the brain. Look into the eyes of true misery. A misery that even a 32 million dollar severance package and a new job in the fall can't cure. If you are an unemployed factory worker still looking for work in the hope-topia that all these late-night liberal clowns helped foist on us, whose severance package consisted of a pat on the head and a hearty "good luck", I hope you'll gain some perspective. –Dale

Posted by Dale

(http://i.imgur.com/pW34M.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/A9kiv.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/xDMrE.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/AhHpe.jpg)

There's no way this guy is not a Yippie.

Up against the wall motherfucker.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 09:00:32 AM
I believe this is what is meant by "PWNED." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 09:09:06 AM
Also, this country is retarded:

QuoteWhen presented with the statement "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," just 45 percent of respondents indicated "true." Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Only 33 percent of Americans agreed that "the universe began with a big explosion."

QuoteConsider the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." (So much for dogs, horses or H1N1 flu.) The survey's most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55 percent), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49 percent).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faith-and-foolishness
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 09:11:52 AM
And finally, for all the Sturm und Drang about the World Trade Center mosque (that isn't really a mosque)...THOSE MUSSELMEN ARE TAKING OVER THE PENTAGON. (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentagon)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 09:17:55 AM
Parking in Chicago.  Fung.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 09, 2010, 09:21:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 09:11:52 AM
And finally, for all the Sturm und Drang about the World Trade Center mosque (that isn't really a mosque)...THOSE MUSSELMEN ARE TAKING OVER THE PENTAGON. (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentagon)

and also isn't at Ground Zero - it's an old Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 09, 2010, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 09:09:06 AM
Also, this country is retarded:

QuoteWhen presented with the statement "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," just 45 percent of respondents indicated "true." Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Only 33 percent of Americans agreed that "the universe began with a big explosion."

QuoteConsider the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." (So much for dogs, horses or H1N1 flu.) The survey's most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55 percent), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49 percent).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faith-and-foolishness

Please. Scientific American has been biased toward "Science" and "Learning." You hardly ever even see a balanced, dissenting view that the world was made by magic in their pages.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 09, 2010, 09:55:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 09:17:55 AMParking in Chicago.  Fung.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html

I actually prefer the new parking meters to the old. For me the convenience of paying with a credit card is worth the extra fifty cents or a dollar over whatever it used to be.

It's mind-numbingly retarded that the City/Daley was so piss-down-their-legs frightened of the temporary bad PR of raising parking rates that they would forgo billions of dollars to avoid it. Bunch of gutless fucking assholes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 10:14:46 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 09:55:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 09:17:55 AMParking in Chicago.  Fung.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html

I actually prefer the new parking meters to the old. For me the convenience of paying with a credit card is worth the extra fifty cents or a dollar over whatever it used to be.

It's mind-numbingly retarded that the City/Daley was so piss-down-their-legs frightened of the temporary bad PR of raising parking rates that they would forgo billions of dollars to avoid it. Bunch of gutless fucking assholes.

I agree, the new system is much better in terms of customer convenience.  I was referring to the planned continued increases, as well as the complete incompetence of the aldermen and William Blair in their "analysis" that $1B was enough for the rights to a revenue stream that was worth a lot more than that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 10:20:47 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 10:14:46 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 09:55:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 09:17:55 AMParking in Chicago.  Fung.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-09/morgan-stanley-group-s-11-billion-from-chicago-meters-makes-taxpayers-cry.html

I actually prefer the new parking meters to the old. For me the convenience of paying with a credit card is worth the extra fifty cents or a dollar over whatever it used to be.

It's mind-numbingly retarded that the City/Daley was so piss-down-their-legs frightened of the temporary bad PR of raising parking rates that they would forgo billions of dollars to avoid it. Bunch of gutless fucking assholes.

I agree, the new system is much better in terms of customer convenience.  I was referring to the planned continued increases, as well as the complete incompetence of the aldermen and William Blair in their "analysis" that $1B was enough for the rights to a revenue stream that was worth a lot more than that.

If there was even an institution that needed a FIREBARN more than the Cubs, I think you guys have nailed it.

Also, none of this will be a problem once the rights to the water are sold off.

Whither MWRD?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 09, 2010, 11:32:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 09, 2010, 09:21:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 09:11:52 AM
And finally, for all the Sturm und Drang about the World Trade Center mosque (that isn't really a mosque)...THOSE MUSSELMEN ARE TAKING OVER THE PENTAGON. (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentagon)

and also isn't at Ground Zero - it's an old Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place.

That's the Burqington Coat Factory to you, kafir.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 09, 2010, 01:31:45 PM

BOEHNERTIME (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/08/pol.boehner.immigration/index.html)!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 02:11:20 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 09, 2010, 01:31:45 PM

BOEHNERTIME (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/08/pol.boehner.immigration/index.html)!!!

Quote"They should do it the legal way," House Minority Leader John Boehner told NBC's "Meet the Press."

(On a purely political note, I think this means that the GOP's Hispanic outreach (http://www.prfaa.com/news/?p=673) is full steam ahead.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 02:18:18 PM
Somewhat relatedly...

SHOW US YOUR PAPERS!

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/janet-lovett-suing-after-wet-t-shirt-at-florida-splash-park-leads-to-arrest/19582458

Quote"[The] police officer confronted her and started essentially quizzing her and demanding information from her, stating that she needed to put Mrs. Lovett's name in a database," Marks said.

Lovett, a Peruvian native who was granted American citizenship in January, speaks English, albeit "not perfectly," Marks said. She said she explained the situation to the officer and requested to speak with her husband. The officer allegedly denied that request and asked Lovett to produce her identification. She had none with her and told the officer it was in her car.

"I started shaking. I [felt] nervous. My son was inside [the] park with [my] husband. I was alone," Lovett said in an interview with ABC-affiliate WFTV. "[I was] very scared. I [had] never been arrested before."

A police report obtained by WFTV indicates Lovett did not give her name fast enough. As a result, she was taken into custody on suspicion of obstructing justice and resisting arrest.

"[The officer] took my client's arms and twisted them behind her back after handcuffing her," Marks said. "That caused some bruises to her arms and her hands. [She was] then escorted into the back of a patrol car and taken to jail."

Lovett sat in jail for about five hours before her husband could arrange to pay her $1,500 bond. The state attorney later dropped the charges without explanation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2010, 02:49:04 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 02:18:18 PM
Somewhat relatedly...

SHOW US YOUR PAPERS!

Fucking 14th Amendment!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 03:45:15 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 03:45:15 PM

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 03:45:15 PM

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

I think my major criticism regarding the Republicans and tax policy is that we are hearing an awful lot of talk about the deficit of late and of the need to make sure bills are fully paid for before enactment (with which I agree wholeheartedly).  However, this stance taken by the Republicans is negated when they don't have an answer as to how they would pay for the extension of said tax cuts.

That's when I begin to smell hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 04:21:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 03:45:15 PM

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

He didn't say that's "the conservative line." He said:

QuoteAccording to my friend, Bruce Bartlett (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1509/another-dumb-right-wing-idea-default-debt), a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some "conservatives" (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control.

(Bold mine.)

Here's Bartlett...

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1509/another-dumb-right-wing-idea-default-debt

QuoteOver the years I have heard a number of conservatives suggest that defaulting on the national debt wouldn't be such a bad thing. Today Prof. Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee Law School (better known as "Instapundit") suggests (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/94189) the idea once again. Says Reynolds:

"SO HERE'S A QUESTION: Would a default on Treasuries accomplish what the Balanced Budget Amendment was supposed to achieve, by forcing the government to spend no more than it takes in? With more collateral damage, of course. . . ."

...

Mark Thoma (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/02/another-dumb-rightwing-idea-default-on-the-debt.html) thinks I am taking Reynolds too seriously. He's probably right that Reynolds himself was not serious in his suggestion. But I have heard the same idea advanced seriously on numerous occasions among conservatives. I would note that a Fox News poll on October 1, 2009 found two-thirds of Americans saying that the debt limit should not be increased.

The first comment on Bartlett's post points out:

QuoteGingrich threatened debt default (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/22/business/gingrich-threatens-us-default-if-clinton-won-t-bend-on-budget.html?pagewanted=1) during the 1995 budget impasse. That gambit failed because everyone knew that the consequences would be so dire, there's no way the GOP could have stayed united behind it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:23:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 03:45:15 PM

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

I think my major criticism regarding the Republicans and tax policy is that we are hearing an awful lot of talk about the deficit of late and of the need to make sure bills are fully paid for before enactment (with which I agree wholeheartedly).  However, this stance taken by the Republicans is negated when they don't have an answer as to how they would pay for the extension of said tax cuts.

That's when I begin to smell hypocrisy.

What if despite a tax increase, government receipts fall? How do you pay for the drop in income?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 04:21:05 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 03:45:15 PM

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

He didn't say that's "the conservative line." He said:

QuoteAccording to my friend, Bruce Bartlett (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1509/another-dumb-right-wing-idea-default-debt), a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some "conservatives" (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control.

(Bold mine.)

Here's Bartlett...

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1509/another-dumb-right-wing-idea-default-debt

QuoteOver the years I have heard a number of conservatives suggest that defaulting on the national debt wouldn't be such a bad thing. Today Prof. Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee Law School (better known as "Instapundit") suggests (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/94189) the idea once again. Says Reynolds:

"SO HERE'S A QUESTION: Would a default on Treasuries accomplish what the Balanced Budget Amendment was supposed to achieve, by forcing the government to spend no more than it takes in? With more collateral damage, of course. . . ."

...

Mark Thoma (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/02/another-dumb-rightwing-idea-default-on-the-debt.html) thinks I am taking Reynolds too seriously. He's probably right that Reynolds himself was not serious in his suggestion. But I have heard the same idea advanced seriously on numerous occasions among conservatives. I would note that a Fox News poll on October 1, 2009 found two-thirds of Americans saying that the debt limit should not be increased.

The first comment on Bartlett's post points out:

QuoteGingrich threatened debt default (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/22/business/gingrich-threatens-us-default-if-clinton-won-t-bend-on-budget.html?pagewanted=1) during the 1995 budget impasse. That gambit failed because everyone knew that the consequences would be so dire, there's no way the GOP could have stayed united behind it.
[/quote]

I wouldn't put it past this current crop of GOPers.  Defaulting is probably the best way to starve the best, in their minds.  We can deal with the monumental collapse of the world economy some other time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:23:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 03:45:15 PM

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

I think my major criticism regarding the Republicans and tax policy is that we are hearing an awful lot of talk about the deficit of late and of the need to make sure bills are fully paid for before enactment (with which I agree wholeheartedly).  However, this stance taken by the Republicans is negated when they don't have an answer as to how they would pay for the extension of said tax cuts.

That's when I begin to smell hypocrisy.

What if despite a tax increase, government receipts fall? How do you pay for the drop in income?

I think your question presumes that I think a tax increase is the only effective way to control revenue.  In fact, a tax increase coupled with a drop in spending (in the big three [SS, Medicare, or Defense]) would be more than enough to bring our fiscal house in order.  I see no reason to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 04:32:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 04:21:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 03:45:15 PM

Related:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

Martin Wolf interestingly doesn't answer where the marginal rates should be. Yes, a knock on the right is that we always think taxes should be lower; a knock on the left is that they always think taxes should be higher. Also, Wolf suggesting that the conservative line is rooting for the government to default undermines his credibility.

He didn't say that's "the conservative line." He said:

QuoteAccording to my friend, Bruce Bartlett (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1509/another-dumb-right-wing-idea-default-debt), a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some "conservatives" (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control.

(Bold mine.)

Here's Bartlett...

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1509/another-dumb-right-wing-idea-default-debt

QuoteOver the years I have heard a number of conservatives suggest that defaulting on the national debt wouldn't be such a bad thing. Today Prof. Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee Law School (better known as "Instapundit") suggests (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/94189) the idea once again. Says Reynolds:

"SO HERE'S A QUESTION: Would a default on Treasuries accomplish what the Balanced Budget Amendment was supposed to achieve, by forcing the government to spend no more than it takes in? With more collateral damage, of course. . . ."

...

Mark Thoma (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/02/another-dumb-rightwing-idea-default-on-the-debt.html) thinks I am taking Reynolds too seriously. He's probably right that Reynolds himself was not serious in his suggestion. But I have heard the same idea advanced seriously on numerous occasions among conservatives. I would note that a Fox News poll on October 1, 2009 found two-thirds of Americans saying that the debt limit should not be increased.

The first comment on Bartlett's post points out:

QuoteGingrich threatened debt default (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/22/business/gingrich-threatens-us-default-if-clinton-won-t-bend-on-budget.html?pagewanted=1) during the 1995 budget impasse. That gambit failed because everyone knew that the consequences would be so dire, there's no way the GOP could have stayed united behind it.

I wouldn't put it past this current crop of GOPers.  Defaulting is probably the best way to starve the best, in their minds.  We can deal with the monumental collapse of the world economy some other time.

Quote tag fixed'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
Seriously folks, as long as the Fed can still print money, Federal default is about as likely as me giving up cheddar stacking.  The more likely outcome would be monetization and crazy-ass inflation.  As for the Laffer Curve questions... I think Mankiw summed it up pretty well.
QuoteMy guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.

Another question I find interesting is: should we be trying to hit the revenue-maximizing point at all?  Is that really the point - are we trying to maximize revenue to the Federal government for the economy as a whole?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2010, 04:54:24 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
Seriously folks, as long as the Fed can still print money, Federal default is about as likely as me giving up cheddar stacking.  The more likely outcome would be monetization and crazy-ass inflation.  As for the Laffer Curve questions... I think Mankiw summed it up pretty well.
QuoteMy guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.

Another question I find interesting is: should we be trying to hit the revenue-maximizing point at all?  Is that really the point - are we trying to maximize revenue to the Federal government for the economy as a whole?

No.  The point is: Cutting taxes will not raise revenue and anyone who says so is either delusional, just trying to get elected by offering free money, or both.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
Seriously folks, as long as the Fed can still print money, Federal default is about as likely as me giving up cheddar stacking.  The more likely outcome would be monetization and crazy-ass inflation.  As for the Laffer Curve questions... I think Mankiw summed it up pretty well.
QuoteMy guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.

Another question I find interesting is: should we be trying to hit the revenue-maximizing point at all?  Is that really the point - are we trying to maximize revenue to the Federal government for the economy as a whole?


The controversial Arthur Laffer himself: (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-05/squeezing-the-rich-is-poor-way-to-spur-growth-commentary-by-caroline-baum.html)

QuoteIt's not tax cuts that pay for themselves. Tax cuts on the poor cost you lots of money. Tax cuts on the rich pay for themselves. Rich people can afford lawyers, accountants, and can defer income.

So, if Laffer and Fork agree that raising taxes on the bottom 80 percent would increase revenue and we all could agree that this would not be a good idea, maybe Morph's point (that maximizing revenue is not necessarily the end-all of tax policy) is the point that needs to be argued.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 04:57:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
Seriously folks, as long as the Fed can still print money, Federal default is about as likely as me giving up cheddar stacking.  The more likely outcome would be monetization and crazy-ass inflation.  As for the Laffer Curve questions... I think Mankiw summed it up pretty well.
QuoteMy guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.

Here's more Mankiw, from the Martin Wolf post I linked above...

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-genius-of-supply-side-economics/

QuoteIndeed, Greg Mankiw, no less, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, has responded to the view that broad-based tax cuts would pay for themselves, as follows: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't." Indeed, he has referred to those who believe this as "charlatans and cranks (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html)". Those are his words, not mine, though I agree. They apply, in force, to contemporary Republicans, alas,

From the post Wolf links to:

QuoteI used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

The book made clear that the critique applied to a particular reason to favor the tax cuts, not necessarily to the policy of cutting taxes. There are many reasons a person might favor tax cuts besides the belief that tax cuts are self-financing. I hope it is not too pedantic to point out that there is a big difference between rejecting a policy and rejecting one argument made by some proponents of the policy.

...

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V76-4J8K5VF-1&_user=10&_handle=V-WA-A-W-WY-MsSAYVW-UUA-U-AACUWDBCVW-AAVDYCVBVW-YZECAWVWD-WY-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=02%2F15%2F2006&_rdoc=13&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235834%239999%23999999999%2399999!&_cdi=5834&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8391d808449a05b05f1090799867f334), written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 05:05:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2010, 04:54:24 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
Seriously folks, as long as the Fed can still print money, Federal default is about as likely as me giving up cheddar stacking.  The more likely outcome would be monetization and crazy-ass inflation.  As for the Laffer Curve questions... I think Mankiw summed it up pretty well.
QuoteMy guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.

Another question I find interesting is: should we be trying to hit the revenue-maximizing point at all?  Is that really the point - are we trying to maximize revenue to the Federal government for the economy as a whole?

No.  The point is: Cutting taxes will not raise revenue and anyone who says so is either delusional, just trying to get elected by offering free money, or both.

But Chuck, the question is whether raising taxes will increase revenue? And how high should taxes be raised? And even more abstractly, at what level are taxes not confiscatory?

The current tax structure has been in place for nearly a decade. By letting the tax cuts expire, that is a de facto tax increase. Are we comfortable with this?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 09, 2010, 05:07:12 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

I had the same thought. Why not ask Mike Gravel? He's not busy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 05:07:12 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:12:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM
An interesting collection of thoughts on the Laffer curve:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html

Very interesting, but it would have been enlightening to see if any Dem politicians would volunteer to answer the question as well.

I had the same thought. Why not ask Mike Gravel? He's not busy.

Let's ask him.

What's your take, Mr. Gravel? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 05:05:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2010, 04:54:24 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
Seriously folks, as long as the Fed can still print money, Federal default is about as likely as me giving up cheddar stacking.  The more likely outcome would be monetization and crazy-ass inflation.  As for the Laffer Curve questions... I think Mankiw summed it up pretty well.
QuoteMy guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.

Another question I find interesting is: should we be trying to hit the revenue-maximizing point at all?  Is that really the point - are we trying to maximize revenue to the Federal government for the economy as a whole?

No.  The point is: Cutting taxes will not raise revenue and anyone who says so is either delusional, just trying to get elected by offering free money, or both.

But Chuck, the question is whether raising taxes will increase revenue? And how high should taxes be raised? And even more abstractly, at what level are taxes not confiscatory?

The current tax structure has been in place for nearly a decade. By letting the tax cuts expire, that is a de facto tax increase. Are we comfortable with this?

It's not a de facto tax increase.  It's a reflection that when these tax cuts were passed into law, the Senate parliamentarian knew that they couldn't pay for themselves and that a sunset provision, per the Byrd rule, should be applied.

Again, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the opponents of these tax cuts are seeking to maximize revenue to the federal government.  If anything, the government's finances should be in balance and that any proposal should be paid for before enactment.

And to say that a 39 percent marginal tax rate at the high end of the spectrum is confiscatory is absurd.  Tax rates, for decades prior to that level, were in excess of 50 percent.  Now, I'm not arguing that we should return to those levels, but merely responding to your contention.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2010, 06:03:09 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 05:05:17 PM
The current tax structure has been in place for nearly a decade. By letting the tax cuts expire, that is a de facto tax increase. Are we comfortable with this?

I blame the congress and president that didn't have the balls for permanent tax policy when they voted it in.  Am I in favor of current tax policy?  No.  That's what I voted against the guys that created the policy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 09, 2010, 07:06:31 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
Seriously folks, as long as the Fed can still print money, Federal default is about as likely as me giving up cheddar stacking.  The more likely outcome would be monetization and crazy-ass inflation.  As for the Laffer Curve questions... I think Mankiw summed it up pretty well.
QuoteMy guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.

Another question I find interesting is: should we be trying to hit the revenue-maximizing point at all?  Is that really the point - are we trying to maximize revenue to the Federal government for the economy as a whole?


The controversial Arthur Laffer himself: (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-05/squeezing-the-rich-is-poor-way-to-spur-growth-commentary-by-caroline-baum.html)

QuoteIt's not tax cuts that pay for themselves. Tax cuts on the poor cost you lots of money. Tax cuts on the rich pay for themselves. Rich people can afford lawyers, accountants, and can defer income.

So, if Laffer and Fork agree that raising taxes on the bottom 80 percent would increase revenue and we all could agree that this would not be a good idea, maybe Morph's point (that maximizing revenue is not necessarily the end-all of tax policy) is the point that needs to be argued.

Huh?

I'll assume a typo.

The Bush cuts need to expire. The idea of keeping them in while waging two wars was asinine at the time, insane now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 08:32:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2010, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 05:05:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2010, 04:54:24 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 09, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
Seriously folks, as long as the Fed can still print money, Federal default is about as likely as me giving up cheddar stacking.  The more likely outcome would be monetization and crazy-ass inflation.  As for the Laffer Curve questions... I think Mankiw summed it up pretty well.
QuoteMy guess is that that the short-run answer and the long-run answer are quite different. For example, if you raised the top rate from 35 to, say, 60 percent, you might raise revenue in the short run. Over time, however, you would get lower economic growth, so the additional revenues would fall off and eventually decline below what they would have been at the lower rate.... I will pass on offering a specific number, as it would require more time and thought than I can offer just now, but I will opine that I think the long-run answer is actually more important for policy purposes than the short-run answer.

Another question I find interesting is: should we be trying to hit the revenue-maximizing point at all?  Is that really the point - are we trying to maximize revenue to the Federal government for the economy as a whole?

No.  The point is: Cutting taxes will not raise revenue and anyone who says so is either delusional, just trying to get elected by offering free money, or both.

But Chuck, the question is whether raising taxes will increase revenue? And how high should taxes be raised? And even more abstractly, at what level are taxes not confiscatory?

The current tax structure has been in place for nearly a decade. By letting the tax cuts expire, that is a de facto tax increase. Are we comfortable with this?

It's not a de facto tax increase.  It's a reflection that when these tax cuts were passed into law, the Senate parliamentarian knew that they couldn't pay for themselves and that a sunset provision, per the Byrd rule, should be applied.

Again, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the opponents of these tax cuts are seeking to maximize revenue to the federal government.  If anything, the government's finances should be in balance and that any proposal should be paid for before enactment.

And to say that a 39 percent marginal tax rate at the high end of the spectrum is confiscatory is absurd.  Tax rates, for decades prior to that level, were in excess of 50 percent.  Now, I'm not arguing that we should return to those levels, but merely responding to your contention.

But it is. The taxes you're paying today < the taxes you're paying tomorrow.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2010, 08:38:09 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 08:32:45 PM
But it is. The taxes you're paying today < the taxes you're paying tomorrow.

Next time, vote for Gore.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 09, 2010, 08:46:46 PM
So aside from semantics over what is or isn't a tax increase - I don't want to speak for Klein, but in reading some of his prior posts I think what he's getting at is that if we hold the following to be true:

- Long term deficits are bad
- Starve the beast doesn't work (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2010/05/starving_the_be.html)

Then we're going to need some level of revenue increases (as well as spending cuts) to get long-term deficits under control.

All this means that it's worth having a discussion over an optimal set of tax rates. Not necessarily the rate that will generate the most revenue or the least revenue for the government. The discussion begins with one's judgment of where the Laffer Curve bends - that's the upper limit of what's on the table. And I'm definitely interested to hear what elected Democrats think.

Personally, I agree with Bartlett's take that 50% rates are, psychologically at least, confiscatory. I also think that it's asinine that we have different tax brackets for individuals earning 30k and 40k - yet an individual making 375k is in the same bracket as an individual making 40 million. Short of comprehensive reform (which is unlikely considering the how dysfunctional the Senate is at the moment) I think we could use a few brackets on the upper end.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 09, 2010, 09:23:52 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 09, 2010, 05:05:17 PM
The current tax structure has been in place for nearly a decade. By letting the tax cuts expire, that is a de facto tax increase. Are we comfortable with this?

For whatever reason, this phrasing reminded me of when Wood and Prior would come off the disabled list and the Cubs would liken it to trading for a superstar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2010, 10:05:25 PM
A search for "JetBlue" gave me this...

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2010, 10:10:57 PM
Last link, but an interesting rule change from our sister agency, the National Mediation Board:

QuoteThe National Mediation Board, the body that oversees airline and railway labor negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, yesterday authorized changes that would in effect lower the number of votes required to form a new union. The decision could have profound effects at airlines such as Delta Air Lines and JetBlue, where unions have fought to gain a foothold.

Is there no harbor safe from Obama's tyranny?

QuoteWorkers were previously required to gain a majority of the entire class of workers to win collective bargaining rights, meaning that "no-shows" counted against the union. Under the new rules workers will be allowed to organize if they win a simple majority of those who vote.

Oh.  So, those elections will be counted like every other damn election in this country.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2d37082-5c94-11df-bb38-00144feab49a.html

Bet this guy wishes he could file a grievance with his union...

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/08/09/fed-up-flight-attendant-pops-planes-emergency-chute-at-jfk-slides-away/

QuoteA jetBlue flight attendant upset because a passenger refused to apologize after accidentally striking him with luggage, allegedly spewed obscenities over the PA system, then activated and slid down a plane's emergency chute before disappearing into a terminal at John F. Kennedy airport Monday, an airport official said.

JetBlue Flight 1052 from Pittsburgh had taxied to a stop at Terminal 5, Gate C around noon Monday when flight attendant Steven Slater, 38, was struck in the head with luggage that a passenger was trying to unload from an overhead compartment, according to an airport official with knowledge of the incident.

Slater demanded an apology from the passenger, the official said, but the passenger refused. The two argued before the passenger told Slater to  "f— off", the official said. The official said that Slater then got on the plane's PA system and directed that same obscenity at all the passengers and added that he especially meant it for the man who refused to apologize.

Slater is alleged to have then activated the plane's inflatable emergency slide, grabbed two beers from the galley, then slid down the chute, the official said.

...

Gawker unearthed what appears to be Slater's MySpace page (http://gawker.com/5608503/flight-attendant-uses-inflatable-slide-for-dramatic-job-walk+out), which mentions overcoming alcohol and substance abuse, and includes comments about how he 'loves to max it out with trips around the world, sometimes on a moment's notice!'

MySpace?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
For the sake of stating my position somewhat succinctly, I choose to roll dice with Friedman, Laffer, and Morpheus on this.

That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.  If the end is to balance a budget, cutting is the ONLY means to get there.  Everything else is just noise. 

Giving the Keynesians in the room the benefit of the doubt momentarily.  Any minor revenue shortfall that MAY exist from this tax cut is dwarfed by the amount that the government will lose over 10-20 years with Obamacare...that is, unless you are silly enough to believe the government revenue assumptions in that bill (which would be completely foolish).  This Bush tax cut thing strikes me as an odd (and bad) place politically to pick a battle under the premise of balancing a budget considering the expensive year this administration has had.  This approach won't be endearing to moderates.

Speaking of politics...screw John Boehner and the GOP for being such candy asses.  His performance on MTP yesterday was embarrassing.  Instead of leading, they are going to coast into November assuming the Dems have already wet the bed beyond repair via Obamacare and the oil spill.  Take no stance, take no risk, collect your 30 seats.  Same shit the Dems pulled in 2006.  Agree with Obama or not, the guy takes a stand.  The guy socialist everyone voted for, is the guy socialist we've pretty much gotten, short of a few minor promises that he hasn't kept.

Bottom line is that our government is....how do you say...not very good at their jobs.   I wish I felt like anti-incumbency will fix things...but I also know we've been down this road before.  (unwrinkling my copy of the Contract With America

One little aside/plug.  My fellow Cincinnati transplant, Mike McConnell, is now on WGN from 8:30-12:30 weekdays.  As a Libertarian, I suspect he'll irritate a good number of you, but he's worth a listen...has been the best talk show host in the country for a long time, IMO.   Even if you don't agree with him much, it's a thoughtful show...not the circus that Levin, Limbaugh, and others tend to run. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 09, 2010, 11:00:55 PM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PMOne little aside/plug.  My fellow Cincinnati transplant, Mike McConnell, is now on WGN from 8:30-12:30 weekdays.  As a Libertarian, I suspect he'll irritate a good number of you, but he's worth a listen...has been the best talk show host in the country for a long time, IMO.

Does he have a newsletter where I could find his recipe for "chunky pudding with boiled sausage roll"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 11:20:08 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 09, 2010, 11:00:55 PM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PMOne little aside/plug.  My fellow Cincinnati transplant, Mike McConnell, is now on WGN from 8:30-12:30 weekdays.  As a Libertarian, I suspect he'll irritate a good number of you, but he's worth a listen...has been the best talk show host in the country for a long time, IMO.

Does he have a newsletter where I could find his recipe for "chunky pudding with boiled sausage roll"?

I'm pretty sure that's Koyie Hill's contribution to the Cubs cookbook.   Mike wouldn't engage in plagiarism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 09, 2010, 11:32:42 PM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 11:20:08 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 09, 2010, 11:00:55 PM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PMOne little aside/plug.  My fellow Cincinnati transplant, Mike McConnell, is now on WGN from 8:30-12:30 weekdays.  As a Libertarian, I suspect he'll irritate a good number of you, but he's worth a listen...has been the best talk show host in the country for a long time, IMO.

Does he have a newsletter where I could find his recipe for "chunky pudding with boiled sausage roll"?

I'm pretty sure that's Koyie Hill's contribution to the Cubs cookbook.   Mike wouldn't engage in plagiarism.

He's already plagiarized his very appearance from Chuck Woolery.

[Indeed, it's really turds to Newcastle with the WLW imports, no? At least WGN-TV is going forward with the Bill Cunningham vehicle formerly known as "Big Willy." THANK FUCKING G-D. You know what? Fuck Cincinnati. "Cincy" is the best argument for the continued development of the neutron bomb ever devised by man. A fucking "Cincinnati Libertarian" is going to irritate me? As opposed to what, a Volkswagen filled with clowns dressed up to illustrate the essentials of this proud swamp's culinary contribution to society? OH, LOOK, WHAT IS THIS? Bavarian fountain plans? We must proceed immediately! I hope the fissure in the mind that is the only thing Cincinnati has brought to mankind is soon accompanied by a compensating fissure in the earth.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 12:54:46 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 09, 2010, 11:32:42 PM
[Indeed, it's really turds to Newcastle with the WLW imports, no? At least WGN-TV is going forward with the Bill Cunningham vehicle formerly known as "Big Willy." THANK FUCKING G-D. You know what? Fuck Cincinnati. "Cincy" is the best argument for the continued development of the neutron bomb ever devised by man. A fucking "Cincinnati Libertarian" is going to irritate me? As opposed to what, a Volkswagen filled with clowns dressed up to illustrate the essentials of this proud swamp's culinary contribution to society? OH, LOOK, WHAT IS THIS? Bavarian fountain plans? We must proceed immediately! I hope the fissure in the mind that is the only thing Cincinnati has brought to mankind is soon accompanied by a compensating fissure in the earth.]

They make drugs for this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 10, 2010, 01:07:37 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 12:54:46 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 09, 2010, 11:32:42 PM
[Indeed, it's really turds to Newcastle with the WLW imports, no? At least WGN-TV is going forward with the Bill Cunningham vehicle formerly known as "Big Willy." THANK FUCKING G-D. You know what? Fuck Cincinnati. "Cincy" is the best argument for the continued development of the neutron bomb ever devised by man. A fucking "Cincinnati Libertarian" is going to irritate me? As opposed to what, a Volkswagen filled with clowns dressed up to illustrate the essentials of this proud swamp's culinary contribution to society? OH, LOOK, WHAT IS THIS? Bavarian fountain plans? We must proceed immediately! I hope the fissure in the mind that is the only thing Cincinnati has brought to mankind is soon accompanied by a compensating fissure in the earth.]

They make drugs for this.

No doubt they hand them out at The Sons of Norway Edvard Grieg Lodge #5-657.

[This is too good (http://www.uc.edu/News/NR.aspx?ID=2601). Tirana of course gets the snub among Cincinnati's putative sister cities (http://www.cincinnatisistercity.org). Our pride, our pride, they'd rather  unearth the natural history of these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQXbDG8tKxM) than scour the burial hillocks of the proud Greek rot that claims to have invented chili. I'm reminded of the punchline "I thought you said you wanted to have children!"]

[Oh, indeed, from where else would one be likely to find an indictment of the "foul embraces of empiricism (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM184610140351106)"?]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 10, 2010, 06:45:46 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/DebtTaxCutsJan2010projections_7-30-10_opt.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM

Maybe we should put the budgetary decision in the hands of the populace.

Then none of us would pay taxes, and we'd have every gubment program ever dreamed of.

And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on August 10, 2010, 07:27:33 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
For the sake of stating my position somewhat succinctly, I choose to roll dice with Friedman, Laffer, and Morpheus on this.

That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.  If the end is to balance a budget, cutting is the ONLY means to get there.  Everything else is just noise. 

Giving the Keynesians in the room the benefit of the doubt momentarily.  Any minor revenue shortfall that MAY exist from this tax cut is dwarfed by the amount that the government will lose over 10-20 years with Obamacare...that is, unless you are silly enough to believe the government revenue assumptions in that bill (which would be completely foolish).  This Bush tax cut thing strikes me as an odd (and bad) place politically to pick a battle under the premise of balancing a budget considering the expensive year this administration has had.  This approach won't be endearing to moderates.

Speaking of politics...screw John Boehner and the GOP for being such candy asses.  His performance on MTP yesterday was embarrassing.  Instead of leading, they are going to coast into November assuming the Dems have already wet the bed beyond repair via Obamacare and the oil spill.  Take no stance, take no risk, collect your 30 seats.  Same shit the Dems pulled in 2006.  Agree with Obama or not, the guy takes a stand.  The guy socialist everyone voted for, is the guy socialist we've pretty much gotten, short of a few minor promises that he hasn't kept.

Bottom line is that our government is....how do you say...not very good at their jobs.   I wish I felt like anti-incumbency will fix things...but I also know we've been down this road before.  (unwrinkling my copy of the Contract With America

One little aside/plug.  My fellow Cincinnati transplant, Mike McConnell, is now on WGN from 8:30-12:30 weekdays.  As a Libertarian, I suspect he'll irritate a good number of you, but he's worth a listen...has been the best talk show host in the country for a long time, IMO.   Even if you don't agree with him much, it's a thoughtful show...not the circus that Levin, Limbaugh, and others tend to run. 

There are only two things that concern John Boehner,; when is his next golf game and when is his next appointment at the tanning salon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:28:59 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 09, 2010, 11:32:42 PM
As opposed to what, a Volkswagen filled with clowns dressed up to illustrate the essentials of this proud swamp's culinary contribution to society?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, we're finally on our own...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:33:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 06:45:46 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/DebtTaxCutsJan2010projections_7-30-10_opt.jpg)

Trillion-dollar tax cut offsets basically grow on trees.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 10, 2010, 08:34:20 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:33:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 06:45:46 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/DebtTaxCutsJan2010projections_7-30-10_opt.jpg)

Trillion-dollar tax cut offsets basically grow on trees.

So this is the Cabrera Curve?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM
And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.

Vote Bort 2012.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 10, 2010, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM
And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.

Vote Bort 2012.

Why would I vote for my son? He can't even breathe air yet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
For the sake of stating my position somewhat succinctly, I choose to roll dice with Friedman, Laffer, and Morpheus on this.

Roll the dice with them on what? The idea that tax cuts completely pay for themselves through increased revenue? I don't think Morph is suggesting that, nor do I believe Milton Friedman ever argued the same. The notion that we're on the downward sloping side of the Laffer curve right now? Ditto.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM
And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.

Vote Bort 2012.

Why would I vote for my son? He can't even breathe air yet.

Is he a CHUD?

I'd vote for a CHUD President.

The better to defend us against the predations of the Mole People.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:47:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM
And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.

Vote Bort 2012.

Why would I vote for my son? He can't even breathe air yet.

Is he a CHUD?

I'd vote for a CHUD President.

The better to defend us against the predations of the Mole People.

I've already got my future Secretary of War* working on this one. TEC, show them the Death Ray plans.


*Defense? Pussies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 10, 2010, 09:04:46 AM
Arizona is going to get yet another education on federal preemption.

http://www.yumasun.com/news/ballot-62886-union-measure.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 10, 2010, 09:05:17 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:47:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM
And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.

Vote Bort 2012.

Why would I vote for my son? He can't even breathe air yet.

Is he a CHUD?

I'd vote for a CHUD President.

The better to defend us against the predations of the Mole People.

I've already got my future Secretary of War* working on this one. TEC, show them the Death Ray plans.


*Defense? Pussies.

Can we replace the Department of the Treasury with a Department of Cheddar?  Also, I'd like to submit myself as a candidate for this very important position.  I am well versed in the stacking of said cheddar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 10, 2010, 09:06:53 AM
Glenn Greenwald rightfully takes Gibbs to the woodshed (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html) for this whiny strawman bullplop:

QuoteDuring an interview with The Hill in his West Wing office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs blasted liberal naysayers, whom he said would never regard anything the president did as good enough.

"I hear these people saying he's like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested," Gibbs said. "I mean, it's crazy."

The press secretary dismissed the "professional left" in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, "They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we've eliminated the Pentagon. That's not reality."

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: "They wouldn't be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 10, 2010, 09:08:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 10, 2010, 09:05:17 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:47:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM
And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.

Vote Bort 2012.

Why would I vote for my son? He can't even breathe air yet.

Is he a CHUD?

I'd vote for a CHUD President.

The better to defend us against the predations of the Mole People.

I've already got my future Secretary of War* working on this one. TEC, show them the Death Ray plans.


*Defense? Pussies.

Can we replace the Department of the Treasury with a Department of Cheddar?  Also, I'd like to submit myself as a candidate for this very important position.  I am well versed in the stacking of said cheddar.

We get it, morph.  You make a lot of money.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 10, 2010, 09:11:42 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 10, 2010, 09:08:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 10, 2010, 09:05:17 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:47:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM
And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.

Vote Bort 2012.

Why would I vote for my son? He can't even breathe air yet.

Is he a CHUD?

I'd vote for a CHUD President.

The better to defend us against the predations of the Mole People.

I've already got my future Secretary of War* working on this one. TEC, show them the Death Ray plans.


*Defense? Pussies.

Can we replace the Department of the Treasury with a Department of Cheddar?  Also, I'd like to submit myself as a candidate for this very important position.  I am well versed in the stacking of said cheddar.

We get it, morph.  You make a lot of money.

Money is good. President Bort will need said cheddar to put a flying car in every hovering garage.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 10, 2010, 09:12:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 10, 2010, 09:08:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 10, 2010, 09:05:17 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:47:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:41:59 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 08:39:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 10, 2010, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 10, 2010, 07:20:37 AM
And we'd finally get some Jetsons shit.

Vote Bort 2012.

Why would I vote for my son? He can't even breathe air yet.

Is he a CHUD?

I'd vote for a CHUD President.

The better to defend us against the predations of the Mole People.

I've already got my future Secretary of War* working on this one. TEC, show them the Death Ray plans.


*Defense? Pussies.

Can we replace the Department of the Treasury with a Department of Cheddar?  Also, I'd like to submit myself as a candidate for this very important position.  I am well versed in the stacking of said cheddar.

We get it, morph.  You make deal with a lot of money.

Truth'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 10, 2010, 09:24:11 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 09, 2010, 08:46:46 PM
So aside from semantics over what is or isn't a tax increase - I don't want to speak for Klein, but in reading some of his prior posts I think what he's getting at is that if we hold the following to be true:

- Long term deficits are bad
- Starve the beast doesn't work (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2010/05/starving_the_be.html)

Then we're going to need some level of revenue increases (as well as spending cuts) to get long-term deficits under control.

All this means that it's worth having a discussion over an optimal set of tax rates. Not necessarily the rate that will generate the most revenue or the least revenue for the government. The discussion begins with one's judgment of where the Laffer Curve bends - that's the upper limit of what's on the table. And I'm definitely interested to hear what elected Democrats think.

Personally, I agree with Bartlett's take that 50% rates are, psychologically at least, confiscatory. I also think that it's asinine that we have different tax brackets for individuals earning 30k and 40k - yet an individual making 375k is in the same bracket as an individual making 40 million. Short of comprehensive reform (which is unlikely considering the how dysfunctional the Senate is at the moment) I think we could use a few brackets on the upper end.

DPD.  These are wise words, and ones I wish I heard more on both sides of the aisle.  I think that's twice now that RV and I have agreed in this thread.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 06:45:46 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/DebtTaxCutsJan2010projections_7-30-10_opt.jpg)

I don't understand all of the assumptions the CBO used to comment on this graph.  It has to be a bit more complicated than that.  They also did modeling used by Democrats to justify the Healthcare plan that as mentioned before, will never ever come to fruition the way it was drawn up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 09:37:53 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
For the sake of stating my position somewhat succinctly, I choose to roll dice with Friedman, Laffer, and Morpheus on this.

Roll the dice with them on what? The idea that tax cuts completely pay for themselves through increased revenue? I don't think Morph is suggesting that, nor do I believe Milton Friedman ever argued the same. The notion that we're on the downward sloping side of the Laffer curve right now? Ditto.

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending."  - Milton Friedman

While the context isn't precisely the same as this exact discussion, we can extrapolate this to mean he would not support a roll back of the Bush tax cuts.  No?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 10, 2010, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 06:45:46 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/DebtTaxCutsJan2010projections_7-30-10_opt.jpg)

I don't understand all of the assumptions the CBO used to comment on this graph.  It has to be a bit more complicated than that.  They also did modeling used by Democrats to justify the Healthcare plan that as mentioned before, will never ever come to fruition the way it was drawn up.

Don't understand the assumptions? Maybe try taking a look at the CBO source documents before dismissing them offhand?

It has to be more complicated? Well, no shit. Projections are just that - projections. So why do you think this projection is more or less valid than any other projection? Or are we just going to dismiss any conclusion that's too complicated?

Why will the CBO healthcare models "never ever" come to fruition? What makes the CBO models more or less dependable than the other models that I presume you're relying on?

There seems to be a lot of hand-waving and dismissal going on here without either offering alternate conclusions or some sort of justification for the hand-waving.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2010, 10:07:27 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 09:37:53 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
For the sake of stating my position somewhat succinctly, I choose to roll dice with Friedman, Laffer, and Morpheus on this.

Roll the dice with them on what? The idea that tax cuts completely pay for themselves through increased revenue? I don't think Morph is suggesting that, nor do I believe Milton Friedman ever argued the same. The notion that we're on the downward sloping side of the Laffer curve right now? Ditto.

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending."  - Milton Friedman

While the context isn't precisely the same as this exact discussion, we can extrapolate this to mean he would not support a roll back of the Bush tax cuts.  No?

No?  Are you 100% CERTAIN Milt wouldn't say "It's just not possible right now."?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 06:45:46 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/DebtTaxCutsJan2010projections_7-30-10_opt.jpg)

I don't understand all of the assumptions the CBO used to comment on this graph.  It has to be a bit more complicated than that.  They also did modeling used by Democrats to justify the Healthcare plan that as mentioned before, will never ever come to fruition the way it was drawn up.

Don't understand the assumptions? Maybe try taking a look at the CBO source documents before dismissing them offhand?

It has to be more complicated? Well, no shit. Projections are just that - projections. So why do you think this projection is more or less valid than any other projection? Or are we just going to dismiss any conclusion that's too complicated?

Why will the CBO healthcare models "never ever" come to fruition? What makes the CBO models more or less dependable than the other models that I presume you're relying on?

There seems to be a lot of hand-waving and dismissal going on here without either offering alternate conclusions or some sort of justification for the hand-waving.

I don't mind discussing this, but please don't bend what I typed.  I didn't "dismiss" anything...I just didn't choose to blindly accept a rudimentary graph as gospel.  I'm fine with the CBO and what they do...but their models are also infamous for being "garbage in - garbage out".   I'm not in a position this morning where I can rip into a deep dive fact-finding mission on wherever those numbers cane from.

Case in point, a quick Google search brought me this generic article (not from a right-wing website) pertaining to the modeling that was used to claim Obamacare would be solvent.  At some point, I bet the CBO even showed this graphically.  Do you really think all of those things will occur?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/03/congressional_budget_offices_h.html (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/03/congressional_budget_offices_h.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 10, 2010, 12:34:34 PM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 10:08:19 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 09:54:19 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 06:45:46 AM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 09, 2010, 10:48:44 PM
That said, even if I were wrong, this tax rollback would be such a small difference in net revenue that it's not even worth focusing on.   It's probably a few billion either way.

ORLY?

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/DebtTaxCutsJan2010projections_7-30-10_opt.jpg)

I don't understand all of the assumptions the CBO used to comment on this graph.  It has to be a bit more complicated than that.  They also did modeling used by Democrats to justify the Healthcare plan that as mentioned before, will never ever come to fruition the way it was drawn up.

Don't understand the assumptions? Maybe try taking a look at the CBO source documents before dismissing them offhand?

It has to be more complicated? Well, no shit. Projections are just that - projections. So why do you think this projection is more or less valid than any other projection? Or are we just going to dismiss any conclusion that's too complicated?

Why will the CBO healthcare models "never ever" come to fruition? What makes the CBO models more or less dependable than the other models that I presume you're relying on?

There seems to be a lot of hand-waving and dismissal going on here without either offering alternate conclusions or some sort of justification for the hand-waving.

I don't mind discussing this, but please don't bend what I typed.  I didn't "dismiss" anything...I just didn't choose to blindly accept a rudimentary graph as gospel.  I'm fine with the CBO and what they do...but their models are also infamous for being "garbage in - garbage out".   I'm not in a position this morning where I can rip into a deep dive fact-finding mission on wherever those numbers cane from.

Case in point, a quick Google search brought me this generic article (not from a right-wing website) pertaining to the modeling that was used to claim Obamacare would be solvent.  At some point, I bet the CBO even showed this graphically.  Do you really think all of those things will occur?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/03/congressional_budget_offices_h.html (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/03/congressional_budget_offices_h.html)

Nobody claimed the graph was gospel. It's just a graph plotting expected debt as a percentage of GDP. No one is asking you to take some wild leap of faith by agreeing that some lines on a graph might be reasonable given what we know. Everyone knows that ANY projection prepared by any body, public or private, trying to estimate events more than a few years in the future, is a crapshoot. But the CBO's purpose is to do the best they can with the data, and they've got scores of dorks sitting around working on these projections. Any projection can be picked apart. But is there a body out there that's more reliable than the CBO?

Quote"They're neutral and they're well qualified," said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat. "But quite a few things have to be judgmental. It's a tough business."

As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on August 10, 2010, 12:55:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 12:34:34 PM
As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Oh yeah?  Well, there's no precedence of having a Socialist in power also, so we're sort of in uncharted water here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on August 10, 2010, 01:06:16 PM
Quote from: Oleg on August 10, 2010, 12:55:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 12:34:34 PM
As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Oh yeah?  Well, there's no precedence of having a Socialist in power also, so we're sort of in uncharted water here.

And he's black. They're not good with money, kay? Have you SEEN all those unsavory neighborhoods of theirs? You don't get there by being fiscally responsible.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 10, 2010, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on August 10, 2010, 12:55:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 12:34:34 PM
As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Oh yeah?  Well, there's no precedence of having a Socialist in power also, so we're sort of in uncharted water here.

Sure there is. Just ask Gil. (http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/Program%20Briefs/vol5no27barone.htm)

QuoteHe also developed a policy toward Native Americans that is still in place today, proposed a Family Assistance Program to provide a guaranteed income to welfare recipients, and, after the 1972 election, implemented wage and price controls. Finally, Nixon cut a deal with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills to increase Social Security payments and index them to inflation, which Barone called a "tremendous piece of public policy" that lifted elderly people out of poverty.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 10, 2010, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on August 10, 2010, 12:55:07 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 12:34:34 PM
As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Oh yeah?  Well, there's no precedence of having a Socialist in power also, so we're sort of in uncharted water here.

Sure there is. Just ask Gil. (http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/Program%20Briefs/vol5no27barone.htm)

QuoteHe also developed a policy toward Native Americans that is still in place today, proposed a Family Assistance Program to provide a guaranteed income to welfare recipients, and, after the 1972 election, implemented wage and price controls. Finally, Nixon cut a deal with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur Mills to increase Social Security payments and index them to inflation, which Barone called a "tremendous piece of public policy" that lifted elderly people out of poverty.

You fucker.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 10, 2010, 01:21:44 PM
And there is precedent for major legislation to be overturned or augmented once another party comes into power.  Probably nothing as consequential as SS, Medicare or the recent health care bill, but the Wagner Act was passed in 1935, the GOP spent the better part of the next 12 years advocating it's repeal.  When they came into power, they amended it significantly with the Taft Hartley Act, which passed over Truman's veto in 1947.  However, again, nothing as significant as the other laws I made mention of.  That was one of the fears the GOP had with HCR was that once passed, there would be little chance to repeal it, as Americans generally learn to like laws after they are passed and often don't want them repealed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 02:15:16 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 12:34:34 PM
As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Not inherently.  But when a huge chunk of the funding for the largest spending program in U.S. history is contingent on the enactment of laws that won't take effect for 8 years...the math certainly should be open to scrutiny and doubt.  Not by the CBO (you and I agree, they are merely "messengers" of the data and assumptions they are given), but by the elected officials voting on the larger bill.

Of course the larger Health Care bill won't be repealed.  This is the "genius" of kicking the financial can so far down the road.   This law will survive at least the next three years (obviously), over which time certain portions of the bill will become instituted.  By the time 2018 rolls around, it will be too late to turn the boat, and the challenges of funding this will largely be the problem of other politicos. 

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 10, 2010, 03:10:05 PM
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on August 10, 2010, 02:15:16 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 10, 2010, 12:34:34 PM
As far as Obamageddon Health Care Destruction 2010 is concerned, yes, it's possible that items like the excise tax will be repealed. Is the new test for passing legislation that we can only pass laws that definitely won't be repealed? And that if there's a chance a law will be repealed or won't be enforced, we can't consider the possible outcomes of enforcing those laws? And in any case - is there any historical precedent for a piece of legislation as significant as health care reform actually being repealed?

Not inherently.  But when a huge chunk of the funding for the largest spending program in U.S. history is contingent on the enactment of laws that won't take effect for 8 years...the math certainly should be open to scrutiny and doubt.  Not by the CBO (you and I agree, they are merely "messengers" of the data and assumptions they are given), but by the elected officials voting on the larger bill.

Of course the larger Health Care bill won't be repealed.  This is the "genius" of kicking the financial can so far down the road.   This law will survive at least the next three years (obviously), over which time certain portions of the bill will become instituted.  By the time 2018 rolls around, it will be too late to turn the boat, and the challenges of funding this will largely be the problem of other politicos. 



Your post talked about the Health Care law, but I didn't see you mention Social Security, Medicare, World War II, the Defense budget for the past 20 years, or the Iraq War.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 05:32:47 PM
"Historic ignorance of American elites" indeed.

http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

QuoteLast week, Newt Gingrich released a Newt Direct statement at Newt.org concerning the project.  As you may have heard, he's somewhat opposed to it.  And to explain why, he offered this history lesson:

QuoteThe proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.  For example, most of them don't understand that "Cordoba House" is a deliberately insulting term.  It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex. [...I]n fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.  It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way. [emphasis mine]

It's that appositive phrase there buried in the middle of my quote that is the problem.  In these twenty-five words, Newt offers the final word on medieval Cordoba: "the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third-largest mosque complex."  This fact, the transformation of a church into a mosque, is the only thing we should think of when we hear a modern Muslim use the word "Cordoba," according to Mr. Gingrich.

The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three hundred years of Christian and Muslim history.  Three hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712.  The Christian church that was later transformed into the Great Mosque of Cordoba apparently continued hosting Christian worship for at least a generation after that.  Work on the Mosque didn't actually begin until seventy-odd years later in 784, and the mosque only became "the world's third-largest" late in the tenth century, after a series of expansions by much later rulers, probably around 987 or so.

Then there's the matter of the two odd verbs in Newt's summation of Cordoba's history: "transformed" and "symbolized".  Surely, a mosque as great as The Great Mosque of Cordoba has symbolized a lot of things to a lot of people over the years.  But Muslim historians writing about the Great Mosque don't point to it as a symbol of Muslim triumph over Christians; rather, they treat it primarily as a symbol of Muslim victory over other Muslims.

Keep in mind that when ground was broken on the Great Mosque, the vast majority of the men who had been personally responsible for conquering the Iberian peninsula were long dead and most of their sons were dead, too.  Sure, a few extremely ancient grey beards might have been present as very, young men, and a few older men might have been able to talk about what their fathers had done during the Conquest, but Muslim control of Spain was simply a fact of life for them, not something they felt they had to justify to the Christians.

The mosque was indeed begun in the wake of a Muslim conquest--just not the conquest of the Christians.  Rather, it was ordered built by the Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I, probably in part to commemorate his successful conquest of Cordoba in the 750's, fought against other Muslim chieftains loyal to the rival Abbasid Caliphate, and his successful repulsion of subsequent Abbasid attempts to dislodge him by force throughout the 760's....

...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2010, 05:32:54 PM
Quote...

This is the important fact that Newt hopes those who read his polemic will be ignorant of: for a ruler to be legitimate in Muslim eyes in the tenth century, during the time when the Great Mosque was being expanded into its present-day dimensions, it was important to emphasize the peaceful succession of Islam from the other religions in the area.  A caliph was expected to have arrived at an accord with the Christians and Jews over which he ruled. Far from "symboliz[ing] their victory" the Mosque was held up by Muslim historians a symbol of peaceful coexistence with the Christians--however messier the actual relations of Christians and Muslims were at the time.

So what should modern Christians think when they hear a Muslim use the word "Cordoba"?  Well, I know that Newt hasn't been a Catholic for very long now, but maybe his priest ought to direct him to read a little thing called "The Catholic Encyclopedia".  Allow me to quote from the 1917 edition (which has the virtue of being in the public domain and easily searchable) and its entry on Cordoba:

QuoteIn 786 the Arab caliph, Abd-er Rahman I, began the construction of the great mosque of Cordova, now the cathedral, and compelled many Christians to take part in the preparation of the site and foundations. Though they suffered many vexations, the Christians continued to enjoy freedom of worship, and this tolerant attitude of the ameers seduced not a few Christians from their original allegiance. Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe.

The article then discusses the persecution of the Christians under Abd-ar-Ramman II, which included the martyrdom of St. Eulogius.  Then it continues with the rule of those rulers who expanded the Mosque:

QuoteIn 962 Abd-er Rahman III was succeeded by his son Al-Hakim. Owing to the peace which the Christians of Cordova then enjoyed [...] the citizens of Cordova, Arabs, Christians, and Jews, enjoyed so high a degree of literary culture that the city was known as the New Athens. From all quarters came students eager to drink at its founts of knowledge. Among the men afterwards famous who studied at Cordova were the scholarly monk Gerbert, destined to sit on the Chair of Peter as Sylvester II (999-1003), the Jewish rabbis Moses and Maimonides, and the famous Spanish-Arabian commentator on Aristotle, Averroes.

So it's easy to see why a group of Muslims creating a community center in the heart of a majority Christian country in a city known for its large Jewish population might name it "The Cordoba House" They're not, as Gingrich hopes we would believe, discreetly laughing at us because "Cordoba" is some double-secret Islamist code for "conquest"; rather, they're hoping to associate themselves with a particular time in medieval history when the largest library in Western Europe was to be found in Cordoba, a city in which scholars of all three major Abrahamic religions were free to study side-by-side.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.


Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_td76aTJSyI8/SFr_Q1ASYqI/AAAAAAAAAPg/khvyz97I-HU/s400/asu+girls.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_td76aTJSyI8/SFr_Q1ASYqI/AAAAAAAAAPg/khvyz97I-HU/s400/asu+girls.jpg)

Touche sir, touche.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 11, 2010, 06:30:00 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_td76aTJSyI8/SFr_Q1ASYqI/AAAAAAAAAPg/khvyz97I-HU/s400/asu+girls.jpg)

All of those girls go to Peoria Richwoods.  Gil (and Yeti) wins.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Peoria sucks.

Both the one in Illinois and Arizona.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Peoria sucks.

Both the one in Illinois and Arizona.

Peoria, AZ does indeed suck.

I'll not deny that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Peoria sucks.

Both the one in Illinois and Arizona.

Peoria, AZ does indeed suck.

I'll not deny that.

As does Peoria, IL.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 11, 2010, 08:20:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Peoria sucks.

Both the one in Illinois and Arizona.

Peoria, AZ does indeed suck.

I'll not deny that.

As does Peoria, IL.

Needs more clowns?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 12, 2010, 12:12:59 PM
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/8/12hague.html

QuoteWhen little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.

The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

Since the day Johanna was born, we've worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you've earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we've started socializing her a little bit, we've been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn't have asked for a better daughter.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on August 12, 2010, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_td76aTJSyI8/SFr_Q1ASYqI/AAAAAAAAAPg/khvyz97I-HU/s400/asu+girls.jpg)

ASU has some fine ass coeds.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 12, 2010, 02:16:03 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on August 12, 2010, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_td76aTJSyI8/SFr_Q1ASYqI/AAAAAAAAAPg/khvyz97I-HU/s400/asu+girls.jpg)

ASU has some fine ass coeds.

do they all have their proof of residency?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 12, 2010, 02:26:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 12, 2010, 12:12:59 PM
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/8/12hague.html

QuoteWhen little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, "Have a ball, peas [sic]?" And I'm sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, "No! Looter!" right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.

The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously. We conspicuously reward ourselves for our own hard work, we never give to charity, and we only pay our taxes very, very begrudgingly.

Since the day Johanna was born, we've worked to indoctrinate her into the truth of Objectivism. Every night we read to her from the illustrated, unabridged edition of Atlas Shrugged—glossing over all the hardcore sex parts, mind you, but dwelling pretty thoroughly on the stuff about being proud of what you've earned and not letting James Taggart-types bring you down. For a long time we were convinced that our efforts to free her mind were for naught, but recently, as we've started socializing her a little bit, we've been delighted to find that she is completely antipathetic to the concept of sharing. As parents, we couldn't have asked for a better daughter.

Ms. Sinclair of the Ayn Rand School for Tots. (http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season4/streetcar7.mp3)

"Our aim here is to develop the 'bottle within.'"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on August 12, 2010, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2010, 06:30:00 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_td76aTJSyI8/SFr_Q1ASYqI/AAAAAAAAAPg/khvyz97I-HU/s400/asu+girls.jpg)

All of those girls go to Peoria Richwoods.  Gil (and Yeti) wins.

Sweet Jesus God. I believe I just came in my pleats.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Shooter on August 12, 2010, 02:49:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2010, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2010, 06:30:00 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_td76aTJSyI8/SFr_Q1ASYqI/AAAAAAAAAPg/khvyz97I-HU/s400/asu+girls.jpg)

All of those girls go to Peoria Richwoods.  Gil (and Yeti) wins.

Sweet Jesus God. I believe I just came in my pleats.

Imagining their younger sisters?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on August 12, 2010, 02:51:58 PM
Quote from: Shooter on August 12, 2010, 02:49:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2010, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2010, 06:30:00 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:18:04 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 11, 2010, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

I'm sorry.  Your state sucks.

You live in Peoria.

Stick to the terms of the debate, pal.  Premise: Arizona is a terrible state, which some people have said "sucks."

Gil: Agree.  No further evidence needed in support.

YOUR REBUTTAL?

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_td76aTJSyI8/SFr_Q1ASYqI/AAAAAAAAAPg/khvyz97I-HU/s400/asu+girls.jpg)

All of those girls go to Peoria Richwoods.  Gil (and Yeti) wins.

Sweet Jesus God. I believe I just came in my pleats.

Imagining their younger sisters?

You had to ask?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 12, 2010, 02:56:48 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2010, 02:29:37 PM
Sweet Jesus God. I believe I just came in my pleats.

Gross.

Pleats?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 12, 2010, 03:06:33 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 12, 2010, 02:56:48 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2010, 02:29:37 PM
Sweet Jesus God. I believe I just came in my pleats.

Gross.

Pleats?

Intrepid Reader Crabs: "Fatass."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 03:18:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 12, 2010, 03:06:33 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 12, 2010, 02:56:48 PM
Quote from: Yeti on August 12, 2010, 02:29:37 PM
Sweet Jesus God. I believe I just came in my pleats.

Gross.

Pleats?

Intrepid Reader Crabs: "Fatass."

Intrepid Reader: Morpheus

Don't act like my pleat implants don't impress you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 13, 2010, 07:23:03 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Spiro is our hero.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 13, 2010, 07:25:16 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Quayle didn't let clowns have the run of the White House like they did in the 50s.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 13, 2010, 09:18:32 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Eldridge Gerry also worse.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 13, 2010, 09:20:27 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 13, 2010, 09:18:32 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Eldridge Gerry also worse.

John Tyler was awesome, however.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 09:21:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Attempted treason. Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for "attempted chemistry"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on August 13, 2010, 09:24:03 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 09:21:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Attempted treason. Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for "attempted chemistry"?

At least it inspired this  (http://books.google.com/books?id=xfN14hqdYKkC&dq=The+man+without+a+country&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=RFVlTIagEIa4sAP-vu3xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false) heart-wrenching, red-blood stirring tale.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 13, 2010, 09:24:52 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 13, 2010, 09:18:32 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Eldridge Gerry also worse.

America has had some shitty vice-presidents; Quayle just couldn't spell "potato" correctly.

Schuyler Colfax is in the running.

BEST VICE PRESIDENT?  Richard Nixon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 13, 2010, 09:24:52 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 13, 2010, 09:18:32 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Eldridge Gerry also worse.

America has had some shitty vice-presidents; Quayle just couldn't spell "potato" correctly.

Schuyler Colfax is in the running.

BEST VICE PRESIDENT?  Richard Nixon.

He did more for clown rights than any other veep in history.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 13, 2010, 09:31:22 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 13, 2010, 09:24:52 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 13, 2010, 09:18:32 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Eldridge Gerry also worse.

America has had some shitty vice-presidents; Quayle just couldn't spell "potato" correctly.

Schuyler Colfax is in the running.

BEST VICE PRESIDENT?  Richard Nixon.

You mean Nick Dixon?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 13, 2010, 11:11:39 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 13, 2010, 09:18:32 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Eldridge Gerry also worse.

William Rufus DeVane King
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 13, 2010, 11:37:29 AM
Fucking liberal (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1899/am-i-right-or-left):

The Republican Party of today is not the party of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan that I was once a member of; it stands for nothing except the pursuit of power as an end in itself, with no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country. In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, I characterized the Republicans as the greedy, sociopathic party. I stand by that.

As far as the conservative movement is concerned, I think Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley would be absolutely aghast at the things it stands for today and the people that are acclaimed as its leaders. When clowns like Glenn Beck are its leaders and right-wing bigots pander to ignorant yahoos about a planned mosque in lower Manhattan, I want to be as far away from any such movement as I possibly can. And readers of this blog know what I think of the know-nothing tea party movement, which conservatives have latched onto en masse.
Anyway, I am happy to classify myself, politically, as an independent these days; nothing more, nothing less.

Bruce Bartlett
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 13, 2010, 11:43:31 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 13, 2010, 11:11:39 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 13, 2010, 09:18:32 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Eldridge Gerry also worse.

William Rufus DeVane King

Hands down winner.  John Nance Garner, who described the job of Vice President of the United States  as "Not worth a bucket of  warm piss".  On the other hand, maybe that qualifies him as the best vice president ever.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 13, 2010, 02:19:24 PM
One more (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10):

"If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase." David Stockman.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 13, 2010, 05:54:22 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 13, 2010, 02:19:24 PM
One more (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10):

"If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase." David Stockman.

Fred Thompson's commercial equating the expiration of the tax cuts with a tax increase for the person who is watching the commercial is one of the funniest things on TV.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on August 14, 2010, 07:13:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 13, 2010, 02:19:24 PM
One more (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10):

"If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase." David Stockman.

At this point, I'm being a selfish prick and saying that I don't care who they raise them for as long as my taxes aren't raised at all. If at all, I'd like them lowered.. But just for me, the $2500 Yeti Credit
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 14, 2010, 08:41:27 AM
Quote from: Yeti on August 14, 2010, 07:13:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 13, 2010, 02:19:24 PM
One more (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10):

"If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase." David Stockman.

At this point, I'm being a selfish prick and saying that I don't care who they raise them for as long as my taxes aren't raised at all. If at all, I'd like them lowered.. But just for me, the $2500 Yeti Credit

I'm on board with the Yeti Credit under certain circumstances:

1. The $2500 has to come out of the defense budget

2. Yeti has to confront a Navy Seal and take the money from his paycheck by force.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 14, 2010, 10:10:09 AM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

This whole "worst ever" thing is catching on...

http://rightwingnews.com/2010/08/conservative-bloggers-select-the-25-worst-figures-in-american-history/

QuoteOut of all the gangsters, serial killers, mass murderers, incompetent & crooked politicians, spies, traitors, and ultra left-wing kooks in all of American history -- have you ever wondered who the worst of the worst was? Well, we here at RWN wondered about that, too, and that's why we decided to email more than a hundred bloggers to get their opinions. Representatives from the following 43 blogs responded...

[ list of 43 blogs you've probably never heard of ]

Drumroll...

The 25 Worst Figures in American History According to 43 Right-Wing Internet People You've Never Heard of With Demonstrably Short Attention Spans:

Quote23) Saul Alinsky (7)
23) Bill Clinton (7)
23) Hillary Clinton (7)
19) Michael Moore (7)
19) George Soros (8)
19) Alger Hiss (8)
19) Al Sharpton (8)
13) Al Gore (9)
13) Noam Chomsky (9)
13) Richard Nixon (9)
13) Jane Fonda (9)
13) Harry Reid (9)
13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
11) Margaret Sanger (10)
9) Aldrich Ames (11)
9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
7) Ted Kennedy (14)
7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
5) Benedict Arnold (17)
5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
4) The Rosenbergs (19)
3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
2) Barack Obama (23)
1) Jimmy Carter (25)

I think this may be dumber than asking the members of NSBB to vote for a Minor League Player of the Year.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 14, 2010, 11:03:06 AM
So, in the race for History's Greatest Monster, FDR comes out ahead of Timothy McVeigh.

I've been telling people this for years, but now I finally have validation.  Finally.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 14, 2010, 01:40:17 PM
Nixon tied with Jane Fonda?  He'd be thrilled with that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 14, 2010, 01:52:05 PM
Good to see the forced-birth movement pulling together to get Margaret Sanger so high on the list.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2010, 08:14:50 PM

No Ted Lilly?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on August 16, 2010, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 09:21:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on August 13, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2010, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 12, 2010, 11:06:13 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 12, 2010, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 12, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: PenPho on August 11, 2010, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 11, 2010, 05:55:55 PM
Brock Landers (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad)?

Yet another moment to make this Arizonan beam with pride.

The inevitable overreaction response. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/12/democrats-fire-back-at-quayle-over-obama-snub/)

Quote
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, told CNN that the candidate for a U.S. House seat from Arizona has no standing to judge Obama.

"The son of the worst vice president ever may think he has some wisdom on the job performance of political leaders, but if he thinks a president whose actions have saved the country from a second Great Depression, reformed a broken health care system and protected consumers from the risk and greed of Wall Street merits such mention, his analysis is only slightly less ridiculous than his candidacy for public office is," said Woodhouse.

Worst Vice President ever?!?

He's not even close.

Spiro Agnew?

Burr.

C'mon, what's a little light treason between friends?

Attempted treason. Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for "attempted chemistry"?

I don't know but I think it figures into NFL QB ratings nowadays. And Jay Cutler sucks at it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on August 16, 2010, 08:45:57 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 13, 2010, 11:37:29 AM
Fucking liberal (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1899/am-i-right-or-left):

The Republican Party of today is not the party of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan that I was once a member of; it stands for nothing except the pursuit of power as an end in itself, with no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country. In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, I characterized the Republicans as the greedy, sociopathic party. I stand by that.

As far as the conservative movement is concerned, I think Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley would be absolutely aghast at the things it stands for today and the people that are acclaimed as its leaders. When clowns like Glenn Beck are its leaders and right-wing bigots pander to ignorant yahoos about a planned mosque in lower Manhattan, I want to be as far away from any such movement as I possibly can. And readers of this blog know what I think of the know-nothing tea party movement, which conservatives have latched onto en masse.
Anyway, I am happy to classify myself, politically, as an independent these days; nothing more, nothing less.

Bruce Bartlett

Slow clap.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2010, 09:46:05 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 16, 2010, 08:45:57 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 13, 2010, 11:37:29 AM
Fucking liberal (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1899/am-i-right-or-left):

The Republican Party of today is not the party of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan that I was once a member of; it stands for nothing except the pursuit of power as an end in itself, with no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country. In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, I characterized the Republicans as the greedy, sociopathic party. I stand by that.

As far as the conservative movement is concerned, I think Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley would be absolutely aghast at the things it stands for today and the people that are acclaimed as its leaders. When clowns like Glenn Beck are its leaders and right-wing bigots pander to ignorant yahoos about a planned mosque in lower Manhattan, I want to be as far away from any such movement as I possibly can. And readers of this blog know what I think of the know-nothing tea party movement, which conservatives have latched onto en masse.
Anyway, I am happy to classify myself, politically, as an independent these days; nothing more, nothing less.

Bruce Bartlett

Slow clap.

the man knows his mid-ninetheenth-century fringe groups.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 16, 2010, 09:49:44 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 09:46:05 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on August 16, 2010, 08:45:57 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 13, 2010, 11:37:29 AM
Fucking liberal (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1899/am-i-right-or-left):

The Republican Party of today is not the party of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan that I was once a member of; it stands for nothing except the pursuit of power as an end in itself, with no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country. In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, I characterized the Republicans as the greedy, sociopathic party. I stand by that.

As far as the conservative movement is concerned, I think Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley would be absolutely aghast at the things it stands for today and the people that are acclaimed as its leaders. When clowns like Glenn Beck are its leaders and right-wing bigots pander to ignorant yahoos about a planned mosque in lower Manhattan, I want to be as far away from any such movement as I possibly can. And readers of this blog know what I think of the know-nothing tea party movement, which conservatives have latched onto en masse.
Anyway, I am happy to classify myself, politically, as an independent these days; nothing more, nothing less.

Bruce Bartlett

Slow clap.

the man knows his mid-ninetheenth-century fringe groups.

You have to admit, they were right about the Papist menace.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

QuoteWhat's my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the "Ground Zero Mosque," has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, "it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground."

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that's a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

(Click through for the photos.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

QuoteWhat's my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the "Ground Zero Mosque," has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, "it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground."

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that's a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

(Click through for the photos.)

I think it's more tragic that the "mosque" is being built so close to NY Dolls.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 16, 2010, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

QuoteWhat's my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the "Ground Zero Mosque," has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, "it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground."

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that's a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

(Click through for the photos.)

I think it's more tragic that the "mosque" is being built so close to NY Dolls.

Fork, you strike me as more of a "Baby Dolls" kind of guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2010, 01:28:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 16, 2010, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

QuoteWhat's my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the "Ground Zero Mosque," has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, "it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground."

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that's a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

(Click through for the photos.)

I think it's more tragic that the "mosque" is being built so close to NY Dolls.

Fork, you strike me as more of a "Baby Dolls" kind of guy.

I kicked it old-school...Pussycat Lounge, Ogden.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 16, 2010, 02:44:49 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 01:28:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 16, 2010, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

QuoteWhat's my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the "Ground Zero Mosque," has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, "it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground."

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that's a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

(Click through for the photos.)

I think it's more tragic that the "mosque" is being built so close to NY Dolls.

Fork, you strike me as more of a "Baby Dolls" kind of guy.

I kicked it old-school...Pussycat Lounge, Ogden.

Stopless Topless Dancing, right there on Greenwich Ave.  Good times.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2010, 02:48:28 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 16, 2010, 02:44:49 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 01:28:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 16, 2010, 11:38:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

QuoteWhat's my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the "Ground Zero Mosque," has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, "it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground."

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that's a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

(Click through for the photos.)

I think it's more tragic that the "mosque" is being built so close to NY Dolls.

Fork, you strike me as more of a "Baby Dolls" kind of guy.

I kicked it old-school...Pussycat Lounge, Ogden.

Stopless Topless Dancing, right there on Greenwich Ave.  Good times.

and a burger at George's for the road.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 17, 2010, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

QuoteWhat's my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the "Ground Zero Mosque," has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, "it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground."

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that's a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

(Click through for the photos.)

I think it's more tragic that the "mosque" is being built so close to NY Dolls.

http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/meet_the_neighbors_a_stroll_around_my_hallowed_neighborhood/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on August 17, 2010, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 17, 2010, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2010, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2010, 10:50:58 AM
http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

QuoteWhat's my point? A month ago, I wrote about my support for a group of Muslim New Yorkers—whom I consider my neighbors—and their right to put a religious building on a piece of private property in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the debate over the Park51 community center, inaccurately nicknamed the "Ground Zero Mosque," has jumped from talk radio to mainstream conversation, and turned nasty in the process. Sarah Palin wrote that, "it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project sponsored by such an individual to go forward on such hallowed ground."

Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric.

At this point the only argument against this project is fear, specifically fear of Muslims, and that's a bigoted, cowardly and completely indefensible position.

(Click through for the photos.)

I think it's more tragic that the "mosque" is being built so close to NY Dolls.

http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/meet_the_neighbors_a_stroll_around_my_hallowed_neighborhood/

On Jon Stewart last night they said that the Catholic Church shouldn't open anymore churches near playgrounds, "it's just too soon!".  I also busted that article out on my Dad last night when we talked about the mosque.  He's more pissed about the church that the Port Authority is supposedly holding up. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 17, 2010, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: powen01 on August 17, 2010, 10:51:40 AM

On Jon Stewart last night they said that the Catholic Church shouldn't open anymore churches near playgrounds, "it's just too soon!". 


There are more pedophile priests than there were 9/11 hijackers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Ivy6 on August 17, 2010, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 17, 2010, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: powen01 on August 17, 2010, 10:51:40 AM

On Jon Stewart last night they said that the Catholic Church shouldn't open anymore churches near playgrounds, "it's just too soon!". 


There are more pedophile priests than there were 9/11 hijackers.

Similar bodycounts though, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on August 17, 2010, 11:20:50 AM
Quote from: Ivy6 on August 17, 2010, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 17, 2010, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: powen01 on August 17, 2010, 10:51:40 AM

On Jon Stewart last night they said that the Catholic Church shouldn't open anymore churches near playgrounds, "it's just too soon!". 


There are more pedophile priests than there were 9/11 hijackers.

Similar bodycounts though, right?

Crusades?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 17, 2010, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: Ivy6 on August 17, 2010, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on August 17, 2010, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: powen01 on August 17, 2010, 10:51:40 AM

On Jon Stewart last night they said that the Catholic Church shouldn't open anymore churches near playgrounds, "it's just too soon!". 


There are more pedophile priests than there were 9/11 hijackers.

Similar bodycounts though, right?

They touched a lot of people?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 17, 2010, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: powen01 on August 17, 2010, 10:51:40 AM

On Jon Stewart last night they said that the Catholic Church shouldn't open anymore churches near playgrounds, "it's just too soon!". 

I am just stunned that there are synagogues near the King David hotel.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 17, 2010, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 17, 2010, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: powen01 on August 17, 2010, 10:51:40 AM

On Jon Stewart last night they said that the Catholic Church shouldn't open anymore churches near playgrounds, "it's just too soon!".

I am just stunned that there are synagogues near the King David hotel.

A couple, but one I wouldn't step a foot in.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 17, 2010, 11:38:18 AM

Fox News is owned by Muslims (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/news-corp-the-saudi-prince-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/19593554/?icid=fbuzz%7Cnews-corp-the-saudi-prince-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/19593554).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 17, 2010, 12:54:46 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 17, 2010, 11:38:18 AM

Fox News is owned by Muslims (http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/investing/news-corp-the-saudi-prince-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/19593554/?icid=fbuzz%7Cnews-corp-the-saudi-prince-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/19593554).

So, Paddy Chayefsky was right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 19, 2010, 09:53:30 AM
The Onion will soon be completely unnecessary:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/08/18/4696383-life-imitates-onion
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 19, 2010, 11:26:13 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"In a separate poll by Time magazine/ABT SRBI conducted Monday and Tuesday - after Obama's comments about the mosque - 24 percent said they think he is Muslim, 47 percent said they think he is Christian and 24 percent didn't know or didn't respond"

Noticeably the poll didn't offer the choice "I couldn't care less".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 19, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe they just read the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:07:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 19, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe they just read the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print).

Reason seven billion why religion is the scourge of the planet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 19, 2010, 01:13:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:07:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 19, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe they just read the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print).

Reason seven billion why religion is the scourge of the planet.

sayeth the Lord.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 19, 2010, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:07:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 19, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe they just read the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print).

Reason seven billion why religion is the scourge of the planet.

My invisible sky wizard is better than yours.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:41:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2010, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:07:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 19, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe they just read the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print).

Reason seven billion why religion is the scourge of the planet.

My invisible sky wizard is better than yours.

Honestly, it's comical that grown adults are arguing about stuff like this.

He committed to Christianity but since his dad was a Muslim he is by law a Muslim and his mother's religion, Christianity, is out the window - it does not count, however he himself did declare his strong belief in Christianity and how it means the world to him although this is going against the Islamic Law that states he must always be a Muslim and for him to deny it only makes him a bigger Muslim which is akin to alcoholism in a way and maybe Obama is an alcoholic Muslim who wants to build a mosque in your front yard and then unleash sharia upon your beachfront community.

Or maybe he's just a regular fucking guy who is an average president at best.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on August 19, 2010, 01:49:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:41:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2010, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:07:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 19, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe they just read the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print).

Reason seven billion why religion is the scourge of the planet.

My invisible sky wizard is better than yours.

Honestly, it's comical that grown adults are arguing about stuff like this.

He committed to Christianity but since his dad was a Muslim he is by law a Muslim and his mother's religion, Christianity, is out the window - it does not count, however he himself did declare his strong belief in Christianity and how it means the world to him although this is going against the Islamic Law that states he must always be a Muslim and for him to deny it only makes him a bigger Muslim which is akin to alcoholism in a way and maybe Obama is an alcoholic Muslim who wants to build a mosque in your front yard and then unleash sharia upon your beachfront community.

Or maybe he's just a regular fucking guy who is an average president at best.

I love you. Even if you mocked my belief in a higher power.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 19, 2010, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 19, 2010, 01:49:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:41:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2010, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:07:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 19, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe they just read the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print).

Reason seven billion why religion is the scourge of the planet.

My invisible sky wizard is better than yours.

Honestly, it's comical that grown adults are arguing about stuff like this.

He committed to Christianity but since his dad was a Muslim he is by law a Muslim and his mother's religion, Christianity, is out the window - it does not count, however he himself did declare his strong belief in Christianity and how it means the world to him although this is going against the Islamic Law that states he must always be a Muslim and for him to deny it only makes him a bigger Muslim which is akin to alcoholism in a way and maybe Obama is an alcoholic Muslim who wants to build a mosque in your front yard and then unleash sharia upon your beachfront community.

Or maybe he's just a regular fucking guy who is an average president at best.

I love you. Even if you mocked my belief in a higher power.

Your God will now strike you down for professing your love to another man.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 01:52:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:41:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 19, 2010, 01:35:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 19, 2010, 01:07:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 19, 2010, 12:42:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 19, 2010, 09:59:02 AM
At least the AP is not simply reporting on people's ignorance anymore; call them out.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_POLL_OBAMAS_RELIGION?SITE=NHPOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maybe they just read the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print).

Reason seven billion why religion is the scourge of the planet.

My invisible sky wizard is better than yours.

Honestly, it's comical that grown adults are arguing about stuff like this.

He committed to Christianity but since his dad was a Muslim he is by law a Muslim and his mother's religion, Christianity, is out the window - it does not count, however he himself did declare his strong belief in Christianity and how it means the world to him although this is going against the Islamic Law that states he must always be a Muslim and for him to deny it only makes him a bigger Muslim which is akin to alcoholism in a way and maybe Obama is an alcoholic Muslim who wants to build a mosque in your front yard and then unleash sharia upon your beachfront community.

Or maybe he's just a regular fucking guy who is an average president at best.

Slak wins the internet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 20, 2010, 01:13:04 PM
Interesting stuff about possible alternatives to our failure pile of a prison system:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/prison-without-walls/8195/1/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 24, 2010, 02:29:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 06:50:42 PM
All told, this may be one of the strangest Q-and-A combos I've ever read:

QuoteAVC: Why has prop comedy been stagnating more and more?

G: I told you: an emphasis on the mediocre. You're giving the audience what they want, but, that's, I guess, a reflection on our society. It's so thin, it's a veneer, it's not deep, it doesn't have a moral direction. 'Cause we really don't know, we don't know.

This looks like a winner. (http://www.milwaukeerally.com/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 24, 2010, 11:01:07 AM
Morph and his zeppelin crew have been getting a sweetheart deal for far too long...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10668231

QuoteIt is the second-lightest element in the Universe, has the lowest boiling-point of any gas and is commonly used through the world to inflate party balloons.

But helium is also a non-renewable resource and the world's reserves of the precious gas are about to run out, a shortage that is likely to have far-reaching repercussions.

Scientists have warned that the world's most commonly used inert gas is being depleted at an astonishing rate because of a law passed in the United States in 1996 which has effectively made helium too cheap to recycle.

The law stipulates that the US National Helium Reserve, which is kept in a disused underground gas field near Amarillo, Texas - by far the biggest store of helium in the world - must all be sold off by 2015, irrespective of the market price.

The experts warn that the world could run out of helium within 25 to 30 years, potentially spelling disaster for hospitals, whose MRI scanners are cooled by the gas in liquid form, and anti-terrorist authorities who rely on helium for their radiation monitors, as well as the millions of children who love to watch their helium-filled balloons float into the sky.

...

"In 1996, the US Congress decided to sell off the strategic reserve and the consequence was that the market was swelled with cheap helium because its price was not determined by the market. The motivation was to sell it all by 2015," Professor Richardson said.

"The basic problem is that helium is too cheap. The Earth is 4.7 billion years old and it has taken that long to accumulate our helium reserves, which we will dissipate in about 100 years. One generation does not have the right to determine availability for ever."

...

A billion cubic metres - or about half of the world's reserves - are now stored in this cluster of mines, pipes and vats that extend underground for more than 200 miles from Amarillo to Kansas.

But in 1996, the US passed the Helium Privatisation Act which directed that this reserve should be sold by 2015 at a price that would substantially pay off the federal government's original investment in building up the reserve.

The law stipulated the amount of helium sold off each year should follow a straight line with the same amount being sold each year, irrespective of the global demand for it. This, according to Professor Richardson, who won his Nobel prize for his work on helium-3, was a mistake. "As a result of that Act, helium is far too cheap and is not treated as a precious resource," he said. "It's being squandered."

...

Professor Richardson also believes that party balloons filled with helium are too cheap, and they should really cost about $100 to reflect the precious nature of the gas they contain.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 24, 2010, 11:42:08 AM
Pfff.  Once fusion reactors are common place, we will have all the helium we ever need.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 24, 2010, 05:44:02 PM
Barry Goldwater, art fag. (http://www.barrygoldwaterphotographs.com/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 25, 2010, 07:05:17 PM
Long-rumored Republican closet case comes out of closet, news at 11. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 25, 2010, 07:13:08 PM
That was glib.

This is actually a pretty interesting development...

QuoteMehlman's leadership positions in the GOP came at a time when the party was stepping up its anti-gay activities -- such as the distribution in West Virginia in 2006 of literature linking homosexuality to atheism, or the less-than-subtle, coded language in the party's platform ("Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country..."). Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus. He was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief strategic adviser, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans.

Mehlman acknowledges that if he had publicly declared his sexuality sooner, he might have played a role in keeping the party from pushing an anti-gay agenda.

"It's a legitimate question and one I understand," Mehlman said. "I can't change the fact that I wasn't in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally." He asks of those who doubt his sincerity: "If they can't offer support, at least offer understanding."

"What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn't always heard. I didn't do this in the gay community at all."

He said that he "really wished" he had come to terms with his sexual orientation earlier, "so I could have worked against [the Federal Marriage Amendment]" and "reached out to the gay community in the way I reached out to African Americans."

Mehlman is aware that his attempts to justify his past silence will not be adequate for many people. He and his friends say that he is aware that he will no longer control the story about his identity -- which will simultaneously expose old wounds, invite Schadenfruede, and legitimize anger among gay rights activists in both parties who did not hide their sexual orientations.

...

He said that he plans to be an advocate for gay rights within the GOP, that he remains proud to be a Republican, and that his political identity is not defined by any one issue.

"What I will try to do is to persuade people, when I have conversations with them, that it is consistent with our party's philosophy, whether it's the principle of individual freedom, or limited government, or encouraging adults who love each other and who want to make a lifelong committment to each other to get married."

"I hope that we, as a party, would welcome gay and lesbian supporters. I also think there needs to be, in the gay community, robust and bipartisan support [for] marriage rights."

...

Mehlman said that his formal coming-out process began earlier this year. Over the past several weeks, he has notified former colleagues, including former President Bush. Once he realized that the news would probably leak, he assembled a team of former advisers to help him figure out the best way to harness the publicity generated by the disclosure for the cause of marriage rights. He is worried that some will see his decision to go public as opportunistic. Mehlman recently moved to Chelsea, a gay mecca in New York City. He refused to discuss his personal life with me, and he plans to give only a few print interviews on the subject.

Chad Griffin, the California-based political strategist who organized opposition to Proposition 8, said that Mehlman's quiet contributions to the American Foundation for Equal Rights are "tremendous," adding that "when we achieve equal equality, he will be one of the people to thank for it." Mehlman has become a de facto strategist for the group, and he has opened up his rolodex -- recruiting, as co-hosts for the AFER fundraiser: Paul Singer, a major Republican donor, hedge fund executive, and the president of the Manhattan Institute; Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the GOP's top lawyers; Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission; and two former GOP governors, William Weld of Massachusetts and Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey.

Dustin Lance Black, the Academy Award winning writer of "Milk," said, "Ken represents an incredible coup for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We believe that our mission of equal rights under the law is one that should resonate with every American. As a victorious former presidential campaign manager and head of the Republican Party, Ken has the proven experience and expertise to help us communicate with people across each of the 50 states."

Will there be a fruit basket to welcome him to the RINO fold?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2010, 05:21:22 PM
This is a month old, but timely nonetheless...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40377.html

QuoteHall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning mocked the manhood of rookie Washington Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg after the 22-year-old phenom was scratched from his scheduled start Tuesday night because of shoulder soreness.

"Five hundred twenty starts, I never refused the ball," Bunning, a Kentucky senator who hurled a perfect game in 1964 and struck out 2,855 batters in his major league career, told POLITICO. "What a joke!"

Bunning had taken an interest in Strasburg, who like the Kentucky senator is a fireball-hurling right-hander. The senator has seen the Nationals ace four times and was at the ballpark Tuesday night, he said.

But he clearly didn't like what he saw — or rather didn't see — when the youngster didn't take the mound.

"My arm!" Bunning sarcastically cried as he pretended to clutch his shoulder in the Capitol's Statuary Hall.

He said Strasburg's fallen greatly in his estimation.

"He was in the top one percentile," Bunning said, pinching his thumb and forefinger together. Now, Bunning said, he's closer to the 50th percentile.

In baseball and in politics, Bunning's been known as a tough guy with a mile-wide mean streak.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, his Kentucky colleague and fellow baseball fan, recently told a reporter he'd take Strasburg over Bunning if given the choice.

For the record, Bunning started 519 games in his career, according to BaseballReference.com.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 27, 2010, 05:44:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2010, 05:21:22 PM
This is a month old, but timely nonetheless...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40377.html

QuoteHall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning mocked the manhood of rookie Washington Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg after the 22-year-old phenom was scratched from his scheduled start Tuesday night because of shoulder soreness.

"Five hundred twenty starts, I never refused the ball," Bunning, a Kentucky senator who hurled a perfect game in 1964 and struck out 2,855 batters in his major league career, told POLITICO. "What a joke!"

Bunning had taken an interest in Strasburg, who like the Kentucky senator is a fireball-hurling right-hander. The senator has seen the Nationals ace four times and was at the ballpark Tuesday night, he said.

But he clearly didn't like what he saw — or rather didn't see — when the youngster didn't take the mound.

"My arm!" Bunning sarcastically cried as he pretended to clutch his shoulder in the Capitol's Statuary Hall.

He said Strasburg's fallen greatly in his estimation.

"He was in the top one percentile," Bunning said, pinching his thumb and forefinger together. Now, Bunning said, he's closer to the 50th percentile.

In baseball and in politics, Bunning's been known as a tough guy with a mile-wide mean streak.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, his Kentucky colleague and fellow baseball fan, recently told a reporter he'd take Strasburg over Bunning if given the choice.

For the record, Bunning started 519 games in his career, according to BaseballReference.com.

The article fails to mention the most important thing about Bunning: he's crazier than a shithouse rat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 27, 2010, 05:55:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 27, 2010, 05:44:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2010, 05:21:22 PM
This is a month old, but timely nonetheless...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40377.html

QuoteHall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning mocked the manhood of rookie Washington Nationals pitcher Stephen Strasburg after the 22-year-old phenom was scratched from his scheduled start Tuesday night because of shoulder soreness.

"Five hundred twenty starts, I never refused the ball," Bunning, a Kentucky senator who hurled a perfect game in 1964 and struck out 2,855 batters in his major league career, told POLITICO. "What a joke!"

Bunning had taken an interest in Strasburg, who like the Kentucky senator is a fireball-hurling right-hander. The senator has seen the Nationals ace four times and was at the ballpark Tuesday night, he said.

But he clearly didn't like what he saw — or rather didn't see — when the youngster didn't take the mound.

"My arm!" Bunning sarcastically cried as he pretended to clutch his shoulder in the Capitol's Statuary Hall.

He said Strasburg's fallen greatly in his estimation.

"He was in the top one percentile," Bunning said, pinching his thumb and forefinger together. Now, Bunning said, he's closer to the 50th percentile.

In baseball and in politics, Bunning's been known as a tough guy with a mile-wide mean streak.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, his Kentucky colleague and fellow baseball fan, recently told a reporter he'd take Strasburg over Bunning if given the choice.

For the record, Bunning started 519 games in his career, according to BaseballReference.com.

The article fails to mention the most important thing about Bunning: he's crazier than a shithouse rat.

But a Hall of Famer, nevertheless.

Ehh, he's still shitty.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 27, 2010, 06:57:49 PM
Fits well with Rob Dibble's comments from a few days ago:

Quote"I'm not a doctor, and I haven't read the MRI yet, but I'm pretty sure he's gonna come back fine," Dibble said as the "First Pitch" discussion began. "And for me, if you can throw the next day, then you probably could have continued out there on the baseball field. So are they a little bit overcautious at this point? Maybe. But he's a $15 million investment. I absolutely can't blame them for taking him out.

Quote"I mean, excuse me. There's guys I played with that had screws holding their elbows together. Chris Sabo played two weeks on a broken ankle. I put a steel plate in my wrist so I could be back in five weeks instead of three months. So, this is your choice. You can either suck it up and be a man at 22 making $2 million a year [with] a $15 million contract, or every time you get an ache and pain you can go out of the game and say I'm gonna let down the other 24 guys right here and possibly end up forfeiting the game."

Maybe if Dibble would have sucked it up less, he wouldn't have been out of baseball after throwing a grand total of 477 career innings.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on August 31, 2010, 10:52:06 AM
Fucking flip-flopper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn)...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 31, 2010, 11:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on August 31, 2010, 10:52:06 AM
Fucking flip-flopper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn)...

Lomborg never really denied it, per se.  His big schtick was that in terms of other pressing environmental problems, climate change wasn't in the top 5.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 12:08:42 PM
A blog post by a UC Berkeley professor...


http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a-letter-to-my-students/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 12:27:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 12:08:42 PM
A blog post by a UC Berkeley professor...


http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a-letter-to-my-students/

California, the tax haven? And the "selfish, mean-spirited tax-cutting" all started after Reagan left office? Has Professor O'Hare been sniffing glue?

The fact is that California's public services were not sustainable then and they definitely are not today. Sorry!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 31, 2010, 02:43:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 12:27:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 12:08:42 PM
A blog post by a UC Berkeley professor...


http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a-letter-to-my-students/

California, the tax haven? And the "selfish, mean-spirited tax-cutting" all started after Reagan left office? Has Professor O'Hare been sniffing glue?

The fact is that people in California (and the rest of the US) want public services but don't want to have to pay for them were not sustainable then and they definitely are not today. Sorry!

Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 31, 2010, 02:43:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 12:27:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 12:08:42 PM
A blog post by a UC Berkeley professor...


http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a-letter-to-my-students/

California, the tax haven? And the "selfish, mean-spirited tax-cutting" all started after Reagan left office? Has Professor O'Hare been sniffing glue?

The fact is that people in California (and the rest of the US) want public services but don't want to have to pay for them were not sustainable then and they definitely are not today. Sorry!

Fixed it for you.

Thus, they don't really want said services. And, again, say this out loud without laughing uproariously:

California: The nation's tax haven since 1978.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 31, 2010, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 31, 2010, 02:43:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 12:27:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 12:08:42 PM
A blog post by a UC Berkeley professor...


http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/08/24/a-letter-to-my-students/

California, the tax haven? And the "selfish, mean-spirited tax-cutting" all started after Reagan left office? Has Professor O'Hare been sniffing glue?

The fact is that people in California (and the rest of the US) want public services but don't want to have to pay for them were not sustainable then and they definitely are not today. Sorry!

Fixed it for you.

Thus, they don't really want said services. And, again, say this out loud without laughing uproariously:

California: The nation's tax haven since 1978.

Meh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:05:40 PM
Thus, they don't really want said services.

No, they really do.  Everywhere.  In every state, county, city, town, village and hamlet.

Go watch a Bill Brady commercial.  He's running the Mayor Goldie Wilson campaign:

Elect Bill Brady.  Progress is his middle name. Bill Brady's progress platform means more jobs, better education, bigger civic improvements, and lower taxes.

Right.  Cover a billion dollar budget deficit without raising taxes and without cutting popular services.

Never.

Gonna.

Happen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:57:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:05:40 PM
Thus, they don't really want said services.

No, they really do.  Everywhere.  In every state, county, city, town, village and hamlet.

Go watch a Bill Brady commercial.  He's running the Mayor Goldie Wilson campaign:

Elect Bill Brady.  Progress is his middle name. Bill Brady's progress platform means more jobs, better education, bigger civic improvements, and lower taxes.

Right.  Cover a billion dollar budget deficit without raising taxes and without cutting popular services.

Never.

Gonna.

Happen.

The measure of how much someone wants something is by how much he or she is willing to pay. And besides what one is willing to pay, there's also the matter of what one can afford.

As for Bill Brady, what "civic improvements" is he calling for? He's calling for lower taxes to help spur the creation of more jobs. Do you think the industrial parks opening in Pleasant Prairie are stealing jobs from Iowa?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 31, 2010, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:57:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:05:40 PM
Thus, they don't really want said services.

No, they really do.  Everywhere.  In every state, county, city, town, village and hamlet.

Go watch a Bill Brady commercial.  He's running the Mayor Goldie Wilson campaign:

Elect Bill Brady.  Progress is his middle name. Bill Brady's progress platform means more jobs, better education, bigger civic improvements, and lower taxes.

Right.  Cover a billion dollar budget deficit without raising taxes and without cutting popular services.

Never.

Gonna.

Happen.

The measure of how much someone wants something is by how much he or she is willing to pay. And besides what one is willing to pay, there's also the matter of what one can afford.

As for Bill Brady, what "civic improvements" is he calling for? He's calling for lower taxes to help spur the creation of more jobs. Do you think the industrial parks opening in Pleasant Prairie are stealing jobs from Iowa?

In a perfect world, maybe.  But once people realize that the government has a credit card and can give them everything they want for "free," they stop caring.

Until the bill comes due.  Citizens in this country want, want, want, but don't want to pay.  Simple as that.

Politicians learned a long time ago that they can buy votes with the people's own money.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 04:21:58 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 31, 2010, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:57:30 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 03:35:21 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:05:40 PM
Thus, they don't really want said services.

No, they really do.  Everywhere.  In every state, county, city, town, village and hamlet.

Go watch a Bill Brady commercial.  He's running the Mayor Goldie Wilson campaign:

Elect Bill Brady.  Progress is his middle name. Bill Brady's progress platform means more jobs, better education, bigger civic improvements, and lower taxes.

Right.  Cover a billion dollar budget deficit without raising taxes and without cutting popular services.

Never.

Gonna.

Happen.

The measure of how much someone wants something is by how much he or she is willing to pay. And besides what one is willing to pay, there's also the matter of what one can afford.

As for Bill Brady, what "civic improvements" is he calling for? He's calling for lower taxes to help spur the creation of more jobs. Do you think the industrial parks opening in Pleasant Prairie are stealing jobs from Iowa?

In a perfect world, maybe.  But once people realize that the government has a credit card and can give them everything they want for "free," they stop caring.

Until the bill comes due.  Citizens in this country want, want, want, but don't want to pay.  Simple as that.

Politicians learned a long time ago that they can buy votes with the people's own money.

I have no quibble with any of that and it's depressing. There are too many people who don't just want something for nothing, but they think it's their birthright (and that's not a left-right divide).

However, the professor's suggestion that California has become a virtual Monaco-on-the-Pacific starting during the Jerry Brown Administration is more than a little funny to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 04:28:57 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:57:30 PM
As for Bill Brady, what "civic improvements" is he calling for? He's calling for lower taxes to help spur the creation of more jobs. Do you think the industrial parks opening in Pleasant Prairie are stealing jobs from Iowa?

I was just quoting Mayor Wilson's campaign verbatim.  I have no idea what Brady's version of "Build Illinois" is, but he's got to have one or he'll have no support from the Combine.

Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2010, 03:57:30 PM
the professor's suggestion that California has become a virtual Monaco-on-the-Pacific starting during the Jerry Brown Administration is more than a little funny to me.

It's gold, Jerry!  GOLD!  My sis moved to CA a few years ago to become a public teacher right as Davis was being recalled.  Dumbest career move ever.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 04:47:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 04:28:57 PM


It's gold, Jerry!  GOLD!  My sis moved to CA a few years ago to become a public teacher right as Davis was being recalled.  Dumbest career move ever.

Every year since 1979 I have spent the month of April handling mass reduction in force cases for teacher unions.  In San Francisco this year the school district sent out 580 notices.  The union finally went to the bargaining table and agreed to concessions (including a shorter school year and furloughs during the year) in order to bring back the majority of those laid off.  Meg Whitman has a plan for California's job issues.  It consists of tax cuts to stimulate job creation.  Tha's a great plan, because the teachers who get laid off as a result of those tax cuts are going to have to find work.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 02, 2010, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 04:47:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 04:28:57 PM


It's gold, Jerry!  GOLD!  My sis moved to CA a few years ago to become a public teacher right as Davis was being recalled.  Dumbest career move ever.

Every year since 1979 I have spent the month of April handling mass reduction in force cases for teacher unions.  In San Francisco this year the school district sent out 580 notices.  The union finally went to the bargaining table and agreed to concessions (including a shorter school year and furloughs during the year) in order to bring back the majority of those laid off.  Meg Whitman has a plan for California's job issues.  It consists of tax cuts to stimulate job creation.  Tha's a great plan, because the teachers who get laid off as a result of those tax cuts are going to have to find work.

All hail the great California property tax freeze of 1978! If I remember correctly, Warren Buffett once stated that he pays higher property taxes on his modest Omaha residence than on his large house in California.

In other news:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-01-how-bad-are-the-next-few-years-going-to-suck/

Pretty bad.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 08:59:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 04:47:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 04:28:57 PM


It's gold, Jerry!  GOLD!  My sis moved to CA a few years ago to become a public teacher right as Davis was being recalled.  Dumbest career move ever.

Every year since 1979 I have spent the month of April handling mass reduction in force cases for teacher unions.  In San Francisco this year the school district sent out 580 notices.  The union finally went to the bargaining table and agreed to concessions (including a shorter school year and furloughs during the year) in order to bring back the majority of those laid off.  Meg Whitman has a plan for California's job issues.  It consists of tax cuts to stimulate job creation.  Tha's a great plan, because the teachers who get laid off as a result of those tax cuts are going to have to find work.

All hail the great California property tax freeze of 1978! If I remember correctly, Warren Buffett once stated that he pays higher property taxes on his modest Omaha residence than on his large house in California.

In other news:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-01-how-bad-are-the-next-few-years-going-to-suck/

Pretty bad.

QuoteStart with the fact that Democrats are going to get shellacked in the midterms.

Sounds pretty good to me.

QuoteIt's possible that Republicans could come out of 2012 with the presidency, the House, and the Senate back in their hands...

Sounds even better.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on September 02, 2010, 09:03:48 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 08:59:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 04:47:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 04:28:57 PM


It's gold, Jerry!  GOLD!  My sis moved to CA a few years ago to become a public teacher right as Davis was being recalled.  Dumbest career move ever.

Every year since 1979 I have spent the month of April handling mass reduction in force cases for teacher unions.  In San Francisco this year the school district sent out 580 notices.  The union finally went to the bargaining table and agreed to concessions (including a shorter school year and furloughs during the year) in order to bring back the majority of those laid off.  Meg Whitman has a plan for California's job issues.  It consists of tax cuts to stimulate job creation.  Tha's a great plan, because the teachers who get laid off as a result of those tax cuts are going to have to find work.

All hail the great California property tax freeze of 1978! If I remember correctly, Warren Buffett once stated that he pays higher property taxes on his modest Omaha residence than on his large house in California.

In other news:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-01-how-bad-are-the-next-few-years-going-to-suck/

Pretty bad.

QuoteStart with the fact that Democrats are going to get shellacked in the midterms.

Sounds pretty good to me.

QuoteIt's possible that Republicans could come out of 2012 with the presidency, the House, and the Senate back in their hands...

Sounds even better.

And then what?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 02, 2010, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: PANK! on September 02, 2010, 09:03:48 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 08:59:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2010, 04:47:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2010, 04:28:57 PM


It's gold, Jerry!  GOLD!  My sis moved to CA a few years ago to become a public teacher right as Davis was being recalled.  Dumbest career move ever.

Every year since 1979 I have spent the month of April handling mass reduction in force cases for teacher unions.  In San Francisco this year the school district sent out 580 notices.  The union finally went to the bargaining table and agreed to concessions (including a shorter school year and furloughs during the year) in order to bring back the majority of those laid off.  Meg Whitman has a plan for California's job issues.  It consists of tax cuts to stimulate job creation.  Tha's a great plan, because the teachers who get laid off as a result of those tax cuts are going to have to find work.

All hail the great California property tax freeze of 1978! If I remember correctly, Warren Buffett once stated that he pays higher property taxes on his modest Omaha residence than on his large house in California.

In other news:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-01-how-bad-are-the-next-few-years-going-to-suck/

Pretty bad.

QuoteStart with the fact that Democrats are going to get shellacked in the midterms.

Sounds pretty good to me.

QuoteIt's possible that Republicans could come out of 2012 with the presidency, the House, and the Senate back in their hands...

Sounds even better.

And then what?

Profit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 02, 2010, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 08:59:28 AM

QuoteStart with the fact that Democrats are going to get shellacked in the midterms.

Sounds pretty good to me.

QuoteIt's possible that Republicans could come out of 2012 with the presidency, the House, and the Senate back in their hands...

Sounds even better.
[/quote]

'Cause that's worked so well the last few times they had control.

Cheering for one PARTY (not a specific individual) to win is like cheering for a hurricane because you hate earthquakes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 09:08:43 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 02, 2010, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 08:59:28 AM

QuoteStart with the fact that Democrats are going to get shellacked in the midterms.

Sounds pretty good to me.

QuoteIt's possible that Republicans could come out of 2012 with the presidency, the House, and the Senate back in their hands...

Sounds even better.

'Cause that's worked so well the last few times they had control.

Cheering for one PARTY (not a specific individual) to win is like cheering for a hurricane because you hate earthquakes.
[/quote]

I only cheer for individuals who want to serve.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on September 02, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 09:08:43 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 02, 2010, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 08:59:28 AM

QuoteStart with the fact that Democrats are going to get shellacked in the midterms.

Sounds pretty good to me.


QuoteIt's possible that Republicans could come out of 2012 with the presidency, the House, and the Senate back in their hands...

Sounds even better.


'Cause that's worked so well the last few times they had control.

Cheering for one PARTY (not a specific individual) to win is like cheering for a hurricane because you hate earthquakes.

I only cheer for individuals who want to serve.

Fuck, guys'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 02, 2010, 09:18:43 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 09:08:43 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 02, 2010, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 08:59:28 AM

QuoteStart with the fact that Democrats are going to get shellacked in the midterms.

Sounds pretty good to me.

QuoteIt's possible that Republicans could come out of 2012 with the presidency, the House, and the Senate back in their hands...

Sounds even better.

'Cause that's worked so well the last few times they had control.

Cheering for one PARTY (not a specific individual) to win is like cheering for a hurricane because you hate earthquakes.

I only cheer for individuals who want to serve.
[/quote]

I knew you loved Ryan Theriot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 09:24:16 AM
Quote from: Yeti on September 02, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 09:08:43 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 02, 2010, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 02, 2010, 08:59:28 AM

QuoteStart with the fact that Democrats are going to get shellacked in the midterms.

Sounds pretty good to me.


QuoteIt's possible that Republicans could come out of 2012 with the presidency, the House, and the Senate back in their hands...

Sounds even better.


'Cause that's worked so well the last few times they had control.

Cheering for one PARTY (not a specific individual) to win is like cheering for a hurricane because you hate earthquakes.

I only cheer for individuals who want to serve.

Fuck, guys'd

I know, I know... I was lazy and didn't fix Chuck's busted quote tags.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001

Between Jan Brewer and Ben Quayle, it's been a truly horrific election season, even for those of us who couldn't care less.

Thank god for our Mexican food.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 02, 2010, 01:23:36 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001

Between Jan Brewer and Ben Quayle, it's been a truly horrific election season, even for those of us who couldn't care less.

Thank god for our Mexican food.

Intrepid Reader: Porterhouse

Fifty bucks the Smails kid picks his nose!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.



Good gord, I don't think I've ever seen a politician perform that poorly on camera.  She's rivaling Budd Dwyer* at this point.

*A shiny nickel for the first Desipiot to pick up on that reference sans Google.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on September 02, 2010, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.



Good gord, I don't think I've ever seen a politician perform that poorly on camera.  She's rivaling Budd Dwyer* at this point.

*A shiny nickel for the first Desipiot to pick up on that reference sans Google.

What type of gun will she be packing into her manila folder?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 01:46:59 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 02, 2010, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.



Good gord, I don't think I've ever seen a politician perform that poorly on camera.  She's rivaling Budd Dwyer* at this point.

*A shiny nickel for the first Desipiot to pick up on that reference sans Google.

What type of gun will she be packing into her manila folder?

::gives nickel::
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 02, 2010, 03:00:17 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.



Good gord, I don't think I've ever seen a politician perform that poorly on camera.  She's rivaling Budd Dwyer* at this point.

It didn't end when the debate was over, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL5KQ4Ao0ro&
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 02, 2010, 03:00:17 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.



Good gord, I don't think I've ever seen a politician perform that poorly on camera.  She's rivaling Budd Dwyer* at this point.

It didn't end when the debate was over, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL5KQ4Ao0ro&

This is almost as awesome as when RV posted the same thing 5 posts ago.  (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg224709#msg224709)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 02, 2010, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001

Between Jan Brewer and Ben Quayle, it's been a truly horrific election season, even for those of us who couldn't care less.

Don't forget JD Hayworth, or McCain going full teatard.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 04:07:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 02, 2010, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001

Between Jan Brewer and Ben Quayle, it's been a truly horrific election season, even for those of us who couldn't care less.

Don't forget JD Hayworth, or McCain going full teatard.

So then...that's a "no" on the moratorium?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 05:15:21 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 04:07:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 02, 2010, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001

Between Jan Brewer and Ben Quayle, it's been a truly horrific election season, even for those of us who couldn't care less.

Don't forget JD Hayworth, or McCain going full teatard.

So then...that's a "no" on the moratorium?

Yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 02, 2010, 07:00:05 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 03:43:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 02, 2010, 03:00:17 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.



Good gord, I don't think I've ever seen a politician perform that poorly on camera.  She's rivaling Budd Dwyer* at this point.

It didn't end when the debate was over, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL5KQ4Ao0ro&

This is almost as awesome as when RV posted the same thing 5 posts ago.  (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg224709#msg224709)

Well, as long as it's almost as awesome, I feel good about my contribution to this discussion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 07, 2010, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 05:15:21 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 04:07:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 02, 2010, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001

Between Jan Brewer and Ben Quayle, it's been a truly horrific election season, even for those of us who couldn't care less.

Don't forget JD Hayworth, or McCain going full teatard.

So then...that's a "no" on the moratorium?

Yes.

There will be a moratorium on Arizona politics when Arizona politics decides to cut it the fuck out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07candidates.html

QuoteMr. Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats. Arizona's Democratic Party has filed a formal complaint with local, state and federal prosecutors in an effort to have the candidates removed from the ballot, and the Green Party has urged its supporters to steer clear of the rogue candidates.

...

"Did I recruit candidates? Yes," said Mr. May, who is himself a candidate for the State Legislature, on the Republican ticket. "Are they fake candidates? No way."

To make his point, Mr. May went by Starbucks, the gathering spot of the Mill Rats, as the frequenters of Mill Avenue are known.

"Are you fake, Benjamin?" he yelled out to Mr. Pearcy, who cried out "No," with an expletive attached.

"Are you fake, Thomas?" Mr. May shouted in the direction of Thomas Meadows, 27, a tarot card reader with less than a dollar to his name who is running for state treasurer. He similarly disagreed.

"Are you fake, Grandpa?" he said to Anthony Goshorn, 53, a candidate for the State Senate whose bushy white beard and paternal manner have earned him that nickname on the streets. "I'm real," he replied.

Gathered around was a motley crew of people who were down on their luck, including a one-armed pregnant woman named Roxie whom Mr. May befriended sometime back and who introduced him to the rest.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 08, 2010, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 14, 2010, 11:54:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2010, 10:35:29 AM

A bunch of stuff purporting to show how terrible and unfair the economy is and how it's all Bush's fault


I'm sure if I quoted the Heritage Foundation or Cato I'd be ridiculed, so I will generically ridicule you for using data from the CBPP, which exists mainly to promote the idea that the US economy is unfair and needs to have massive redistribution forced upon it.

Now, with that out of the way: income distribution statistics that compare income buckets that don't take into account income mobility are misleading at best.  As an example, I was in the bottom quintile for the first few years of my career post-college, and I'm in the top quintile today.  I'm pretty sure that would not be captured in the CBPP's data.  Thomas Sowell elaborates here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=517564

QuoteIn terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

Slate has taken a break from their usual insufferable contrarianism to post an interesting series (http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/) on income inequality. Including this (http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266027/):

QuoteStephen J. Rose is a labor economist at Georgetown best-known for publishing, since the 1970s, successive editions of Social Stratification in the United States, a pamphlet and poster much revered by the left that depicts economic inequality in the United States. In his recent book  Rebound, Rose made an apparent 180-degree turn and argued that worries about rising income inequality and a disappearing middle class were overblown. Rose built his case largely on the notion that the Census Bureau's preferred metric—"median household income"—was misleading.

The trouble, Rose wrote, was that households varied greatly in composition and size. A household might consist of a single young man just starting out on his own or an elderly widow in retirement. Neither would likely enjoy a high income, but that would be a function of mere circumstance (the young man was just beginning his climb up the greasy pole; the retired widow no longer worked at all) and need (neither was likely to be responsible for any children). Another problem, Rose suggested, was that some households were bigger than others. Couples tended to have larger household incomes than single people, but that was because they likely collected two paychecks rather than one. The proportion of Americans living alone had for various reasons increased over time; that needed to be taken into account, too. Correcting for all these factors, Rose calculated that median household income was 30 percent higher than the Census' official figure (about $50,000 in 2007).

That was the good news. The bad news was that even with these new calculations, Rose couldn't deny the existence of a Great Divergence. "Under all circumstances," he wrote, "inequality has risen considerably, and this is a bad thing for America. Those at the bottom of the income ladder have benefited only minimally from the significant gains in overall production over the past three decades."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on September 08, 2010, 06:42:15 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 07, 2010, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 05:15:21 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 04:07:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 02, 2010, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001

Between Jan Brewer and Ben Quayle, it's been a truly horrific election season, even for those of us who couldn't care less.

Don't forget JD Hayworth, or McCain going full teatard.

So then...that's a "no" on the moratorium?

Yes.

There will be a moratorium on Arizona politics when Arizona politics decides to cut it the fuck out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07candidates.html

QuoteMr. Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats. Arizona's Democratic Party has filed a formal complaint with local, state and federal prosecutors in an effort to have the candidates removed from the ballot, and the Green Party has urged its supporters to steer clear of the rogue candidates.

...

"Did I recruit candidates? Yes," said Mr. May, who is himself a candidate for the State Legislature, on the Republican ticket. "Are they fake candidates? No way."

To make his point, Mr. May went by Starbucks, the gathering spot of the Mill Rats, as the frequenters of Mill Avenue are known.

"Are you fake, Benjamin?" he yelled out to Mr. Pearcy, who cried out "No," with an expletive attached.

"Are you fake, Thomas?" Mr. May shouted in the direction of Thomas Meadows, 27, a tarot card reader with less than a dollar to his name who is running for state treasurer. He similarly disagreed.

"Are you fake, Grandpa?" he said to Anthony Goshorn, 53, a candidate for the State Senate whose bushy white beard and paternal manner have earned him that nickname on the streets. "I'm real," he replied.

Gathered around was a motley crew of people who were down on their luck, including a one-armed pregnant woman named Roxie whom Mr. May befriended sometime back and who introduced him to the rest.

Well, if the moratorium isn't going to get passed, then we might as well go full retard (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/08/2012-watch-americas-toughest-sheriff-considers-presidential-bid/) and watch Sheriff Joe run for President.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 09, 2010, 01:58:04 PM
From the annals of false equivalence...

http://thepoorman.net/2010/09/09/like-also-too/

QuoteSnowflake Snooki (http://www.observer.com/2010/daily-transom/sarah-palin-koran-burning-unnecessary):

QuoteBook burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

Similarly, calling black people ni**ers is insensitive, much like black people moving in to your neighborhood.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on September 09, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
Just out of curiosity, where does burning a Koran in Florida rate with the NEA funding a "Piss Christ" Art Exhibit?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 09, 2010, 02:10:14 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 09, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
Just out of curiosity, where does burning a Koran in Florida rate with the NEA funding a "Piss Christ" Art Exhibit?

Right up there, I'd say.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 09, 2010, 02:23:20 PM
Piss Christ is actually surprisingly beautiful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 09, 2010, 02:32:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 09, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
Just out of curiosity, where does burning a Koran in Florida rate with the NEA funding a "Piss Christ" Art Exhibit?

Ah, the NEA, a conservative hobby horse if there ever was one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 09, 2010, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 09, 2010, 02:23:20 PM
Piss Christ is actually surprisingly beautiful.

Really, what I take from it is the importance of proper hydration.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 09, 2010, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 09, 2010, 02:10:14 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 09, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
Just out of curiosity, where does burning a Koran in Florida rate with the NEA funding a "Piss Christ" Art Exhibit?

Right up there, I'd say.

Sure, but what does any of that have to do with a false equivalency drawn between building a mosque at an old Burlington Coat Factory and burning the Koran?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 09, 2010, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 09, 2010, 02:23:20 PM
Piss Christ is actually surprisingly beautiful.

Hear, hear.

The beauty (and, indeed, the surprise that urine could be so luminous) is really the crux of it.

(It's a juxtaposition rather befitting the elevation of the low seen in a religion whose deity manifested himself in base flesh to be born to an unwed mother and laid in a feeding trough, traditionally amongst a retinue of sheep and other creatures and all the shit and piss that would seem to entail. A god who hung out with hookers and touched lepers before ultimately being brutally tortured, humiliated and nailed naked to a plank to die, a form of death that would probably see its own unsavory share of bodily fluids.)

You really have to see Serrano's work in person to be able to appreciate its sheer beauty, though this image does a decent enough job capturing it...

(http://i.imgur.com/bOjIJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 09, 2010, 03:47:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 09, 2010, 03:44:18 PM
(It's a juxtaposition rather befitting the elevation of the low seen in a religion whose deity ALLEGEDLY manifested himself in base flesh to be born to an unwed mother and laid in a feeding trough, traditionally amongst a retinue of sheep and other creatures and all the shit and piss that would seem to entail. A god who hung out with hookers and touched lepers before ultimately being brutally tortured, humiliated and nailed naked to a plank to die, a form of death that would probably see its own unsavory share of bodily fluids.)

Intrepid Reader: All of you heathens

Fixed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 09, 2010, 04:22:09 PM
Fucking flip-flopper. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/quran-burning-church-dove_n_711159.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 09, 2010, 04:40:08 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 09, 2010, 04:22:09 PM
Fucking flip-flopper. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/quran-burning-church-dove_n_711159.html)

QuotePastor Terry Jones said Thursday that he decided to cancel his protest because the leader of a planned Islamic Center near Ground Zero has agreed to move its controversial location.

Intrepid Reader: Pastor Terry

Also, the imam told me to take any rug in the house.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on September 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html)

Phil Davison mildly makes his cases for the nomination.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 10, 2010, 08:31:02 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html)

Phil Davison mildly makes his cases for the nomination.

... AND A MASTER'S DEGREE IN COMMUNICATION!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 10, 2010, 08:34:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 10, 2010, 08:31:02 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html)

Phil Davison mildly makes his cases for the nomination.

... AND A MASTER'S DEGREE IN COMMUNICATION!

Is phony major!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on September 10, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html)

Phil Davison mildly makes his cases for the nomination.

I love the rehearsed hand gestures.
I picture him screaming at his bathroom mirror the evening before while working out the final touches.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 10, 2010, 10:10:54 AM
Quote from: flannj on September 10, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html)

Phil Davison mildly makes his cases for the nomination.

I love the rehearsed hand gestures.
I picture him screaming at his bathroom mirror the evening before while working out the final touches.

He had to refer to his notes to get his name right.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 11, 2010, 08:49:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 10, 2010, 10:10:54 AM
Quote from: flannj on September 10, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html)

Phil Davison mildly makes his cases for the nomination.

I love the rehearsed hand gestures.
I picture him screaming at his bathroom mirror the evening before while working out the final touches.

He had to refer to his notes to get his name right.

Also had to refer to his notes to remember his favorite quote in the history of spoken word.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 11, 2010, 12:14:12 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 11, 2010, 08:49:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 10, 2010, 10:10:54 AM
Quote from: flannj on September 10, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 10, 2010, 07:01:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-olson/phil-davison-gop-speech_b_710642.html)

Phil Davison mildly makes his cases for the nomination.

I love the rehearsed hand gestures.
I picture him screaming at his bathroom mirror the evening before while working out the final touches.

He had to refer to his notes to get his name right.

Also had to refer to his notes to remember his favorite quote in the history of spoken word.

...and even then he got it wrong.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2010, 02:25:21 AM
The man who would be Our Next Republican President:

http://bit.ly/cxc16c

QuoteCiting a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D'Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview.

Gingrich says that D'Souza has made a "stunning insight" into Obama's behavior — the "most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama."

"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

D'Souza's "stunning insight"...

http://bit.ly/bH665t

QuoteTheories abound to explain the President's goals and actions...

These theories aren't wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama's domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse--much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama's own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.

A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King's dream? Or something else?

...

What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

...

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.

...

Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.

But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

The proof is that Obama once cried at his absent father's grave.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 13, 2010, 06:59:27 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2010, 02:25:21 AM
The man who would be Our Next Republican President:

http://bit.ly/cxc16c

QuoteCiting a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D'Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview.

Gingrich says that D'Souza has made a "stunning insight" into Obama's behavior — the "most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama."

"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asks. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

D'Souza's "stunning insight"...

http://bit.ly/bH665t

QuoteTheories abound to explain the President's goals and actions...

These theories aren't wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama's domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse--much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama's own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.

A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King's dream? Or something else?

...

What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

...

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.

...

Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial. Emerging market economies such as China, India, Chile and Indonesia have solved the problem of backwardness; they are exploiting their labor advantage and growing much faster than the U.S. If America is going to remain on top, we have to compete in an increasingly tough environment.

But instead of readying us for the challenge, our President is trapped in his father's time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

The proof is that Obama once cried at his absent father's grave.

I find that computer simulation chilling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 13, 2010, 07:01:46 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2010, 02:25:21 AM

D'Souza's "stunning insight"...

http://bit.ly/bH665t

QuoteTheories abound to explain the President's goals and actions...


So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in one and causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.

Change Kenya to Massachusetts and you've got a Kennedy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 13, 2010, 08:53:56 AM
For some reason this made me think of Oleg.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7999250/Australian-lawyer-smokes-pages-of-Bible-and-Koran-asking-Which-is-best.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2010, 11:22:57 PM
D'Souza reactions...

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/09/09/obama-anticolonial-hegemonist/

QuoteDinesh D'Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written. He takes a number of decisions Obama has made on a grab-bag of issues, declares that they are "odd," and then proceeds to explain the "oddness" he has perceived by cooking up a bizarre thesis that Obama is a die-hard anticolonialist dedicated to his father's anticolonialist legacy. That must be why he aspired to become President of the world's remaining superpower and military hegemon–because he secretly loathes the exercise of Western power and wants to rein it in! It must be his deeply-held anticolonialist beliefs that have led him to escalate the U.S. role in Afghanistan, launch numerous drone strikes on Pakistan, and authorize the assassination of U.S. citizens in the name of antiterrorism. Yes, zealous anticolonialism is the obvious answer. Even for D'Souza, whose last book was a strange exercise in blaming Western moral decadence for Islamic terrorism, this is simply stupid. Perhaps most painful of all is D'Souza's condescending claim that ignorant Americans aren't familiar with anticolonialism, and that because he is an Indian he can educate all of us about it.

...

In case you hadn't figured it out already, D'Souza makes his point explicit:

QuoteIt may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying.

This is not incredible. It is inexcusably moronic. It is ideological Birtherism. What I mean by that is that D'Souza's argument is another example of the embarrassing insistence coming from the right that America did not really produce Obama or the political views he holds and that the only way to understand him is to look elsewhere.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/obama_derangement_syndrome

QuoteI DON'T find it at all difficult to understand how Barack Obama thinks, because most of his beliefs are part of the broad consensus in America's centre or centre-left: greenhouse-gas emissions reductions, universal health insurance, financial-reform legislation, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and so forth. Dinesh D'Souza, on the other hand, appears to have met so few Democrats in recent decades that he finds such views shocking, and thinks they can only be explained by the fact that Mr Obama's father was a Kenyan government economist who pushed for a non-aligned stance in the Cold War during the 1960s-70s. Since the majority of Democrats don't have any Kenyan parents and have no particular stake in the anti-colonialism debates of the 1960s-70s, I'm not sure how Mr D'Souza would explain their views. In any case, Mr D'Souza's explanation of Mr Obama's views doesn't make any sense on its own terms. This, for example, is incomprehensible: "If Obama shares his father's anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more." Come again? Progressive taxation is caused by...anti-colonialism? Message to American billionaires and the people who write for them: many events and movements in world history did not revolve around marginal tax rates on rich people in the United States.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2010, 11:23:18 PM
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=09&year=2010&base_name=forbes_embraces_birtherism

QuoteThis is birtherism with big words. This is the witchdoctor sign without Photoshop, WorldNetDaily without the exclamation points. D'Souza doesn't need to stare at Obama's birth certificate for hours to come to the same conclusion as the birthers, which is that the president is a foreigner. But neither is "Kenyan anti-colonialism" a superficial term. At once, it engages all the racialized elements of the conservative critique of Obama -- not just that having an African father means he isn't really an American but that his inner life consists of a deep anger toward white people, and the office of the presidency is merely the means to secure a collective payback. It also manages to nod in the direction of another conservative racist meme, that having a black president makes the United States somehow analogous to African Third World countries run by bloodthirsty despots. Newt Gingrich took a break from his clownish Islamophobia this weekend to embrace this idiocy and drew a much harsher reaction, in part because we're still so silly about race in this country that we're still disarmed when a person of color makes a blatantly racist argument.

...

Of course, it isn't just racist but idiotic. D'Souza's grasp of policy is shallow as a puddle of piss in a dark alley, but it's safe to say that someone self-identifying as an "anti-colonialist" would not be escalating an American war in central Asia or claiming the authority to use the entire planet as a target range for flying robots armed with cruise missiles.

If Obama is a Kenyan anti-colonialist for supporting financial regulation, then Scott Brown is a Kenyan anti-colonialist. If Obama is a Kenyan anti-colonialist for supporting the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero, then Michael Bloomberg is a Kenyan anti-colonialist. If Obama is a Kenyan anti-colonialist for supporting health-care insurance reform, then Ben Nelson is a Kenyan anti-colonialist. The Center for American Progress is a Kenyan anti-colonialist think tank, MoveOn is a Kenyan anti-colonialist advocacy organization, and Peter Orszag is a Kenyan anti-colonialist intellectual.

More...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/09/on-pro-colonialism/62881/
http://www.thefourthbranch.com/newt-gingrichs-dirty-politics/
http://www.slate.com/id/2267179/pagenum/all/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 14, 2010, 02:27:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2010, 02:25:21 AM

Quote
A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King's dream? Or something else?
...
What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams he received from his father.

What's a public policy debate without peculiar epistemological speculation? There's every reason to suspect that D'Souza is actually psychically grounded as a Hindu, as an direct implication of turning Roman Catholicism inside-out. Hell, he may be an immediate intellectual descendant of Kwabena Damuah. How much ghee can a lingam cruise missle carry?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 14, 2010, 08:47:43 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 02, 2010, 02:43:40 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 02, 2010, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 02, 2010, 02:09:35 PM
Has this portion of the healthcare bill been discussed? (http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/)

While it may seem like an insignificant part of the bill or tax code in general, this is quite the overhaul. Now, the estimates say this will increase tax revenues around $345 billion due to unreported incomes. That's good. I may advocate lower taxes, but I'm not a fan of tax cheats (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE CREEKOLDFUCK). So, this will be good in that respect. However, this is going to be an utter nightmare for small businesses. The way it used to work is that you only issued a 1099 to any non-corporation for services rendered. Now, it's anyone you pay over $600 to over the course of the year, regardless of what was purchased, goods or services. So, this is going to mean that small businesses are going to have to collect FEINs and all appropriate tax information (mainly addresses, because if you purchase something from Best Buy, you're sending the 1099 to the corporate office in Minnesota, not the store in Chicago). Once all this is done, it will go smoothly, but the transition is going to blow ass. I'm absolutely dreading 2012 and January 2013 as one of the largest tasks of my job is to prepare the 1099s for my clients. FML. Thanks Obamadong. Bleh



Question...

If you're buying more than $600 from someone or some entity, don't you already have their address so you could, you know, pay them?  I mean, just how much of an effect can this possibly have, especially if you're a small business and you're writing off those expenses anyway?

Well, kind of. But often you don't actually mail the check to the company's actual address. For instance, if you buy something from Apple you may send it to a local store or a certain billing address. That's not likely the address the IRS has for them, which needs to be correct for 1099 reporting, or you'll get a nice notice from them. Enough of those and your company will be subject to some hefty fines

As far as writing off the expenses, this isn't really something that's going to affect the expense portion of small businesses. You and I both know small businesses are taking all the expenses they can. The IRS is just trying to make sure small businesses that are incorporated (since individuals and partnerships are subject to 1099s already, along with law firms) are reporting all their income. My point is that this is a pretty big overhaul in the way things are done tax-wise and it just doesn't seem like it's been noticed. There is going to be an inordinate amount of increased paperwork. I estimate that for my normal clients (non-realty holding companies), I issue around 15-20 1099s per client each year. That number is sure to go up to at least 50-60. Now, when you factor in how many companies there are out there issuing 1099s, it's going to be a shitload of paperwork.

I don't want you to think I think this is going to ruin small businesses (although there will be some who may flop or struggle because they were cheating taxes anyway). It is just going to have a decent impact on them in regards to the additional paperwork they have to deal with. Seems to me that it will be quite the pain in the ass and maybe it should have gotten more attention. If businesses were smart, they'd start working on collecting all the information now, since trying to collect it in December 2012 and January 2013 will be sure to suck. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dumbass and procrastinating business owners out there.

The anti-colonialist is trying to help you out (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42086.html), tubby.

QuoteThe Obama administration Monday urged senators to scale back a tax reporting requirement in the health care law.

The law requires businesses to track all cumulative purchases from vendors that total $600 or more in one year. The provision was designed to raise revenue for the health care law but has been universally panned by the business community, which anticipates a mountain of new paperwork to comply.

The amendment, from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), would scale back the reporting requirements to cumulative purchases of more than $5,000 per year and exclude companies with fewer than 25 employees. So far, no Republicans have voiced support for the amendment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 14, 2010, 08:56:46 AM
Allow me to start by saying D'Souza is a moron.  With that, however, I saw something in one of Tank's posts that made me laugh out loudly.
Quote...part of the broad consensus in America's centre or centre-left: greenhouse-gas emissions reductions, universal health insurance, financial-reform legislation, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and so forth...
The author uses this word "centre."  It must be different from "center" somehow because those views sure don't sound like the center.  At least not in the United States... but maybe it is the center in places that use the word "centre."  For example, let's take "universal health insurance."  http://www.gallup.com/poll/123332/Many-U.S.-See-Health-Insurance-Personal-Responsibility.aspx
QuoteAn important principle behind the current push for healthcare reform is that healthcare is a basic right that the government ought to guarantee for all Americans. Not only are the details of achieving universal coverage proving to be highly controversial, but it is unclear how strongly Americans support the premise.

Americans tend to agree with the government's taking responsibility for guaranteeing healthcare coverage when asked in "yes or no" terms. However, they are more libertarian on the issue when asked whether the government or individual citizens should be primarily responsible for ensuring that coverage.

That doesn't sound like the "center."  The center sounds rather undecided.  While I think that folks who call Obama a socialist are exaggerating, I think the term "boilerplate liberal" is probably about right.  He's in the center of the left, not the center of the whole spectrum.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on September 14, 2010, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 14, 2010, 08:56:46 AM
Allow me to start by saying D'Souza is a moron.  With that, however, I saw something in one of Tank's posts that made me laugh out loudly.
Quote...part of the broad consensus in America's centre or centre-left: greenhouse-gas emissions reductions, universal health insurance, financial-reform legislation, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and so forth...
The author uses this word "centre."  It must be different from "center" somehow because those views sure don't sound like the center.  At least not in the United States... but maybe it is the center in places that use the word "centre."  For example, let's take "universal health insurance."  http://www.gallup.com/poll/123332/Many-U.S.-See-Health-Insurance-Personal-Responsibility.aspx
QuoteAn important principle behind the current push for healthcare reform is that healthcare is a basic right that the government ought to guarantee for all Americans. Not only are the details of achieving universal coverage proving to be highly controversial, but it is unclear how strongly Americans support the premise.

Americans tend to agree with the government's taking responsibility for guaranteeing healthcare coverage when asked in "yes or no" terms. However, they are more libertarian on the issue when asked whether the government or individual citizens should be primarily responsible for ensuring that coverage.

That doesn't sound like the "center."  The center sounds rather undecided.  While I think that folks who call Obama a socialist are exaggerating, I think the term "boilerplate liberal" is probably about right.  He's in the center of the left, not the center of the whole spectrum.



I think Obama is too conservative to be a liberal. He's nowhere near as conservative as US conservatives are but he's a pretty crappy liberal if you ask me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 14, 2010, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 14, 2010, 08:56:46 AM
While I think that folks who call Obama a socialist are exaggerating

As far as you know.

Right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 14, 2010, 09:32:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 14, 2010, 08:56:46 AM
Allow me to start by saying D'Souza is a moron.  With that, however, I saw something in one of Tank's posts that made me laugh out loudly.

Quote...part of the broad consensus in America's centre or centre-left: greenhouse-gas emissions reductions, universal health insurance, financial-reform legislation, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and so forth...

The author uses this word "centre."  It must be different from "center" somehow because those views sure don't sound like the center.

Quotebecause most of his beliefs are part of the broad consensus in America's centre or centre-left

"Or."

The point being (nit picks aside) that Obama is pretty fucking solidly in the American mainstream on every issue D'Souza claims to have trouble understanding without appealing to this strained "Kenyan anti-colonialist" construct.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 14, 2010, 08:34:26 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 08, 2010, 06:42:15 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 07, 2010, 06:22:17 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 02, 2010, 05:15:21 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 04:07:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 02, 2010, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: R-V on September 02, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on September 02, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement (http://www.salon.com/news/jan_brewer/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/02/jan_brewer_opening_statement)

Jan Brewer debate performance. Brutal.

Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

We can't stop until the headless bodies are found.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/601325652001

Between Jan Brewer and Ben Quayle, it's been a truly horrific election season, even for those of us who couldn't care less.

Don't forget JD Hayworth, or McCain going full teatard.

So then...that's a "no" on the moratorium?

Yes.

There will be a moratorium on Arizona politics when Arizona politics decides to cut it the fuck out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07candidates.html

QuoteMr. Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats. Arizona's Democratic Party has filed a formal complaint with local, state and federal prosecutors in an effort to have the candidates removed from the ballot, and the Green Party has urged its supporters to steer clear of the rogue candidates.

...

"Did I recruit candidates? Yes," said Mr. May, who is himself a candidate for the State Legislature, on the Republican ticket. "Are they fake candidates? No way."

To make his point, Mr. May went by Starbucks, the gathering spot of the Mill Rats, as the frequenters of Mill Avenue are known.

"Are you fake, Benjamin?" he yelled out to Mr. Pearcy, who cried out "No," with an expletive attached.

"Are you fake, Thomas?" Mr. May shouted in the direction of Thomas Meadows, 27, a tarot card reader with less than a dollar to his name who is running for state treasurer. He similarly disagreed.

"Are you fake, Grandpa?" he said to Anthony Goshorn, 53, a candidate for the State Senate whose bushy white beard and paternal manner have earned him that nickname on the streets. "I'm real," he replied.

Gathered around was a motley crew of people who were down on their luck, including a one-armed pregnant woman named Roxie whom Mr. May befriended sometime back and who introduced him to the rest.

Well, if the moratorium isn't going to get passed, then we might as well go full retard (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/08/2012-watch-americas-toughest-sheriff-considers-presidential-bid/) and watch Sheriff Joe run for President.

At least you can remain thankful that you don't live in South Carolina...

http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/09/14/how-republicans-party/

(http://i.imgur.com/gEVLR.jpg)

I wish I was in de land ob cotton,
Old times dar am not forgotten,
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.

In Dixie Land whar I was born in,
Early on one frosty mornin,
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land

Den I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land, I'll took my stand, To lib and die in Dixie.
Away, Away, Away down south in Dixie,
Away, Away, Away down south in Dixie.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 07:14:18 AM
Have we covered this freak (http://www.newser.com/story/100321/anti-masturbation-candidate-is-truly-strange.html) yet? Wow, I think I kind of like the tea party. They're like the political version of comic relief.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 08:09:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 07:14:18 AM
Have we covered this freak (http://www.newser.com/story/100321/anti-masturbation-candidate-is-truly-strange.html) yet? Wow, I think I kind of like the tea party. They're like the political version of comic relief.

Leave it to the Teabaggers to throw away another winnable seat. This should put Chris Coons in the Senate.

I kind of like this nascent GOP civil war; it's entertaining.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 15, 2010, 08:33:16 AM

Who did Rick Lazio piss off? This is twce he's been hung out to dry by the NY state GOP.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 15, 2010, 08:46:43 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 08:09:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 07:14:18 AM
Have we covered this freak (http://www.newser.com/story/100321/anti-masturbation-candidate-is-truly-strange.html) yet? Wow, I think I kind of like the tea party. They're like the political version of comic relief.

Leave it to the Teabaggers to throw away another winnable seat. This should put Chris Coons in the Senate.

I kind of like this nascent GOP civil war; it's entertaining.

Intrepid Reader: Teabaggers
Hey!  Coons in the senate isn't the problem.  It's the White House.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 15, 2010, 08:49:48 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 15, 2010, 08:33:16 AM

Who did Rick Lazio piss off? This is twce he's been hung out to dry by the NY state GOP.

I think he pissed off most of the greater NYC area when he mis-quoted Casey Stengel in his first debate with Hillary.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 15, 2010, 08:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 15, 2010, 08:49:48 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 15, 2010, 08:33:16 AM

Who did Rick Lazio piss off? This is twce he's been hung out to dry by the NY state GOP.

I think he pissed off most of the greater NYC area when he mis-quoted Casey Stengel in his first debate with Hillary.

He was a lamb led to the slaugter - once Rudy dropped out of the race, Lazio had to step in with no prep work and no name recognition.

This time, he got beat by a Teaborgan who doesn't have a ghost's chance in Hell of beating Andy Cuomo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 15, 2010, 09:10:22 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 14, 2010, 08:34:26 PM

At least you can remain thankful that you don't live in South Carolina...


This mack motherfucker with the Bortburns takes offense:

(http://www.poemofquotes.com/quotes/c/johnccalhoun/calhoun.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 09:27:07 AM
Quote from: Bort on September 15, 2010, 09:10:22 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 14, 2010, 08:34:26 PM

At least you can remain thankful that you don't live in South Carolina...


This mack motherfucker with the Bortburns takes offense:

(http://www.poemofquotes.com/quotes/c/johnccalhoun/calhoun.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/IY3aJ.jpg)

And I have his back, suh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 15, 2010, 10:09:40 AM
People are hoping on the bandwagon (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/meet-your-2012-republican-presidential-candidate#ixzz0zXCcXv00) of the guy I projected to be the GOP's best bet for 2012.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 15, 2010, 10:09:40 AM
People are hoping on the bandwagon (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/meet-your-2012-republican-presidential-candidate#ixzz0zXCcXv00) of the guy I projected to be the GOP's best bet for 2012.

I don't give the GOP enough credit to back somebody that intelligent and self-aware.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on September 15, 2010, 10:17:38 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 15, 2010, 10:09:40 AM
People are hoping on the bandwagon (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/meet-your-2012-republican-presidential-candidate#ixzz0zXCcXv00) of the guy I projected to be the GOP's best bet for 2012.

I don't give the GOP enough credit to back somebody that intelligent and self-aware.

I'm afraid that if we keep going on the road we're on there's no way in hell we don't see the Tea Party running their own third party candidate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 15, 2010, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 15, 2010, 10:09:40 AM
People are hoping on the bandwagon (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/meet-your-2012-republican-presidential-candidate#ixzz0zXCcXv00) of the guy I projected to be the GOP's best bet for 2012.

Hoping is so 2008.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tony on September 15, 2010, 10:45:32 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 07:14:18 AM
Have we covered this freak (http://www.newser.com/story/100321/anti-masturbation-candidate-is-truly-strange.html) yet? Wow, I think I kind of like the tea party. They're like the political version of comic relief.

I want to masturbate to the anti-masturbation candidate. In fact, I'm gonna go rub one out right now while thinking about a threesome with this chick and Palin.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 10:55:26 AM
Quote from: Tony on September 15, 2010, 10:45:32 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 15, 2010, 07:14:18 AM
Have we covered this freak (http://www.newser.com/story/100321/anti-masturbation-candidate-is-truly-strange.html) yet? Wow, I think I kind of like the tea party. They're like the political version of comic relief.

I want to masturbate to the anti-masturbation candidate. In fact, I'm gonna go rub one out right now while thinking about a threesome with this chick and Palin.

You'll get bonus points if you fire off your knuckle children in some shubbery.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 15, 2010, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: SKO on September 15, 2010, 10:17:38 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 15, 2010, 10:09:40 AM
People are hoping on the bandwagon (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/meet-your-2012-republican-presidential-candidate#ixzz0zXCcXv00) of the guy I projected to be the GOP's best bet for 2012.

I don't give the GOP enough credit to back somebody that intelligent and self-aware.

I'm afraid that if we keep going on the road we're on there's no way in hell we don't see the Tea Party running their own third party candidate.

I'm resigned to thinking the GOP may have to hope so.  At least then, they can run a good general election and not have to worry about this Tea Party non-sense intruding on their primaries.

By my count, we have three Senate seats (DE, NV, KY) that have gone from 20 point GOP margin to a dead heat because of the GOP primaries.  Shit, I forgot about AK, which has gone from upper 20s margin for the GOP to single digits in a matter of a couple of weeks.

Granted, there are some solid Democrat seats are getting dangerously close for them (WI and CT to name a couple), but this is turning out to be more fun than I imagined.

The only locks for the GOP (Dem held seats) are ND, IN, and AR.  And I'm not even that pessimistic about IN yet.

Here we goooooo!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 15, 2010, 12:50:36 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 15, 2010, 11:00:28 AM

Granted, there are some solid Democrat seats are getting dangerously close for them (WI and CT to name a couple), but this is turning out to be more fun than I imagined.


I said leave me out of it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 15, 2010, 12:50:36 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 15, 2010, 11:00:28 AM

Granted, there are some solid Democrat seats are getting dangerously close for them (WI and CT to name a couple), but this is turning out to be more fun than I imagined.


I said leave me out of it.

When something something knuckle children in the bushes something custody battle. Sorry, kid.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 15, 2010, 01:01:30 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 15, 2010, 12:50:36 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 15, 2010, 11:00:28 AM

Granted, there are some solid Democrat seats are getting dangerously close for them (WI and CT to name a couple), but this is turning out to be more fun than I imagined.


I said leave me out of it.

When something something knuckle children in the bushes something custody battle. Sorry, kid.

Well I guess under those circumstances, it's okay.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 01:36:45 PM
If you haven't seen this guy already... you probably should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3KCnWdiO1k

QuoteHe said something about burning the Qur'an. And I was like, "Dude, you have no Qur'an," and ran off.

You can't own Qur'ans, man.

(http://i.imgur.com/nCFWM.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 15, 2010, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 01:36:45 PM

You can't own Qur'ans, man.


Well, I can, because I'm not a penniless Muhartiq.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 15, 2010, 01:52:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 15, 2010, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 01:36:45 PM

You can't own Qur'ans, man.


Well, I can, because I'm not a penniless Muhartiq.

*snorts*  *pounds fist on desk*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 02:32:12 PM
Karl Rove, TAXOLIB HOMOCRAT?  http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/conservatives-trash-karl-rove-after-he-insists.php

I love the embryonic GOP civil war.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 15, 2010, 02:32:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 02:32:12 PM
Karl Rove, TAXOLIB HOMOCRAT?  http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/conservatives-trash-karl-rove-after-he-insists.php

I love the embryonic GOP civil war.

Most TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS do.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 02:36:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 15, 2010, 02:32:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 02:32:12 PM
Karl Rove, TAXOLIB HOMOCRAT?  http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/conservatives-trash-karl-rove-after-he-insists.php

I love the embryonic GOP civil war.

Most TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS do.

What's not to like? (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/ppp-pre-primary-poll-dem-coons-leads-odonnell-big----and-would-have-trailed-castle.php?ref=fpa)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 15, 2010, 03:04:02 PM
SASQUATCH ISRAEL (http://brainrageblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/american-power-and-anti-semitic.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 03:08:17 PM
DPD, feel free to ignore this as the following post is a bit wonky, but I wanted to bring everyone's attention to what has been one of my biggest hobby-horses while I've been with the Board.  As Pen has been informed, we often have to take phone calls from citizens who do not know what their rights are under federal labor law.  Since 2000, the current chairman of the NLRB has advocated a regulatory requirement that employers post a notice informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, akin to the minimum wage notice, OSHA poster, etc.  Well, while that process is currently underway, the President has signed an executive order mandating a posting of this type of notice with employers who have contracts or conduct business with the federal government.

Here is the link (http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/EmployeeRightsPoster11x17_Final.pdf) in case anyone is interested; I think this is an incredible step not in terms of policy, but simply in terms of informing employees and citizens of their rights.

/nerdwonk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

QuoteShe is what politics produces when you divorce politics from government. She is what you get when you sell to the country that nothing government can do will help, and that the government is an alien thing, and that politics is nothing more than the active public display of impotent grievance.

She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

She is what politics produces when we abandon self-government for self-gratification. And that's the real obvious irony in her victory on Tuesday night, and the only thing about it that truly matters. Christine O'Donnell's campaign is a successful exercise in angry, misfit masturbation, with as little to do with the deadly problems this country faces as some guy wanking in the balcony of a grindhouse has to do with Romeo and Juliet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 15, 2010, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

QuoteShe is what politics produces when you divorce politics from government. She is what you get when you sell to the country that nothing government can do will help, and that the government is an alien thing, and that politics is nothing more than the active public display of impotent grievance.

She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

She is what politics produces when we abandon self-government for self-gratification. And that's the real obvious irony in her victory on Tuesday night, and the only thing about it that truly matters. Christine O'Donnell's campaign is a successful exercise in angry, misfit masturbation, with as little to do with the deadly problems this country faces as some guy wanking in the balcony of a grindhouse has to do with Romeo and Juliet.

Man, talk about asshurt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 03:47:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 15, 2010, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

QuoteShe is what politics produces when you divorce politics from government. She is what you get when you sell to the country that nothing government can do will help, and that the government is an alien thing, and that politics is nothing more than the active public display of impotent grievance.

She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

She is what politics produces when we abandon self-government for self-gratification. And that's the real obvious irony in her victory on Tuesday night, and the only thing about it that truly matters. Christine O'Donnell's campaign is a successful exercise in angry, misfit masturbation, with as little to do with the deadly problems this country faces as some guy wanking in the balcony of a grindhouse has to do with Romeo and Juliet.

Man, talk about asshurt.

I think asshurt has jumped the shark.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 15, 2010, 03:49:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 03:47:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 15, 2010, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

QuoteShe is what politics produces when you divorce politics from government. She is what you get when you sell to the country that nothing government can do will help, and that the government is an alien thing, and that politics is nothing more than the active public display of impotent grievance.

She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

She is what politics produces when we abandon self-government for self-gratification. And that's the real obvious irony in her victory on Tuesday night, and the only thing about it that truly matters. Christine O'Donnell's campaign is a successful exercise in angry, misfit masturbation, with as little to do with the deadly problems this country faces as some guy wanking in the balcony of a grindhouse has to do with Romeo and Juliet.

Man, talk about asshurt.

I think asshurt has jumped the shark.

When did you get so asshurt about people saying "asshurt"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 15, 2010, 04:00:13 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 15, 2010, 03:49:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 15, 2010, 03:47:58 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 15, 2010, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

QuoteShe is what politics produces when you divorce politics from government. She is what you get when you sell to the country that nothing government can do will help, and that the government is an alien thing, and that politics is nothing more than the active public display of impotent grievance.

She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

She is what politics produces when we abandon self-government for self-gratification. And that's the real obvious irony in her victory on Tuesday night, and the only thing about it that truly matters. Christine O'Donnell's campaign is a successful exercise in angry, misfit masturbation, with as little to do with the deadly problems this country faces as some guy wanking in the balcony of a grindhouse has to do with Romeo and Juliet.

Man, talk about asshurt.

I think asshurt has jumped the shark.

When did you get so asshurt about people saying "asshurt"?

TEC's asshurtedness about Gil's asshurtedness about the existence of asshurtedness makes me asshurt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

Quote
She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

God damnit. Politics is ruined for everybody. Gone are the astute, hard-working pragmatists of yesteryear. And by yesteryear, I mean ... 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on September 15, 2010, 04:16:38 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

Quote
She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

God damnit. Politics is ruined for everybody. Gone are the astute, hard-working pragmatists of yesteryear. And by yesteryear, I mean ... 

...
...

never?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on September 15, 2010, 04:19:30 PM
Sean Hannity must really be a schmuck to have made Karl Rove look reasonable.  

The GOP is going so far off the deep end, it's making the nomination of McGovern in '72 look downright moderate by comparison.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 15, 2010, 04:19:30 PM
Sean Hannity must really be a schmuck to have made Karl Rove look reasonable.  

The GOP is going so far off the deep end, it's making the nomination of McGovern in '72 look downright moderate by comparison.

It's true. I think Daniels would help the party return to the outskirts of credibility. But I don't know if he's electable by their standards. I mean, think about it. Has he ever killed anybody? Or even attempted to?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 04:46:41 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

Quote
She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

God damnit. Politics is ruined for everybody. Gone are the astute, hard-working pragmatists of yesteryear. And by yesteryear, I mean ... 

I think you highlighted the wrong paragraph to illustrate that particular asshurtedness. I think the graf you were looking for was this one:

QuoteShe is what politics produces when you divorce politics from government. She is what you get when you sell to the country that nothing government can do will help, and that the government is an alien thing, and that politics is nothing more than the active public display of impotent grievance.

The paragraph you quoted was bemoaning the way our media ignores substance and policy and reduces their coverage of the governance of our nation to he-said-she-said vapidness and horse race journalism. (Because policy is complicated and it's tough finding people with informed enough understanding of its ins and out to actually talk about its effects, and who really cares about that boring shit anyways?)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 15, 2010, 06:06:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 03:30:14 PM
On O'Donnell...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/christine-o-donnell-delaware-091510

QuoteShe is what politics produces when you divorce politics from government. She is what you get when you sell to the country that nothing government can do will help, and that the government is an alien thing, and that politics is nothing more than the active public display of impotent grievance.

She is what politics produces when you turn them into a game show and the coverage of them over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing them from the real world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions.

She is what politics produces when we abandon self-government for self-gratification. And that's the real obvious irony in her victory on Tuesday night, and the only thing about it that truly matters. Christine O'Donnell's campaign is a successful exercise in angry, misfit masturbation, with as little to do with the deadly problems this country faces as some guy wanking in the balcony of a grindhouse has to do with Romeo and Juliet.

The good thing about O'Donnell is that she has brought masturbation out in the open.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 15, 2010, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 15, 2010, 04:19:30 PM
Sean Hannity must really be a schmuck to have made Karl Rove look reasonable.  

The GOP is going so far off the deep end, it's making the nomination of McGovern in '72 look downright moderate by comparison.

It's true. I think Daniels would help the party return to the outskirts of credibility. But I don't know if he's electable by their standards. I mean, think about it. Has he ever killed anybody? Or even attempted to?

Has he even masturbated in public?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on September 15, 2010, 07:22:20 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 15, 2010, 06:07:55 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 15, 2010, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 15, 2010, 04:19:30 PM
Sean Hannity must really be a schmuck to have made Karl Rove look reasonable.  

The GOP is going so far off the deep end, it's making the nomination of McGovern in '72 look downright moderate by comparison.

It's true. I think Daniels would help the party return to the outskirts of credibility. But I don't know if he's electable by their standards. I mean, think about it. Has he ever killed anybody? Or even attempted to?

Has he even masturbated in public?

Penis out or just dry-humpin' somethin'?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 15, 2010, 07:30:24 PM
This Kenyan anti-colonialism has gone too far!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/us-saudi-arabia-arms-deal

QuoteBarack Obama is to go ahead with plans to sell Saudi Arabia advanced aircraft and other weapons worth up to $60bn (£39bn), the biggest arms deal in US history, in a strategy of shoring up Gulf Arab allies to face any military threat from Iran.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 15, 2010, 07:59:25 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 15, 2010, 04:19:30 PMThe GOP is going so far off the deep end, it's making the nomination of McGovern in '72 look downright moderate by comparison.

(http://heardonmystoop.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/chisholm.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 16, 2010, 08:34:42 AM

anyone hitting this (http://www.rightnation2010.com/register/) up this weekend?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 16, 2010, 08:40:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 16, 2010, 08:34:42 AM

anyone hitting this (http://www.rightnation2010.com/register/) up this weekend?

No GEORGE HUTCHINS?


What the hell are these guys trying to pull?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 16, 2010, 09:10:41 AM
Harry Reid is one creepy (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/119017-reid-coons-qmy-petq-will-win-de-senate-seat) son of a buck.

Quote"I'm going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He's my pet. He's my favorite candidate," Reid said.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 16, 2010, 03:01:28 PM
The Delaware Senate race: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 17, 2010, 04:59:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRXu4wna11I
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 20, 2010, 06:31:59 PM
Streator's favorite son and Journey groupie/stand-in Kevin Chalfant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Chalfant) rides in on some pure white horse to wave the flag, to lead the way...

http://www.allforonesong.com/

(Ooooooooooooooooooooooo...)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party. 

Actually, blame the Senate in general.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:47:16 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

DPD.

This also just really pisses me off.  I want to see some gheys in uniform STAT!  SEMPER FABULOUS!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 05:05:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

Just... just tell me who to fucking hate on right now.  I've got a lot to give. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Explain your math.

There are 57 Dems in the Senate plus 2 independents who caucus with them. That makes 59. They need 60 to break a filibuster.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on September 21, 2010, 05:12:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

Uh oh.  You just done rattled JD's cage, Oleg.  Nice going.  Jerk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 05:16:35 PM
On gutless fucking assholes and another part of the filibustered bill...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/dream-act-2010

QuoteHis name was Reyes, well-liked, a great soldier, and "squared the fuck away," as we'd often say in the Army. Our S.A.W. gunner, he would return enemy fire beautifully — and not much is beautiful about the Iraq war. We trusted him with our lives. And you know what changed when we discovered that he was a citizen of Peru instead of the United States? Absolutely nothing.

My infantry platoon had guys from all over the country — we looked like a recruitment ad that screamed diversity — so I had no idea that foreign citizens fought alongside us. Nor did I know that such a thing was possible. But it didn't bother me, and I actually thought it was incredible that Reyes would risk life and limb for a country that wasn't officially his.

No, what bothered me was that serving with our flag on his shoulder didn't guarantee Reyes citizenship upon honorable discharge; it merely helped his chances. He had committed to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," but the United States would not commit to him.

You'd think that joining the military would essentially flick the naturalization switch from "safe" to "semi," meaning that he'd be good to go, but sadly that's not the case... yet.

Last week Harry Reid announced that he will insert the DREAM (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) Act into a defense authorization bill, granting permanent residency to young undocumented immigrants who honorably serve in the armed forces for two years. This infuriated Republicans, including John McCain, who called it (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/16/mccain-dream-act/) "onerous" and "a pure political act" despite co-sponsoring the same bill in 2005, 2006, and 2007. (Colin Powell, still technically a Republican, approves (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39255969#39255969) of the proposal.)

McCain has obvious political considerations — he's up for reelection in a state hostile to immigration — but this flip-flop seems especially cynical. It blows my mind that he would threaten to block this reform. Foreign citizens have always participated in our nation's defense, sometimes when Americans were scared to send their own children. And who in the hell would want to join the military now? No one knows if Afghanistan is winnable, and we're going to be stuck in Iraq for years despite the official end of combat operations. (Why hasn't my victory parade invitation arrived in the mail?)

And besides, you can make at least triple the money as a civilian contractor. What's the fucking point?

Still, we desperately need more troops, and there's nothing more patriotic than willingness to fight and die in the hope of becoming a citizen. Immigrants are willing to work all the shitty, low-paying, demeaning jobs that most lazy Americans feel is beneath them. But military service isn't janitorial work — it's not beneath anyone — and if our lazy citizens aren't willing to serve their own country, then the honor should go to people who actually deserve to wear the uniform.

Reyes eventually became a U.S. citizen, but would've faced a legal nightmare if his application had been denied. And there's no good reason that a soldier like him should have to go through hell again.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

This is the political equivalent of DA FYIRE AND DA PASHION arguments from the meatheads.  That if Obama had yelled louder, had twisted more arms, had cajoled somemore, there would be a public option.

First of all, he was never wedded it to it (for good reason, because it would have eroded private insurance entirely).  Second, the Democratic Party has several constituencies; there are several conservative Democrats in the Party. 

He got the best bill he could get out of the Senate.  Simple as that.

I think his record thus far in terms of legislative achievement is nothing short of extraordinary.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on September 21, 2010, 05:51:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

This is the political equivalent of DA FYIRE AND DA PASHION arguments from the meatheads.  That if Obama had yelled louder, had twisted more arms, had cajoled somemore, there would be a public option.

First of all, he was never wedded it to it (for good reason, because it would have eroded private insurance entirely).  Second, the Democratic Party has several constituencies; there are several conservative Democrats in the Party. 

He got the best bill he could get out of the Senate.  Simple as that.

I think his record thus far in terms of legislative achievement is nothing short of extraordinary.

Musta been hard to type that with his giant Kenyan dong blocking your view of the screen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 06:11:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

This is the political equivalent of DA FYIRE AND DA PASHION arguments from the meatheads.  That if Obama had yelled louder, had twisted more arms, had cajoled somemore, there would be a public option.

First of all, he was never wedded it to it (for good reason, because it would have eroded private insurance entirely).  Second, the Democratic Party has several constituencies; there are several conservative Democrats in the Party. 

He got the best bill he could get out of the Senate.  Simple as that.

I think his record thus far in terms of legislative achievement is nothing short of extraordinary.

Bullshit.  He campaigned on a public option.  He could have easily marched into Nelson's and Lincoln's office and told them to get with the program or else they face a Democratic challenge in the primaries.  No yelling involved.

They pandered to their constituencies and they're going to end up losing anyway.  Fuck 'em.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 06:12:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 21, 2010, 05:51:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

This is the political equivalent of DA FYIRE AND DA PASHION arguments from the meatheads.  That if Obama had yelled louder, had twisted more arms, had cajoled somemore, there would be a public option.

First of all, he was never wedded it to it (for good reason, because it would have eroded private insurance entirely).  Second, the Democratic Party has several constituencies; there are several conservative Democrats in the Party. 

He got the best bill he could get out of the Senate.  Simple as that.

I think his record thus far in terms of legislative achievement is nothing short of extraordinary.

Musta been hard to type that with his giant Kenyan dong blocking your view of the screen.

I wasn't passing judgment on whether or not he got the best bills possible out of Congress.  In terms of sheer numbers alone, with the stimulus, it's a pretty impressive track record.

LBJ would blanch at that record.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 06:13:33 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 06:11:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

This is the political equivalent of DA FYIRE AND DA PASHION arguments from the meatheads.  That if Obama had yelled louder, had twisted more arms, had cajoled somemore, there would be a public option.

First of all, he was never wedded it to it (for good reason, because it would have eroded private insurance entirely).  Second, the Democratic Party has several constituencies; there are several conservative Democrats in the Party. 

He got the best bill he could get out of the Senate.  Simple as that.

I think his record thus far in terms of legislative achievement is nothing short of extraordinary.

Bullshit.  He campaigned on a public option.  He could have easily marched into Nelson's and Lincoln's office and told them to get with the program or else they face a Democratic challenge in the primaries.  No yelling involved.

They pandered to their constituencies and they're going to end up losing anyway.  Fuck 'em.

Yeah, how'd that work out for Blanche?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 06:21:12 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 21, 2010, 05:12:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

Uh oh.  You just done rattled JD's cage, Oleg.  Nice going.  Jerk.

He knows I meant the other hayseeds.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 06:27:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 21, 2010, 05:51:16 PM
Musta been hard to type that with his giant Kenyan anti-colonialist dong blocking your view of the screen.

Son of a Luo tribesman'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 06:11:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 05:43:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 21, 2010, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2010, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:28:58 PM
Fuck these goddamn gutless fucking assholes too. (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/120029-dadtnosenate-deals-blow-to-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal)

These dick wringers have a majority, and the one piece of action that doesn't require a massive investment of my tax money gets put off because they are a bunch of gutless fucking dickwads.  Fuck you Democratic Party.  

Actually, blame the Senate in general.

And the Republicans who filibustered.

Actually... Mostly the latter.

I reserve a hearty go fuck yourselves for those dipshits too; but the supposedly filibuster proof majority party that found a way to push through a massive healthcare bill?  No, they get the biggest fuck you of them all... this just needed a straight up/down vote, not the bloating it was loaded down with so they could avoid the actual vote and then blame it on Republicans.  They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Because the health care was a spending bill, it went through the reconciliation, no?  In other words, they passed the base bill and then passed the amendments that were not eligible for a filibuster.

This bill is all about the Republicans.  Lincoln and Pryor wanted to save their hides (or at least make them look more attractive to the fucking hayseeds in AR) and saw they wouldn't have gotten to 60 anyway.  Remember, there is no longer a 60-vote majority thanks to the gutless bitch from Mass.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  This shit also grinds my gears...

If the Democrats and/or Obama had any balls, we'd have at least a public option right now.

This is the political equivalent of DA FYIRE AND DA PASHION arguments from the meatheads.  That if Obama had yelled louder, had twisted more arms, had cajoled somemore, there would be a public option.

First of all, he was never wedded it to it (for good reason, because it would have eroded private insurance entirely).  Second, the Democratic Party has several constituencies; there are several conservative Democrats in the Party. 

He got the best bill he could get out of the Senate.  Simple as that.

I think his record thus far in terms of legislative achievement is nothing short of extraordinary.

Bullshit.  He campaigned on a public option.  He could have easily marched into Nelson's and Lincoln's office and told them to get with the program or else they face a Democratic challenge in the primaries.  No yelling involved.

They pandered to their constituencies and they're going to end up losing anyway.  Fuck 'em.

I know it's hackneyed to say it, but sometimes you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 07:41:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Explain your math.

There are 57 Dems in the Senate plus 2 independents who caucus with them. That makes 59. They need 60 to break a filibuster.

My math is WRONG.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 07:41:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Explain your math.

There are 57 Dems in the Senate plus 2 independents who caucus with them. That makes 59. They need 60 to break a filibuster.

My math is WRONG.

That explains it!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 10:02:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 07:41:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 21, 2010, 04:45:58 PM
They have the majority and no excuse.  To blame this on Republicans is gutless.  They could have done this without them.

Explain your math.

There are 57 Dems in the Senate plus 2 independents who caucus with them. That makes 59. They need 60 to break a filibuster.

My math is WRONG.

That explains it!

Now I am just mad at myself. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 11:25:33 PM
Glen Urquhart:

Valley in Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenurquhart)...

Candidate for Congress from Delaware (http://www.glenforliberty.com/)...

Amateur historian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jpb4-gNCA4)...

QuoteDo you know, where does this phrase 'separation of Church and State' come from? Anybody know?... Actually, that exact phrase is not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was reassuring them the federal government wouldn't trample on their religion. The exact phrase "separation of Church and State" came out of Adolf Hitler's mouth. That's where it comes from. So, next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they're Nazis.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on September 21, 2010, 11:29:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 11:25:33 PM
Glen Urquhart:

Valley in Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenurquhart)...

Candidate for Congress from Delaware (http://www.glenforliberty.com/)...

Amateur historian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jpb4-gNCA4)...

QuoteDo you know, where does this phrase 'separation of Church and State' come from? Anybody know?... Actually, that exact phrase is not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was reassuring them the federal government wouldn't trample on their religion. The exact phrase "separation of Church and State" came out of Adolf Hitler's mouth. That's where it comes from. So, next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they're Nazis.

Godwin's Law. One of the Tea Party's strangest and most abused weapons.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 21, 2010, 11:30:45 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 21, 2010, 11:29:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 21, 2010, 11:25:33 PM
Glen Urquhart:

Valley in Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenurquhart)...

Candidate for Congress from Delaware (http://www.glenforliberty.com/)...

Amateur historian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jpb4-gNCA4)...

QuoteDo you know, where does this phrase 'separation of Church and State' come from? Anybody know?... Actually, that exact phrase is not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was reassuring them the federal government wouldn't trample on their religion. The exact phrase "separation of Church and State" came out of Adolf Hitler's mouth. That's where it comes from. So, next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they're Nazis.

Godwin's Law. One of the Tea Party's strangest and most abused weapons.

That sounds like something a Nazi would say.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 22, 2010, 09:01:13 AM
I've shit on Jimmy Carter several times on these Interwebs - and rightly so as he's an easy and laughable target. But I'll give him credit for one thing: He is not Ted Kennedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 22, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 22, 2010, 09:01:13 AM
I've shit on Jimmy Carter several times on these Interwebs - and rightly so as he's an easy and laughable target. But I'll give him credit for one thing: He is not Ted Kennedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late)

This is what happens when one gets old.  You think that you have a license to say aloud anything that pops into your head, Very much like posting on this message board.

" With a new book, "White House Diary," hitting the shelves, Carter seems to be everywhere, waging a full-scale media blitz. The book -- which is, as the title suggests, a collection of the journal entries Carter wrote as president -- has afforded the 85-year-old Democrat the chance to mount fresh defenses of his presidency, while lobbing more than a few attacks on political opponents.


Carter made news for remarks during an interview with Brian Williams that aired Monday on the "NBC Nightly News." Carter told Williams that the humanitarian work he's performed through his foundation means that his post-presidency career has been "superior" to that of other former presidents.

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents'," Carter said"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 22, 2010, 10:05:25 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 22, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 22, 2010, 09:01:13 AM
I've shit on Jimmy Carter several times on these Interwebs - and rightly so as he's an easy and laughable target. But I'll give him credit for one thing: He is not Ted Kennedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late)

This is what happens when one gets old.  You think that you have a license to say aloud anything that pops into your head, Very much like posting on this message board.

" With a new book, "White House Diary," hitting the shelves, Carter seems to be everywhere, waging a full-scale media blitz. The book -- which is, as the title suggests, a collection of the journal entries Carter wrote as president -- has afforded the 85-year-old Democrat the chance to mount fresh defenses of his presidency, while lobbing more than a few attacks on political opponents.


Carter made news for remarks during an interview with Brian Williams that aired Monday on the "NBC Nightly News." Carter told Williams that the humanitarian work he's performed through his foundation means that his post-presidency career has been "superior" to that of other former presidents.

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents'," Carter said"


and Ringo has been a better ex-Beatle than John Lennon. You can acheive more when you have more time to do it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 22, 2010, 10:25:18 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 22, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 22, 2010, 09:01:13 AM
I've shit on Jimmy Carter several times on these Interwebs - and rightly so as he's an easy and laughable target. But I'll give him credit for one thing: He is not Ted Kennedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late)

This is what happens when one gets old.  You think that you have a license to say aloud anything that pops into your head, Very much like posting on this message board.

" With a new book, "White House Diary," hitting the shelves, Carter seems to be everywhere, waging a full-scale media blitz. The book -- which is, as the title suggests, a collection of the journal entries Carter wrote as president -- has afforded the 85-year-old Democrat the chance to mount fresh defenses of his presidency, while lobbing more than a few attacks on political opponents.


Carter made news for remarks during an interview with Brian Williams that aired Monday on the "NBC Nightly News." Carter told Williams that the humanitarian work he's performed through his foundation means that his post-presidency career has been "superior" to that of other former presidents.

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents'," Carter said"


Carter is a pompous ass and was a worse president.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 22, 2010, 10:32:04 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 22, 2010, 10:25:18 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 22, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 22, 2010, 09:01:13 AM
I've shit on Jimmy Carter several times on these Interwebs - and rightly so as he's an easy and laughable target. But I'll give him credit for one thing: He is not Ted Kennedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late)

This is what happens when one gets old.  You think that you have a license to say aloud anything that pops into your head, Very much like posting on this message board.

" With a new book, "White House Diary," hitting the shelves, Carter seems to be everywhere, waging a full-scale media blitz. The book -- which is, as the title suggests, a collection of the journal entries Carter wrote as president -- has afforded the 85-year-old Democrat the chance to mount fresh defenses of his presidency, while lobbing more than a few attacks on political opponents.


Carter made news for remarks during an interview with Brian Williams that aired Monday on the "NBC Nightly News." Carter told Williams that the humanitarian work he's performed through his foundation means that his post-presidency career has been "superior" to that of other former presidents.

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents'," Carter said"


Carter is a pompous ass and was a worse president.

Also, don't let the folksy, aw shucks demeanor fool you. He's more socially conservative than Reagan ever was, and as much of a foreign policy hawk as any president of the last 50 years when it suited his purposes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on September 22, 2010, 12:11:46 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 22, 2010, 10:32:04 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 22, 2010, 10:25:18 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 22, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 22, 2010, 09:01:13 AM
I've shit on Jimmy Carter several times on these Interwebs - and rightly so as he's an easy and laughable target. But I'll give him credit for one thing: He is not Ted Kennedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late)

This is what happens when one gets old.  You think that you have a license to say aloud anything that pops into your head, Very much like posting on this message board.

" With a new book, "White House Diary," hitting the shelves, Carter seems to be everywhere, waging a full-scale media blitz. The book -- which is, as the title suggests, a collection of the journal entries Carter wrote as president -- has afforded the 85-year-old Democrat the chance to mount fresh defenses of his presidency, while lobbing more than a few attacks on political opponents.


Carter made news for remarks during an interview with Brian Williams that aired Monday on the "NBC Nightly News." Carter told Williams that the humanitarian work he's performed through his foundation means that his post-presidency career has been "superior" to that of other former presidents.

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents'," Carter said"


Carter is a pompous ass and was a worse president.

Also, don't let the folksy, aw shucks demeanor fool you. He's more socially conservative than Reagan ever was, and as much of a foreign policy hawk as any president of the last 50 years when it suited his purposes.

If only we had a catchy nickname for him. Perhaps a handy three word moniker of some sort.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:23:10 PM
Quick aside: I get emails from the Democratic Party. I should unsubscribe instead of just deleting them. Today's came from "Tim Kaine". He says that the Republicans are throwing a fit and are threatening to shut down government. Instead of inspiring me to act now and help fight these people, these emails have inspired me to give even less of a shit than I did before the election in 2008. That's hard to do. But honestly, American politics is devolving to the point where I just don't give a shit anymore. In fact I almost want to see some crazy shit go down. Let's get Beck/Palin into office in 2012 and make this country the Tourist Attraction everyone already thinks it is. Finish it off. A flag in every yard and a dead immigrant on every corner. AMERICA.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 22, 2010, 12:27:34 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 22, 2010, 12:11:46 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 22, 2010, 10:32:04 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 22, 2010, 10:25:18 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 22, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 22, 2010, 09:01:13 AM
I've shit on Jimmy Carter several times on these Interwebs - and rightly so as he's an easy and laughable target. But I'll give him credit for one thing: He is not Ted Kennedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late)

This is what happens when one gets old.  You think that you have a license to say aloud anything that pops into your head, Very much like posting on this message board.

" With a new book, "White House Diary," hitting the shelves, Carter seems to be everywhere, waging a full-scale media blitz. The book -- which is, as the title suggests, a collection of the journal entries Carter wrote as president -- has afforded the 85-year-old Democrat the chance to mount fresh defenses of his presidency, while lobbing more than a few attacks on political opponents.


Carter made news for remarks during an interview with Brian Williams that aired Monday on the "NBC Nightly News." Carter told Williams that the humanitarian work he's performed through his foundation means that his post-presidency career has been "superior" to that of other former presidents.

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents'," Carter said"


Carter is a pompous ass and was a worse president.

Also, don't let the folksy, aw shucks demeanor fool you. He's more socially conservative than Reagan ever was, and as much of a foreign policy hawk as any president of the last 50 years when it suited his purposes.

If only we had a catchy nickname for him. Perhaps a handy three word moniker of some sort.

Colossal asshole?  no that's two words
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 22, 2010, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:23:10 PM
Quick aside: I get emails from the Democratic Party. I should unsubscribe instead of just deleting them. Today's came from "Tim Kaine". He says that the Republicans are throwing a fit and are threatening to shut down government. Instead of inspiring me to act now and help fight these people, these emails have inspired me to give even less of a shit than I did before the election in 2008. That's hard to do. But honestly, American politics is devolving to the point where I just don't give a shit anymore. In fact I almost want to see some crazy shit go down. Let's get Beck/Palin into office in 2012 and make this country the Tourist Attraction everyone already thinks it is. Finish it off. A flag in every yard and a dead immigrant on every corner. AMERICA.

While we could romanticize the role of the Jester as one who speaks truth to power, the fact is that it's a pretty rotten kettle of fish when the voice calling for a reasonable, intelligent tone of discourse is Jon Fucking Stewart.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:43:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 22, 2010, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:23:10 PM
Quick aside: I get emails from the Democratic Party. I should unsubscribe instead of just deleting them. Today's came from "Tim Kaine". He says that the Republicans are throwing a fit and are threatening to shut down government. Instead of inspiring me to act now and help fight these people, these emails have inspired me to give even less of a shit than I did before the election in 2008. That's hard to do. But honestly, American politics is devolving to the point where I just don't give a shit anymore. In fact I almost want to see some crazy shit go down. Let's get Beck/Palin into office in 2012 and make this country the Tourist Attraction everyone already thinks it is. Finish it off. A flag in every yard and a dead immigrant on every corner. AMERICA.

While we could romanticize the role of the Jester as one who speaks truth to power, the fact is that it's a pretty rotten kettle of fish when the voice calling for a reasonable, intelligent tone of discourse is Jon Fucking Stewart.

And sorry, but the hardcore right wingers (not people like Morph and TJ who I consider to be actual human beings) aren't listening to anything. They're just scary and angry. Democrats? Worthless pussies. All of them. All the snark and comedy is great for a laugh but there's no organization there.

Whoa, look at the crazy tea partiers! They're never going to win anything! I don't know about that. There's some pretty riled up people in that group and they're loud. Maybe I'm just distracted by the noise but I think they should probably be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 22, 2010, 01:10:03 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 22, 2010, 10:32:04 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 22, 2010, 10:25:18 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 22, 2010, 09:34:53 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 22, 2010, 09:01:13 AM
I've shit on Jimmy Carter several times on these Interwebs - and rightly so as he's an easy and laughable target. But I'll give him credit for one thing: He is not Ted Kennedy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100921/pl_yblog_upshot/jimmy-carter-hasnt-been-mincing-many-words-of-late)

This is what happens when one gets old.  You think that you have a license to say aloud anything that pops into your head, Very much like posting on this message board.

" With a new book, "White House Diary," hitting the shelves, Carter seems to be everywhere, waging a full-scale media blitz. The book -- which is, as the title suggests, a collection of the journal entries Carter wrote as president -- has afforded the 85-year-old Democrat the chance to mount fresh defenses of his presidency, while lobbing more than a few attacks on political opponents.


Carter made news for remarks during an interview with Brian Williams that aired Monday on the "NBC Nightly News." Carter told Williams that the humanitarian work he's performed through his foundation means that his post-presidency career has been "superior" to that of other former presidents.

"I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents'," Carter said"


Carter is a pompous ass and was a worse president.

Also, don't let the folksy, aw shucks demeanor fool you. He's more socially conservative than Reagan ever was, and as much of a foreign policy hawk as any president of the last 50 years when it suited his purposes.

And he wore a sweater.

NEVER FORGET.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 22, 2010, 07:31:37 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:43:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 22, 2010, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:23:10 PM
Quick aside: I get emails from the Democratic Party. I should unsubscribe instead of just deleting them. Today's came from "Tim Kaine". He says that the Republicans are throwing a fit and are threatening to shut down government. Instead of inspiring me to act now and help fight these people, these emails have inspired me to give even less of a shit than I did before the election in 2008. That's hard to do. But honestly, American politics is devolving to the point where I just don't give a shit anymore. In fact I almost want to see some crazy shit go down. Let's get Beck/Palin into office in 2012 and make this country the Tourist Attraction everyone already thinks it is. Finish it off. A flag in every yard and a dead immigrant on every corner. AMERICA.

While we could romanticize the role of the Jester as one who speaks truth to power, the fact is that it's a pretty rotten kettle of fish when the voice calling for a reasonable, intelligent tone of discourse is Jon Fucking Stewart.

And sorry, but the hardcore right wingers (not people like Morph and TJ who I consider to be actual human beings) aren't listening to anything. They're just scary and angry. Democrats? Worthless pussies. All of them. All the snark and comedy is great for a laugh but there's no organization there.

Whoa, look at the crazy tea partiers! They're never going to win anything! I don't know about that. There's some pretty riled up people in that group and they're loud. Maybe I'm just distracted by the noise but I think they should probably be taken seriously.

These comments are so right that, if they could, they would jam a bunch of stuff into everyone's butt, and then rape everyone so hard the room would stink.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on September 22, 2010, 07:38:50 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 22, 2010, 07:31:37 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:43:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 22, 2010, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:23:10 PM
Quick aside: I get emails from the Democratic Party. I should unsubscribe instead of just deleting them. Today's came from "Tim Kaine". He says that the Republicans are throwing a fit and are threatening to shut down government. Instead of inspiring me to act now and help fight these people, these emails have inspired me to give even less of a shit than I did before the election in 2008. That's hard to do. But honestly, American politics is devolving to the point where I just don't give a shit anymore. In fact I almost want to see some crazy shit go down. Let's get Beck/Palin into office in 2012 and make this country the Tourist Attraction everyone already thinks it is. Finish it off. A flag in every yard and a dead immigrant on every corner. AMERICA.

While we could romanticize the role of the Jester as one who speaks truth to power, the fact is that it's a pretty rotten kettle of fish when the voice calling for a reasonable, intelligent tone of discourse is Jon Fucking Stewart.

And sorry, but the hardcore right wingers (not people like Morph and TJ who I consider to be actual human beings) aren't listening to anything. They're just scary and angry. Democrats? Worthless pussies. All of them. All the snark and comedy is great for a laugh but there's no organization there.

Whoa, look at the crazy tea partiers! They're never going to win anything! I don't know about that. There's some pretty riled up people in that group and they're loud. Maybe I'm just distracted by the noise but I think they should probably be taken seriously.

These comments are so right that, if they could, they would jam a bunch of stuff into everyone's butt, and then rape everyone so hard the room would stink.

This. I've been legal to vote for 4 years and I'm already well south of apathetic about the whole process. This country is boned.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on September 22, 2010, 08:08:04 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:43:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 22, 2010, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:23:10 PM
Quick aside: I get emails from the Democratic Party. I should unsubscribe instead of just deleting them. Today's came from "Tim Kaine". He says that the Republicans are throwing a fit and are threatening to shut down government. Instead of inspiring me to act now and help fight these people, these emails have inspired me to give even less of a shit than I did before the election in 2008. That's hard to do. But honestly, American politics is devolving to the point where I just don't give a shit anymore. In fact I almost want to see some crazy shit go down. Let's get Beck/Palin into office in 2012 and make this country the Tourist Attraction everyone already thinks it is. Finish it off. A flag in every yard and a dead immigrant on every corner. AMERICA.

While we could romanticize the role of the Jester as one who speaks truth to power, the fact is that it's a pretty rotten kettle of fish when the voice calling for a reasonable, intelligent tone of discourse is Jon Fucking Stewart.

And sorry, but the hardcore right wingers (not people like Morph and TJ who I consider to be actual human beings) aren't listening to anything. They're just scary and angry. Democrats? Worthless pussies. All of them. All the snark and comedy is great for a laugh but there's no organization there.


Whoa, look at the crazy tea partiers! They're never going to win anything! I don't know about that. There's some pretty riled up people in that group and they're loud. Maybe I'm just distracted by the noise but I think they should probably be taken seriously.

So very much this.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on September 23, 2010, 08:32:51 AM
Quote from: powen01 on September 22, 2010, 07:31:37 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:43:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 22, 2010, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on September 22, 2010, 12:23:10 PM
Quick aside: I get emails from the Democratic Party. I should unsubscribe instead of just deleting them. Today's came from "Tim Kaine". He says that the Republicans are throwing a fit and are threatening to shut down government. Instead of inspiring me to act now and help fight these people, these emails have inspired me to give even less of a shit than I did before the election in 2008. That's hard to do. But honestly, American politics is devolving to the point where I just don't give a shit anymore. In fact I almost want to see some crazy shit go down. Let's get Beck/Palin into office in 2012 and make this country the Tourist Attraction everyone already thinks it is. Finish it off. A flag in every yard and a dead immigrant on every corner. AMERICA.

While we could romanticize the role of the Jester as one who speaks truth to power, the fact is that it's a pretty rotten kettle of fish when the voice calling for a reasonable, intelligent tone of discourse is Jon Fucking Stewart.

And sorry, but the hardcore right wingers (not people like Morph and TJ who I consider to be actual human beings) aren't listening to anything. They're just scary and angry. Democrats? Worthless pussies. All of them. All the snark and comedy is great for a laugh but there's no organization there.

Whoa, look at the crazy tea partiers! They're never going to win anything! I don't know about that. There's some pretty riled up people in that group and they're loud. Maybe I'm just distracted by the noise but I think they should probably be taken seriously.

These comments are so right that, if they could, they would jam a bunch of stuff into everyone's butt, and then rape everyone so hard the room would stink.

Big Ben is taking notes
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:44:59 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.

Oh, they do.  They want the perks of power (including cash from lobbyists).  Just don't ask them to govern smartly.

But that goes for the Dems, too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on September 23, 2010, 08:51:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.



QuoteA GOP lawmaker involved in putting together the document said House Republicans realize that voters are angry with both Democrats and Republicans. The agenda contained in the "Pledge to America" is intended to convince such voters that their concerns are taken seriously by Republicans, who will act differently if returned to power than they did when controlling Congress during parts of the Bush administration, the legislator said.

Yeah right.

Although, the Dems pretty much suck as well.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on September 23, 2010, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:44:59 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.

Oh, they do.  They want the perks of power (including cash from lobbyists).  Just don't ask them to govern smartly.

But that goes for the Dems, too.

This is has been going on since anyone alive can remember. Neither side is good at governing. Back to sleep.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 23, 2010, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:44:59 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.

Oh, they do.  They want the perks of power (including cash from lobbyists).  Just don't ask them to govern smartly.

But that goes for the Dems, too.

This is has been going on since anyone alive can remember. Neither side is good at governing. Back to sleep.

When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections.  Maybe the Dems should lose control of both houses.  It'll allow Obama to natually pivot against the GOP (especially Boehner, who, while good, is not in Obama's league) and allow the GOP to be tagged with the sagging economy going forward.

Just a thought.

Also, I didn't think it was possible for the GOP to come up with a "contract" that was entirely lacking in specifics and may not even be a collection of poll tested bromides, but sure enough, they did it.  I believe in 94, exit polls (take them for what they're worth) indicated that about 70% of voters didn't care or know about the Contract with America, while those that had didn't let it influence their vote.

The generic congressional ballot is tightening of late (which doesn't reveal that much), so this is going to be a close election.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on September 23, 2010, 09:05:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 23, 2010, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:44:59 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.

Oh, they do.  They want the perks of power (including cash from lobbyists).  Just don't ask them to govern smartly.

But that goes for the Dems, too.

This is has been going on since anyone alive can remember. Neither side is good at governing. Back to sleep.

When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections.  Maybe the Dems should lose control of both houses.  It'll allow Obama to natually pivot against the GOP (especially Boehner, who, while good, is not in Obama's league) and allow the GOP to be tagged with the sagging economy going forward.

Just a thought.

Also, I didn't think it was possible for the GOP to come up with a "contract" that was entirely lacking in specifics and may not even be a collection of poll tested bromides, but sure enough, they did it.  I believe in 94, exit polls (take them for what they're worth) indicated that about 70% of voters didn't care or know about the Contract with America, while those that had didn't let it influence their vote.

The generic congressional ballot is tightening of late (which doesn't reveal that much), so this is going to be a close election.

I don't think that'll work. The average moran doesn't blame congress for anything. I mean, he knows he hates congress, but he's still going to blame the president. I can't find a link, but I remember hearing during the 2008 election that somewhere north of 50% of voters had no idea which party was in control of congress at the time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 09:06:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 23, 2010, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:44:59 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.

Oh, they do.  They want the perks of power (including cash from lobbyists).  Just don't ask them to govern smartly.

But that goes for the Dems, too.

This is has been going on since anyone alive can remember. Neither side is good at governing. Back to sleep.

When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections.  Maybe the Dems should lose control of both houses.  It'll allow Obama to natually pivot against the GOP (especially Boehner, who, while good, is not in Obama's league) and allow the GOP to be tagged with the sagging economy going forward.

Just a thought.

Also, I didn't think it was possible for the GOP to come up with a "contract" that was entirely lacking in specifics and may not even be a collection of poll tested bromides, but sure enough, they did it.  I believe in 94, exit polls (take them for what they're worth) indicated that about 70% of voters didn't care or know about the Contract with America, while those that had didn't let it influence their vote.

The generic congressional ballot is tightening of late (which doesn't reveal that much), so this is going to be a close election.

What the fuck?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 23, 2010, 09:07:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 23, 2010, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:44:59 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.

Oh, they do.  They want the perks of power (including cash from lobbyists).  Just don't ask them to govern smartly.

But that goes for the Dems, too.

This is has been going on since anyone alive can remember. Neither side is good at governing. Back to sleep.

When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections.  Maybe the Dems should lose control of both houses.  It'll allow Obama to natually pivot against the GOP (especially Boehner, who, while good, is not in Obama's league) and allow the GOP to be tagged with the sagging economy going forward.

Just a thought.

Also, I didn't think it was possible for the GOP to come up with a "contract" that was entirely lacking in specifics and may not even be a collection of poll tested bromides, but sure enough, they did it.  I believe in 94, exit polls (take them for what they're worth) indicated that about 70% of voters didn't care or know about the Contract with America, while those that had didn't let it influence their vote.

The generic congressional ballot is tightening of late (which doesn't reveal that much), so this is going to be a close election.


Who in the fuck, other than maybe Obama and a bunch of GOP mouthbreathers would beneift from your bright idea, Gil?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:08:29 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 23, 2010, 09:07:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on September 23, 2010, 08:54:51 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:44:59 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 08:28:52 AM

The Pledge To America (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/gop.pledge.to.america/index.html?hpt=T2). Long on rhetoric, short on specifics.

And nothing about earmarks...the entire document will be up in a little while, but if all they have about health care reform is "repeal", they just gave the Dems a lot of nice red meat to chew on (the GOP will take your insurance away!). It's almost as if they don't want to gain the majority.

All ideology aside, we're really boned this time around...we've either got Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner holding the gavel in January. Which means both parties will continue spending money like it's going to spoil.

Oh, they do.  They want the perks of power (including cash from lobbyists).  Just don't ask them to govern smartly.

But that goes for the Dems, too.

This is has been going on since anyone alive can remember. Neither side is good at governing. Back to sleep.

When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections.  Maybe the Dems should lose control of both houses.  It'll allow Obama to natually pivot against the GOP (especially Boehner, who, while good, is not in Obama's league) and allow the GOP to be tagged with the sagging economy going forward.

Just a thought.

Also, I didn't think it was possible for the GOP to come up with a "contract" that was entirely lacking in specifics and may not even be a collection of poll tested bromides, but sure enough, they did it.  I believe in 94, exit polls (take them for what they're worth) indicated that about 70% of voters didn't care or know about the Contract with America, while those that had didn't let it influence their vote.

The generic congressional ballot is tightening of late (which doesn't reveal that much), so this is going to be a close election.


Who in the fuck, other than maybe Obama and a bunch of GOP mouthbreathers would beneift from your bright idea, Gil?

It was just an idea.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 23, 2010, 09:09:40 AM
Gil, stick to writing Voyager fanfic, and leave the political speculation to experts like MikeC, please.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:11:02 AM
DPD, but since most, if not all, of these solutions from the new GOP contract came from the America Speaking Out site, I think it's interesting that they are ignoring the second most popular recommendation on there.

QuoteThe second most popular item on the "job creation" section of America Speaking out was the user-submitted idea to "Stop the outsourcing of jobs from America to other countries that do not pay taxes into the U.S. and stop the tax breaks that are given to these companies that are outsourcing."

http://www.americaspeakingout.com/browse/questions/in/job-creation
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:11:38 AM
Quote from: Bort on September 23, 2010, 09:09:40 AM
Gil, stick to writing Voyager fanfic, and leave the political speculation to experts like MikeC, please.

I'll just go back into my cave and finish my writings on cloture and jury nullification.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 23, 2010, 09:19:53 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:11:38 AM
Quote from: Bort on September 23, 2010, 09:09:40 AM
Gil, stick to writing Voyager fanfic, and leave the political speculation to experts like MikeC, please.

I'll just go back into my cave and finish my writings on cloture and jury nullification.

Write about what happens to the President's plane. I'd actually read that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 23, 2010, 09:27:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 23, 2010, 09:19:53 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:11:38 AM
Quote from: Bort on September 23, 2010, 09:09:40 AM
Gil, stick to writing Voyager fanfic, and leave the political speculation to experts like MikeC, please.

I'll just go back into my cave and finish my writings on cloture and jury nullification.

Write about what happens to the President's plane. I'd actually read that.

It wasn't the President's plane. It was a plane aimed at the President.

And it flew through a wormhole with the help of the special powers or technology or some shit of some people we haven't met yet. Or something. D'ur.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/TJUVe1Qp3MI/AAAAAAAADhY/hwqUCBiQItQ/s1600/US-Total-Federal-Outlays-vs-Median-Household-Income-1967-2009.PNG)

QuoteIn this chart, where we've graphed the trajectory of the total spending of the federal government with respect to the median household income in the U.S. for the years from 1967 through 2009, we see that the U.S. federal government's spending today has decoupled from the primary source of income that is required to sustain it.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).

Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:31:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).


Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?


WHO WROTE THE 2007-2009 BUDGETS?  Jebus, Chuck.  We all know GWB never vetoed a spending bill, OK?  The 2010 and 2015 lines have nothing to do with him.  I sincerely hope you're just doing this:

(http://thorgolucky.com/forum/images/smiles/smiley_poke_with_stick.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 23, 2010, 10:33:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:31:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).


Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?


WHO WROTE THE 2007-2009 BUDGETS?  Jebus, Chuck.  We all know GWB never vetoed a spending bill, OK?  The 2010 and 2015 lines have nothing to do with him.  I sincerely hope you're just doing this:

(http://thorgolucky.com/forum/images/smiles/smiley_poke_with_stick.gif)
Isn't this whole thread an extended (http://thorgolucky.com/forum/images/smiles/smiley_poke_with_stick.gif)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on September 23, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).
Quote
Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 23, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).
Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 23, 2010, 01:26:37 PM
At any point is anyone going to correct the quote tags?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 23, 2010, 01:26:37 PM
At any point is anyone going to correct the quote tags?

Fuck its silent in here.....
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 01:32:55 PM
Snobbery and real elitism: http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/09/u-of-c-law-professor-stops-blogging-after-outcry.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 01:35:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 01:32:55 PM
Snobbery and real elitism: http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/09/u-of-c-law-professor-stops-blogging-after-outcry.html

Maybe he'll have time to mow his own lawn now and can afford to live on over $250,000 per year.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 23, 2010, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 01:32:55 PM
Snobbery and real elitism: http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/09/u-of-c-law-professor-stops-blogging-after-outcry.html

http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/56151/

QuoteIn a witch hunt, the witches have feelings, too. As populist rage has erupted around the country, stoked by canny politicians, an opposite rage has built on Wall Street and other arenas where the wealthy hold sway. Its expression is more furtive and it's often mixed with a kind of sublimated shame, but it can be every bit as vitriolic.

"AIG pissed some people off, and now you're gonna screw everyone on Wall Street?" rails a laid-off JPMorgan vice-president. (Despite the honesty of the conversation, many did not wish to be quoted by name.)

"No offense to Middle America, but if someone went to Columbia or Wharton, [even if] their company is a fumbling, mismanaged bank, why should they all of a sudden be paid the same as the guy down the block who delivers restaurant supplies for Sysco out of a huge, shiny truck?" e-mails an irate Citigroup executive to a colleague.

"I'm not giving to charity this year!" one hedge-fund analyst shouts into the phone, when I ask about Obama's planned tax increases. "When people ask me for money, I tell them, 'If you want me to give you money, send a letter to my senator asking for my taxes to be lowered.' I feel so much less generous right now. If I have to adopt twenty poor families, I want a thank-you note and an update on their lives. At least Sally Struthers gives you an update."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 23, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).
Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:14:09 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 23, 2010, 01:26:37 PM
At any point is anyone going to correct the quote tags?

DPD.  I did.  http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg226601#msg226601
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 23, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).
Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 23, 2010, 02:16:25 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 23, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).
Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.


something something Oasis something something rimshot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:18:48 PM
Awesome work by Congress  (I can't believe I wrote that without jest):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Lending Bill (H.R. 5297) today. President Obama is expected to quickly sign this bill into law. This bill establishes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund and creates a number of new provisions for the SBA 504 program. These new provisions are as follows:

Quote1.      Fee Reductions – Allocates $505 Million for the continuation of SBA Fee reductions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Previously allocated funds were exhausted in June 2010. Fee reductions will be extended until December 31, 2010 or until the newly allocated funds are exhausted. This provision will be effective immediately upon the President's signature. The SBA will be working to process the 700 loans in the 504 Recovery Act Queue by the end of the month.

2.      Debt Refinancing – Established a temporary 2-year program of eligible business debt refinancing (up to 90%) through the SBA 504 loan program for creditworthy borrowers. Details on this provision have not yet been released by the SBA. We will update all of our lending partners when we know the details of these refinance provisions.

3.      Maximum SBA 504 Loan Amounts – The loan maximum on the SBA portion of financing is permanently increased to $5 Million ($5.5 Million for small manufacturers and borrowers meeting certain Energy Efficiency Public Policy goals). This means that we can participate in projects up to $12,500,000 under the 50/40/10 structure!

4.      Maximum Size limit increase – Maximum Corporate tangible Net Worth increases to $15MM and two-year average net income after taxes increases to $5MM. This change will allow the SBA 504 loan program to become a very viable option for Middle Market companies.

2 & 3 in this are huge.  HUGE!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 23, 2010, 02:38:00 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:14:09 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 23, 2010, 01:26:37 PM
At any point is anyone going to correct the quote tags?

DPD.  I did.  http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg226601#msg226601

Yeah. Sorry. I should have noticed that. Damn cold medicine.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 23, 2010, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:18:48 PM
Awesome work by Congress  (I can't believe I wrote that without jest):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Lending Bill (H.R. 5297) today. President Obama is expected to quickly sign this bill into law. This bill establishes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund and creates a number of new provisions for the SBA 504 program. These new provisions are as follows:

Quote1.      Fee Reductions – Allocates $505 Million for the continuation of SBA Fee reductions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Previously allocated funds were exhausted in June 2010. Fee reductions will be extended until December 31, 2010 or until the newly allocated funds are exhausted. This provision will be effective immediately upon the President's signature. The SBA will be working to process the 700 loans in the 504 Recovery Act Queue by the end of the month.

2.      Debt Refinancing – Established a temporary 2-year program of eligible business debt refinancing (up to 90%) through the SBA 504 loan program for creditworthy borrowers. Details on this provision have not yet been released by the SBA. We will update all of our lending partners when we know the details of these refinance provisions.

3.      Maximum SBA 504 Loan Amounts – The loan maximum on the SBA portion of financing is permanently increased to $5 Million ($5.5 Million for small manufacturers and borrowers meeting certain Energy Efficiency Public Policy goals). This means that we can participate in projects up to $12,500,000 under the 50/40/10 structure!

4.      Maximum Size limit increase – Maximum Corporate tangible Net Worth increases to $15MM and two-year average net income after taxes increases to $5MM. This change will allow the SBA 504 loan program to become a very viable option for Middle Market companies.

2 & 3 in this are huge.  HUGE!!!!

Sweet.  Stuff that banks used to do...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:39:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 23, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).
Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.

No one denies the complete inability of GWB to say no to spending, Chuck.  Your multiple statements about the veto pen do not get stronger because they are repeated.  Now, to make sure I follow your logic: Dem majorities from 2007-2009 ramped up spending vertically.  GWB signed off on them in 2007-2008 and Obama in 2009.  Therefore, all GOP Congressmen are to blame, even more than the Dems who signed off on the increases, because...?  Profit?

Those dots are connected as well as any Rosenbloom screed could connect them.  You didn't even bother to watch the Friedman video I linked, did you? 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 02:41:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:39:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 23, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).
Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.

No one denies the complete inability of GWB to say no to spending, Chuck.  Your multiple statements about the veto pen do not get stronger because they are repeated.  Now, to make sure I follow your logic: Dem majorities from 2007-2009 ramped up spending vertically.  GWB signed off on them in 2007-2008 and Obama in 2009.  Therefore, all GOP Congressmen are to blame, even more than the Dems who signed off on the increases, because...?  Profit?

Those dots are connected as well as any Rosenbloom screed could connect them.  You didn't even bother to watch the Friedman video I linked, did you? 

How is it possible that you make Internet Chuck be correct?  I'll just go ahead and bold the part you seem to be ignoring.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 23, 2010, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:18:48 PM
Awesome work by Congress  (I can't believe I wrote that without jest):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Lending Bill (H.R. 5297) today. President Obama is expected to quickly sign this bill into law. This bill establishes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund and creates a number of new provisions for the SBA 504 program. These new provisions are as follows:

Quote1.      Fee Reductions – Allocates $505 Million for the continuation of SBA Fee reductions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Previously allocated funds were exhausted in June 2010. Fee reductions will be extended until December 31, 2010 or until the newly allocated funds are exhausted. This provision will be effective immediately upon the President's signature. The SBA will be working to process the 700 loans in the 504 Recovery Act Queue by the end of the month.

2.      Debt Refinancing – Established a temporary 2-year program of eligible business debt refinancing (up to 90%) through the SBA 504 loan program for creditworthy borrowers. Details on this provision have not yet been released by the SBA. We will update all of our lending partners when we know the details of these refinance provisions.

3.      Maximum SBA 504 Loan Amounts – The loan maximum on the SBA portion of financing is permanently increased to $5 Million ($5.5 Million for small manufacturers and borrowers meeting certain Energy Efficiency Public Policy goals). This means that we can participate in projects up to $12,500,000 under the 50/40/10 structure!

4.      Maximum Size limit increase – Maximum Corporate tangible Net Worth increases to $15MM and two-year average net income after taxes increases to $5MM. This change will allow the SBA 504 loan program to become a very viable option for Middle Market companies.

2 & 3 in this are huge.  HUGE!!!!

Sweet.  Stuff that banks used to do...

The supply of credit to small businesses is fine.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET201008.pdf

QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:44:51 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 02:41:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:39:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 23, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 10:27:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 10:18:56 AM
I came across this chart and found it compelling enough to post here with the full knowledge that the TAXOLIB HOMOCRATS here will turn this into a "DEFENSE SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL" discussion, even though it's *not* defense spending that went vertical from 2007-2009.  Source is Political Calculations (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/09/biggest-issue-of-2010-in-one-chart.html).
Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

Again, Chuck when it's too hot in your bank branch, do you demand they turn the thermostat up?

Well, if it looks like we're about to get hit with a 40 below zero cold snap, yeah, I have them turn the heat up.

It's not like the weather outside was sunny and 85 when they started spending more.

And, @Morph, the projected lines, especially the 2015 one, is meaningless.  The vertical slope from 2007 to 2009 is a good reason not to vote for anyone currently on a ballot.  Especially the GOP.

I think the 2010 projection is pretty meaningful.  Your last statement makes ZERO sense, since the Dems have had majorities in Congress since 2007.  I thought you knew that?

As for your THROW THE BUMS OUT mentality... I defer to Friedman.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac9j15eig_w PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Agreed on the 2010.  Yes, the Dems had congress.  So what?  Who had the Veto Pen for the 2007 to 2009 budgets?

If the GOP were really fiscally responsible (since Reagan), they'd have shown it.

NEITHER side has shown that.

Being a fan of the GOP vs. the Dems for fiscal responsibility is like being a fan of the Indians over the Cubs because you admire the Indians' World Series success.

No one denies the complete inability of GWB to say no to spending, Chuck.  Your multiple statements about the veto pen do not get stronger because they are repeated.  Now, to make sure I follow your logic: Dem majorities from 2007-2009 ramped up spending vertically.  GWB signed off on them in 2007-2008 and Obama in 2009.  Therefore, all GOP Congressmen are to blame, even more than the Dems who signed off on the increases, because...?  Profit?

Those dots are connected as well as any Rosenbloom screed could connect them.  You didn't even bother to watch the Friedman video I linked, did you? 

How is it possible that you make Internet Chuck be correct?  I'll just go ahead and bold the part you seem to be ignoring.

DPD.  I am not ignoring that point.  I am arguing with Chuck's "Especially the GOP" line, which doesn't appear to have any basis in fact or logic.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on September 23, 2010, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
Quote from: powen01 on September 23, 2010, 02:39:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:18:48 PM
Awesome work by Congress  (I can't believe I wrote that without jest):

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Small Business Lending Bill (H.R. 5297) today. President Obama is expected to quickly sign this bill into law. This bill establishes a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund and creates a number of new provisions for the SBA 504 program. These new provisions are as follows:

Quote1.      Fee Reductions – Allocates $505 Million for the continuation of SBA Fee reductions under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Previously allocated funds were exhausted in June 2010. Fee reductions will be extended until December 31, 2010 or until the newly allocated funds are exhausted. This provision will be effective immediately upon the President's signature. The SBA will be working to process the 700 loans in the 504 Recovery Act Queue by the end of the month.

2.      Debt Refinancing – Established a temporary 2-year program of eligible business debt refinancing (up to 90%) through the SBA 504 loan program for creditworthy borrowers. Details on this provision have not yet been released by the SBA. We will update all of our lending partners when we know the details of these refinance provisions.

3.      Maximum SBA 504 Loan Amounts – The loan maximum on the SBA portion of financing is permanently increased to $5 Million ($5.5 Million for small manufacturers and borrowers meeting certain Energy Efficiency Public Policy goals). This means that we can participate in projects up to $12,500,000 under the 50/40/10 structure!

4.      Maximum Size limit increase – Maximum Corporate tangible Net Worth increases to $15MM and two-year average net income after taxes increases to $5MM. This change will allow the SBA 504 loan program to become a very viable option for Middle Market companies.

2 & 3 in this are huge.  HUGE!!!!

Sweet.  Stuff that banks used to do...

The supply of credit to small businesses is fine.

http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/sbet/SBET201008.pdf

QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.



Exactly my point.  Why tax us more to pay for this when private industry is already doing it?  And if you insist on greasing the wheels of lending, why waste the overhead on the administration of this lending when you could just do the same shit with tax credits to small businesses or banks?  I understand this type of project in a developing country, but here in the US?  What's the point?  Why is it good to pull this potential business from the market?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

The bill passed today by a 237-187 vote. That would be Republican votes.  0.

So much for helping small business.

Feel happier?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 04:05:22 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

The bill passed today by a 237-187 vote. That would be Republican votes.  0.

So much for helping small business.

Feel happier?

I didn't mean I was in a shitty mood because of the bill...I was just updating my general mood for everyone.

No Republican votes is least surprising something something (are we still running with this meme?).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on September 23, 2010, 04:09:39 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 04:05:22 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 03:59:48 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

The bill passed today by a 237-187 vote. That would be Republican votes.  0.

So much for helping small business.

Feel happier?

I didn't mean I was in a shitty mood because of the bill...I was just updating my general mood for everyone.

No Republican votes is least surprising something something (are we still running with this meme?).

You're damn right we are. The fact that we're still doing it is the least surprising something something since something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 04:35:06 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

Fine, it will also help the lucky 15 people that will be hired by Chuck's client, but at what expense?  Chuck's ability to line up such a project has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with whether this bill was necessary.  I presented evidence that it was not necessary.  Real, aggregate, statistical evidence, which is necessary because we're talking about a Federal Government program.  He countered with a weak attempt to discredit the evidence, and an anecdote.  We have no idea if his anecdote can be extrapolated to small business as a whole, we only know that it has helped him and his client.

Then Chuck follows with "0 Republican votes = Republicans don't want to help small businesses."  Yet another poorly supported conclusion, since it's not at all clear that this bill was necessary or will even help small business in the aggregate.  It might help certain ones (i.e., Chuck's new loan), but we have no idea whether the counterfactual would have been better on the whole.  Chuck's client is simply responding to the incentives placed in front of him, but that taxpayer money could have been used elsewhere (or not spent at all), possibly giving greater utility to the rest of the country.  Seriously, this is not a slam dunk.  Why is that so hard to see?

Also, I was able to find some figures on the NFIB's makeup.  Nationally (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/IssuesElections/NFIB-Resource-Guide-111th-Congress.pdf), the average member has 10 employees and gross revenues of $500,000 annually.  A sample of 2,000 firms participated in the survey in question; this is randomly drawn from their membership of something like 350,000.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 05:10:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 04:35:06 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

Fine, it will also help the lucky 15 people that will be hired by Chuck's client, but at what expense?  Chuck's ability to line up such a project has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with whether this bill was necessary.  I presented evidence that it was not necessary.  Real, aggregate, statistical evidence, which is necessary because we're talking about a Federal Government program.  He countered with a weak attempt to discredit the evidence, and an anecdote.  We have no idea if his anecdote can be extrapolated to small business as a whole, we only know that it has helped him and his client.

Then Chuck follows with "0 Republican votes = Republicans don't want to help small businesses."  Yet another poorly supported conclusion, since it's not at all clear that this bill was necessary or will even help small business in the aggregate.  It might help certain ones (i.e., Chuck's new loan), but we have no idea whether the counterfactual would have been better on the whole.  Chuck's client is simply responding to the incentives placed in front of him, but that taxpayer money could have been used elsewhere (or not spent at all), possibly giving greater utility to the rest of the country.  Seriously, this is not a slam dunk.  Why is that so hard to see?

Also, I was able to find some figures on the NFIB's makeup.  Nationally (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/IssuesElections/NFIB-Resource-Guide-111th-Congress.pdf), the average member has 10 employees and gross revenues of $500,000 annually.  A sample of 2,000 firms participated in the survey in question; this is randomly drawn from their membership of something like 350,000.

If the average age of this country is 35 (I have no idea whether it is, I'm guessing it's around 35) and I take a survey and conclude that 91% of the respondents say that they don't need Medicare, am I really saying anything?  is that enough information for you to conclude that we should get rid of Medicare (politics aside)?

edit - I have no idea if that makes sense.  I have no knowledge of antyhign relating to small business.  My whole point is that Morph decided to ignore a bunch of Chuck-words in order to drive home a point that may or may not be valid.  Ignoring Chuck-words is not really all that uncommon, though.

To attone:
(http://www.anysearchinfo.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Christina-Hendricks1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 05:14:09 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 04:35:06 PM
Fine, it will also help the lucky 15 people that will be hired by Chuck's client, but at what expense?
Very little.  Some small fees are waived and the client pays interest at a spread above a government issued bond.  If the client pays the loan in full, the SBA makes a profit.

QuoteHe countered with a weak attempt to discredit the evidence, and an anecdote.  We have no idea if his anecdote can be extrapolated to small business as a whole, we only know that it has helped him and his client.

I didn't attempt to discredit it.  I showed that the data you presented didn't state that the companies questioned would even qualify for this program.  Therefore, the 91% that have no credit needs may or may not be relevant to the 504 program.

Quote
Then Chuck follows with "0 Republican votes = Republicans don't want to help small businesses."
(http://thorgolucky.com/forum/images/smiles/smiley_poke_with_stick.gif)

Quote
Chuck's client is simply responding to the incentives placed in front of him, but that taxpayer money could have been used elsewhere (or not spent at all), possibly giving greater utility to the rest of the country.

A) If not for this program, they get nada for another 12 months.  That's not responding to incentives, that's me being able to count 504 money as equity that allows me to approve credit.
B) These bonds are segregated and not available for financing general US Government obligations.  You want to argue that there's a crowding out effect or a slight inflation of interest rates due to this program, fine.  But this money is not available for the greater utility to the rest of the country.

Quote
Also, I was able to find some figures on the NFIB's makeup.  Nationally (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/IssuesElections/NFIB-Resource-Guide-111th-Congress.pdf), the average member has 10 employees and gross revenues of $500,000 annually.  A sample of 2,000 firms participated in the survey in question; this is randomly drawn from their membership of something like 350,000.

Now, that is interesting.  I will look at it later.  At the same time I view the video.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on September 23, 2010, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 05:10:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 04:35:06 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

Fine, it will also help the lucky 15 people that will be hired by Chuck's client, but at what expense?  Chuck's ability to line up such a project has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with whether this bill was necessary.  I presented evidence that it was not necessary.  Real, aggregate, statistical evidence, which is necessary because we're talking about a Federal Government program.  He countered with a weak attempt to discredit the evidence, and an anecdote.  We have no idea if his anecdote can be extrapolated to small business as a whole, we only know that it has helped him and his client.

Then Chuck follows with "0 Republican votes = Republicans don't want to help small businesses."  Yet another poorly supported conclusion, since it's not at all clear that this bill was necessary or will even help small business in the aggregate.  It might help certain ones (i.e., Chuck's new loan), but we have no idea whether the counterfactual would have been better on the whole.  Chuck's client is simply responding to the incentives placed in front of him, but that taxpayer money could have been used elsewhere (or not spent at all), possibly giving greater utility to the rest of the country.  Seriously, this is not a slam dunk.  Why is that so hard to see?

Also, I was able to find some figures on the NFIB's makeup.  Nationally (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/IssuesElections/NFIB-Resource-Guide-111th-Congress.pdf), the average member has 10 employees and gross revenues of $500,000 annually.  A sample of 2,000 firms participated in the survey in question; this is randomly drawn from their membership of something like 350,000.

If the average age of this country is 35 (I have no idea whether it is, I'm guessing it's around 35) and I take a survey and conclude that 91% of the respondents say that they don't need Medicare, am I really saying anything?  is that enough information for you to conclude that we should get rid of Medicare (politics aside)?

edit - I have no idea if that makes sense.  I have no knowledge of antyhign relating to small business.  My whole point is that Morph decided to ignore a bunch of Chuck-words in order to drive home a point that may or may not be valid.  Ignoring Chuck-words is not really all that uncommon, though.

To attone:
(http://www.anysearchinfo.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Christina-Hendricks1.jpg)

And yet, with perfection like that in this world, you deny the existence of a God.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 23, 2010, 07:16:25 PM
Quote from: SKO on September 23, 2010, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 05:10:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 04:35:06 PM
Quote from: Oleg on September 23, 2010, 03:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 23, 2010, 02:43:18 PM
QuoteOverall, 91 percent of the owners reported all their credit needs met or they did not want to borrow, up one point. Credit may be harder to get compared to the bubble period (as it should be) and is always harder to arrange in a recession. But credit availability does not appear to be the cause of slow growth as many allege.

Sounds to me like the banks are doing fine in lending to small businesses.  The small businesses just don't want or need the credit.

I looked at that PDF.  They don't define "small."  Small can be under $25 mm in sales or under $500mm in sales, depending who is talking.

As someone who lends to the under $50mm revenue crowd regularly, I can tell you that this report understates their needs.  Given that the 504 is targeted at companies under $15mm in net worth, this is an awesome program.  I already have a project lined up that will create about 15 project jobs and 6 jobs permanent and require $7mm in new capital spending.  It's not doable without this funding.

I'm glad it's helping you, Chuck.  I cannot conclude anything from your anecdote except that.

Are you obtusely poke-sticking on purpose?  For your perusal, I have put in bold the parts of Chuck's anecdote that have nothing to do with whether anything is helping Chuck.

Man, I'm in a shitty mood.

Fine, it will also help the lucky 15 people that will be hired by Chuck's client, but at what expense?  Chuck's ability to line up such a project has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with whether this bill was necessary.  I presented evidence that it was not necessary.  Real, aggregate, statistical evidence, which is necessary because we're talking about a Federal Government program.  He countered with a weak attempt to discredit the evidence, and an anecdote.  We have no idea if his anecdote can be extrapolated to small business as a whole, we only know that it has helped him and his client.

Then Chuck follows with "0 Republican votes = Republicans don't want to help small businesses."  Yet another poorly supported conclusion, since it's not at all clear that this bill was necessary or will even help small business in the aggregate.  It might help certain ones (i.e., Chuck's new loan), but we have no idea whether the counterfactual would have been better on the whole.  Chuck's client is simply responding to the incentives placed in front of him, but that taxpayer money could have been used elsewhere (or not spent at all), possibly giving greater utility to the rest of the country.  Seriously, this is not a slam dunk.  Why is that so hard to see?

Also, I was able to find some figures on the NFIB's makeup.  Nationally (http://www.nfib.com/Portals/0/PDF/AllUsers/IssuesElections/NFIB-Resource-Guide-111th-Congress.pdf), the average member has 10 employees and gross revenues of $500,000 annually.  A sample of 2,000 firms participated in the survey in question; this is randomly drawn from their membership of something like 350,000.

If the average age of this country is 35 (I have no idea whether it is, I'm guessing it's around 35) and I take a survey and conclude that 91% of the respondents say that they don't need Medicare, am I really saying anything?  is that enough information for you to conclude that we should get rid of Medicare (politics aside)?

edit - I have no idea if that makes sense.  I have no knowledge of antyhign relating to small business.  My whole point is that Morph decided to ignore a bunch of Chuck-words in order to drive home a point that may or may not be valid.  Ignoring Chuck-words is not really all that uncommon, though.

To attone:
(http://www.anysearchinfo.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Christina-Hendricks1.jpg)

And yet, with perfection like that in this world, you deny the existence of a God.

According to scripture, God chose Chuck and PenFoe over her. Think about that and tell me He exists.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:39:12 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 23, 2010, 07:16:25 PM
According to scripture, God chose Chuck and PenFoe over her. Think about that and tell me He exists.

I've seen her without makeup.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 23, 2010, 08:50:28 PM
The only thing I got out of the last few pages is that Chuck would rather have sex with PenFoe than Christina Hendricks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on September 23, 2010, 08:55:37 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 23, 2010, 08:50:28 PM
The only thing I got out of the last few pages is that Chuck would rather have sex with PenFoe than Christina Hendricks.

He wouldn't even admit to the opposite that stubborn bastard.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 23, 2010, 10:23:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections. 

Tell me it was "The Energy Eater" episode. I used to love those tunnels.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 10:31:33 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 23, 2010, 10:23:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections. 

Tell me it was "The Energy Eater" episode. I used to love those tunnels.

I don't really recall what it was about, but I think it had something to do with a headless motorcyclist.

What an odd show. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 23, 2010, 10:40:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 10:31:33 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 23, 2010, 10:23:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections. 

Tell me it was "The Energy Eater" episode. I used to love those tunnels.

I don't really recall what it was about, but I think it had something to do with a headless motorcyclist.

What an odd show.

"Chopper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPdOIwcBeQ)." Another excellent installment in the too-brief series.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 23, 2010, 10:44:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 23, 2010, 08:39:12 PM
Quote from: Bort on September 23, 2010, 07:16:25 PM
According to scripture, God chose Chuck and PenFoe over her. Think about that and tell me He exists.

I've seen her without makeup.

You saw a picture of her without make up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 24, 2010, 03:17:33 AM
Having just rewatched the original "Night Stalker" TV movie, I have to say that its basic idealization of the fourth estate and even assumption of the unavoidable self-interest of the administrative branch are wildly liberal by modern jizzbowl reactionary standards.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on September 24, 2010, 07:58:07 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 23, 2010, 10:23:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 23, 2010, 09:04:06 AM
When I was falling asleep last night watching Kolchak, the Night Stalker, I had a thought about the upcoming elections. 

Tell me it was "The Energy Eater" episode. I used to love those tunnels.

AKA "Machemondo" an excellent episode Wheezer.
"Vampire" and "The Werewolf" are terrific as well.

What a great show.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 24, 2010, 09:10:01 AM

That's not on MeToo is it? They've been running wall-to-wall awesome old TV...including "The M Squad" with Lee Marvin. Balls.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 24, 2010, 09:10:01 AM

That's not on MeToo is it? They've been running wall-to-wall awesome old TV...including "The M Squad" with Lee Marvin. Balls.

I think when I woke up it was on some speciality channel, like the Crime Network or some shit.  It definitely sets the mood for some funky dreams, I'll tell you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 24, 2010, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 24, 2010, 09:10:01 AM

That's not on MeToo is it? They've been running wall-to-wall awesome old TV...including "The M Squad" with Lee Marvin. Balls.

I think when I woke up it was on some speciality channel, like the Crime Network or some shit.  It definitely sets the mood for some funky dreams, I'll tell you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker

QuoteThe entire series is available in syndication and is occasionally rerun on the Sci-Fi Channel under its original expanded title, Kolchak: The Night Stalker.

Least surprising something something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:23:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 24, 2010, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 24, 2010, 09:10:01 AM

That's not on MeToo is it? They've been running wall-to-wall awesome old TV...including "The M Squad" with Lee Marvin. Balls.

I think when I woke up it was on some speciality channel, like the Crime Network or some shit.  It definitely sets the mood for some funky dreams, I'll tell you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker

QuoteThe entire series is available in syndication and is occasionally rerun on the Sci-Fi Channel under its original expanded title, Kolchak: The Night Stalker.

Least surprising something something.

Did you read the next sentence?

QuoteIn 2008, it began running on Chiller TV.

The answer was Chiller TV.

Plus I won't cotton to you using the old name of the aforementioned channel.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 24, 2010, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:23:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 24, 2010, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 24, 2010, 09:10:01 AM

That's not on MeToo is it? They've been running wall-to-wall awesome old TV...including "The M Squad" with Lee Marvin. Balls.

I think when I woke up it was on some speciality channel, like the Crime Network or some shit.  It definitely sets the mood for some funky dreams, I'll tell you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker

QuoteThe entire series is available in syndication and is occasionally rerun on the Sci-Fi Channel under its original expanded title, Kolchak: The Night Stalker.

Least surprising something something.

Did you read the next sentence?

QuoteIn 2008, it began running on Chiller TV.

The answer was Chiller TV.

Plus I won't cotton to you using the old name of the aforementioned channel.

I did read the next sentence.  However that did not fit in with the narrowly defined meme I was using, so I just ignored it.  Paul Krugman would be proud of my cherrypicking there.

And I copied the text exactly from wiki, so your beef on their misspelling of "SyFy" is with them, not me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 24, 2010, 09:27:32 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 24, 2010, 09:10:01 AM

That's not on MeToo is it? They've been running wall-to-wall awesome old TV...including "The M Squad" with Lee Marvin. Balls.

I think when I woke up it was on some speciality channel, like the Crime Network or some shit.  It definitely sets the mood for some funky dreams, I'll tell you.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0BEbMTrc3UQ/SRHemIyZddI/AAAAAAAAE3w/8S4RljQpMBo/s400/!1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 24, 2010, 09:32:21 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 24, 2010, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:23:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 24, 2010, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 24, 2010, 09:10:01 AM

That's not on MeToo is it? They've been running wall-to-wall awesome old TV...including "The M Squad" with Lee Marvin. Balls.

I think when I woke up it was on some speciality channel, like the Crime Network or some shit.  It definitely sets the mood for some funky dreams, I'll tell you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker

QuoteThe entire series is available in syndication and is occasionally rerun on the Sci-Fi Channel under its original expanded title, Kolchak: The Night Stalker.

Least surprising something something.

Did you read the next sentence?

QuoteIn 2008, it began running on Chiller TV.

The answer was Chiller TV.

Plus I won't cotton to you using the old name of the aforementioned channel.

I did read the next sentence.  However that did not fit in with the narrowly defined meme I was using, so I just ignored it.  Paul Krugman would be proud of my cherrypicking there.

And I copied the text exactly from wiki, so your beef on their misspelling of "SyFy" is with them, not me.

I used to think that the ad wizards who decided to change the name to "SyFy" were kinda dumb.

But it obviously worked wonders on Gil, so what the hell do I know?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:37:54 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 24, 2010, 09:32:21 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 24, 2010, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:23:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 24, 2010, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2010, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 24, 2010, 09:10:01 AM

That's not on MeToo is it? They've been running wall-to-wall awesome old TV...including "The M Squad" with Lee Marvin. Balls.

I think when I woke up it was on some speciality channel, like the Crime Network or some shit.  It definitely sets the mood for some funky dreams, I'll tell you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker

QuoteThe entire series is available in syndication and is occasionally rerun on the Sci-Fi Channel under its original expanded title, Kolchak: The Night Stalker.

Least surprising something something.

Did you read the next sentence?

QuoteIn 2008, it began running on Chiller TV.

The answer was Chiller TV.

Plus I won't cotton to you using the old name of the aforementioned channel.

I did read the next sentence.  However that did not fit in with the narrowly defined meme I was using, so I just ignored it.  Paul Krugman would be proud of my cherrypicking there.

And I copied the text exactly from wiki, so your beef on their misspelling of "SyFy" is with them, not me.

I used to think that the ad wizards who decided to change the name to "SyFy" were kinda dumb.

But it obviously worked wonders on Gil, so what the hell do I know?

You fucking people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on September 27, 2010, 10:49:44 AM
This is from last nights 60 Minutes.

A Relentless Enemy (http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=3OROxzDQ3UpO8jrKAqqyIu4ceSxbllal&vs=homepage&play=true)

Fighting on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Intense.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on September 27, 2010, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: flannj on September 27, 2010, 10:49:44 AM
This is from last nights 60 Minutes.

A Relentless Enemy (http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=3OROxzDQ3UpO8jrKAqqyIu4ceSxbllal&vs=homepage&play=true)

Fighting on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Intense.

I watched that and felt nothing but dread.  Jebus.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on September 27, 2010, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 27, 2010, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: flannj on September 27, 2010, 10:49:44 AM
This is from last nights 60 Minutes.

A Relentless Enemy (http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=3OROxzDQ3UpO8jrKAqqyIu4ceSxbllal&vs=homepage&play=true)

Fighting on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Intense.

I watched that and felt nothing but dread.  Jebus.

8 Purple Hearts?
Shot in the head and kept fighting for 3 more hours?

All I've got to say is "thanks TEC" and to anybody else on this board that's a Vet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 27, 2010, 04:23:49 PM
Quote from: flannj on September 27, 2010, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 27, 2010, 11:52:28 AM
Quote from: flannj on September 27, 2010, 10:49:44 AM
This is from last nights 60 Minutes.

A Relentless Enemy (http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/video/?pid=3OROxzDQ3UpO8jrKAqqyIu4ceSxbllal&vs=homepage&play=true)

Fighting on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Intense.

I watched that and felt nothing but dread.  Jebus.

8 Purple Hearts?
Shot in the head and kept fighting for 3 more hours?

All I've got to say is "thanks TEC" and to anybody else on this board that's a Vet.

I'll thank TEC on the federally-mandated days of thanks.  Except Veterans Day.

IT'S STILL ARMISTICE DAY TO ME, DAMMIT!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 28, 2010, 12:08:38 PM
Bump'd for the "Group Think Commune" that is this thread.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2010, 05:05:46 PM
Fuck Pat Leahy and Orrin Hatch in their respective pee-holes...

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica

QuoteWhat bill are we talking about?

It's S. 3804 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804), the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It's currently being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What exactly does it do?

The bill creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. The first can be added to by a court, the second by the Attorney General. Internet service providers (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the government's gratitude) for blocking domains on the second list.

What kind of domains can go on the list?

The list is for domains "dedicated to infringing activity," which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" would be blocked.

...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2010, 06:48:25 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Ukmwx.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on September 28, 2010, 09:31:07 PM
Obligatory politically charged science article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1?CMP=twt_gu).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 29, 2010, 09:35:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 28, 2010, 05:05:46 PM
Fuck Pat Leahy and Orrin Hatch in their respective pee-holes...

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/coica

QuoteWhat bill are we talking about?

It's S. 3804 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804), the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It's currently being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What exactly does it do?

The bill creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. The first can be added to by a court, the second by the Attorney General. Internet service providers (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the government's gratitude) for blocking domains on the second list.

What kind of domains can go on the list?

The list is for domains "dedicated to infringing activity," which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" would be blocked.

...

Bipartisan THI!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2010, 06:59:29 PM
Dammit. I was really looking forward to the next video dropping...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/

QuoteLusby, Maryland (CNN) -- A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

The plan apparently was thwarted after Boudreau was warned minutes before it was supposed to happen.

"I never intended to become part of the story," Boudreau said. "But things suddenly took a very strange turn."

...

According to the document, O'Keefe was to record a video of the following script before Boudreau arrived: "My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

"Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

"Please sit back and enjoy the show."

...

Burns did not respond to CNN. The "CNN Caper" document warned O'Keefe about how to handle potential problems.

"If CNN gets advance warning and you find this out, you should simply cancel the operation, period," the document states. "You're in a position of strength. Make her [Boudreau] come to you. To leave the boat kills the operation."

The document discusses the potential fallout from the operation.

"If they pursue this as you are a creep, you should play it up with them initially only to reveal that the tape was made beforehand confirming this was a gag," the document states. "If they [CNN] admit it was a gag, you should release the footage and focus on the fact they got punked, and make sure to emphasize Abbie's name and overall status to help burden her career with this video, incident and her bad judgment in pursuing you so aggressively."

Finally, "if they go on the attack, you should point out the hypocrisy in CNN using the inherent sexuality of these women to sell viewers and for ratings, passing up more esteemed and respectable journalists who aren't bubble-headed bleach blondes and keep the focus on CNN."

(http://i.imgur.com/ETHuV.jpg)

These guys are real winners.

Via: http://gawker.com/5651120/james-okeefe-tried-to-trap-hot-blonde-reporter-in-palace-of-pleasure
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 30, 2010, 08:17:21 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2010, 06:59:29 PM
Dammit. I was really looking forward to the next video dropping...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/

QuoteLusby, Maryland (CNN) -- A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

The plan apparently was thwarted after Boudreau was warned minutes before it was supposed to happen.

"I never intended to become part of the story," Boudreau said. "But things suddenly took a very strange turn."

...

According to the document, O'Keefe was to record a video of the following script before Boudreau arrived: "My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

"Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

"Please sit back and enjoy the show."

...

Burns did not respond to CNN. The "CNN Caper" document warned O'Keefe about how to handle potential problems.

"If CNN gets advance warning and you find this out, you should simply cancel the operation, period," the document states. "You're in a position of strength. Make her [Boudreau] come to you. To leave the boat kills the operation."

The document discusses the potential fallout from the operation.

"If they pursue this as you are a creep, you should play it up with them initially only to reveal that the tape was made beforehand confirming this was a gag," the document states. "If they [CNN] admit it was a gag, you should release the footage and focus on the fact they got punked, and make sure to emphasize Abbie's name and overall status to help burden her career with this video, incident and her bad judgment in pursuing you so aggressively."

Finally, "if they go on the attack, you should point out the hypocrisy in CNN using the inherent sexuality of these women to sell viewers and for ratings, passing up more esteemed and respectable journalists who aren't bubble-headed bleach blondes and keep the focus on CNN."

(http://i.imgur.com/ETHuV.jpg)

These guys are real winners.

Via: http://gawker.com/5651120/james-okeefe-tried-to-trap-hot-blonde-reporter-in-palace-of-pleasure

I always thought if this place as a sort of Palace of Pleasure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 30, 2010, 08:36:37 AM
Hey, here's some political talk I think we can all agree on!  http://www.uncoached.com/2010/09/27/15-hot-female-politicians-from-around-the-world/

As an example, here's the lovely Emma Kiernan of Ireland:

(http://www.uncoached.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/hot_female_politicians_13.jpg)

Quote*notice that zero are from the USA
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on September 30, 2010, 08:40:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on September 30, 2010, 08:36:37 AM
Hey, here's some political talk I think we can all agree on!  http://www.uncoached.com/2010/09/27/15-hot-female-politicians-from-around-the-world/

As an example, here's the lovely Emma Kiernan of Ireland:

(http://www.uncoached.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/hot_female_politicians_13.jpg)

Quote*notice that zero are from the USA

BONER
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 30, 2010, 08:53:42 AM
Quote from: Oleg on September 30, 2010, 08:17:21 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2010, 06:59:29 PM
Dammit. I was really looking forward to the next video dropping...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/

QuoteLusby, Maryland (CNN) -- A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

The plan apparently was thwarted after Boudreau was warned minutes before it was supposed to happen.

"I never intended to become part of the story," Boudreau said. "But things suddenly took a very strange turn."

...

According to the document, O'Keefe was to record a video of the following script before Boudreau arrived: "My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

"Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

"Please sit back and enjoy the show."

...

Burns did not respond to CNN. The "CNN Caper" document warned O'Keefe about how to handle potential problems.

"If CNN gets advance warning and you find this out, you should simply cancel the operation, period," the document states. "You're in a position of strength. Make her [Boudreau] come to you. To leave the boat kills the operation."

The document discusses the potential fallout from the operation.

"If they pursue this as you are a creep, you should play it up with them initially only to reveal that the tape was made beforehand confirming this was a gag," the document states. "If they [CNN] admit it was a gag, you should release the footage and focus on the fact they got punked, and make sure to emphasize Abbie's name and overall status to help burden her career with this video, incident and her bad judgment in pursuing you so aggressively."

Finally, "if they go on the attack, you should point out the hypocrisy in CNN using the inherent sexuality of these women to sell viewers and for ratings, passing up more esteemed and respectable journalists who aren't bubble-headed bleach blondes and keep the focus on CNN."

(http://i.imgur.com/ETHuV.jpg)

These guys are real winners.

Via: http://gawker.com/5651120/james-okeefe-tried-to-trap-hot-blonde-reporter-in-palace-of-pleasure

I always thought if this place as a sort of Palace of Pleasure.

What?  What would happen if this place were a Palace of Pleasure?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 30, 2010, 09:05:06 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 30, 2010, 08:53:42 AM
Quote from: Oleg on September 30, 2010, 08:17:21 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2010, 06:59:29 PM
Dammit. I was really looking forward to the next video dropping...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/

QuoteLusby, Maryland (CNN) -- A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

The plan apparently was thwarted after Boudreau was warned minutes before it was supposed to happen.

"I never intended to become part of the story," Boudreau said. "But things suddenly took a very strange turn."

...

According to the document, O'Keefe was to record a video of the following script before Boudreau arrived: "My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

"Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

"Please sit back and enjoy the show."

...

Burns did not respond to CNN. The "CNN Caper" document warned O'Keefe about how to handle potential problems.

"If CNN gets advance warning and you find this out, you should simply cancel the operation, period," the document states. "You're in a position of strength. Make her [Boudreau] come to you. To leave the boat kills the operation."

The document discusses the potential fallout from the operation.

"If they pursue this as you are a creep, you should play it up with them initially only to reveal that the tape was made beforehand confirming this was a gag," the document states. "If they [CNN] admit it was a gag, you should release the footage and focus on the fact they got punked, and make sure to emphasize Abbie's name and overall status to help burden her career with this video, incident and her bad judgment in pursuing you so aggressively."

Finally, "if they go on the attack, you should point out the hypocrisy in CNN using the inherent sexuality of these women to sell viewers and for ratings, passing up more esteemed and respectable journalists who aren't bubble-headed bleach blondes and keep the focus on CNN."

(http://i.imgur.com/ETHuV.jpg)

These guys are real winners.

Via: http://gawker.com/5651120/james-okeefe-tried-to-trap-hot-blonde-reporter-in-palace-of-pleasure

I always thought if this place as a sort of Palace of Pleasure.

What?  What would happen if this place were a Palace of Pleasure?

Just notice that we have zero Marvin Gaye threads.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 30, 2010, 09:40:40 AM
My McAfee Site Advisor just popped up and told me that "We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems."  I think that they aren't trying hard enough, or perhaps aren't paying attention.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 01, 2010, 09:20:26 AM
This might be one of those things America might have to apologize for.  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39456324/ns/health-sexual_health/?ocid=twitter

I eagerly await Mitt Romney's full-throated defense of these experiments in the guise of American exceptionalism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:10:10 PM
DPD, but as Thrill noted, a glimpse into the coming libertarian utopia: http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 12:36:10 PM
I'm not sure why the FD wouldn't allow a non-buyer of the service a chance to pay a premium (several thousand dollars, I'm sure) to put out the fire, but...

I don't see what the problem here is. The guy didn't want fire protection (or at least to pay for it). Other people did. Those that did were protected. They live outside the city. Lower taxes. Fewer services.

People shouldn't be forced to make a choice most of us reasonably say is the correct one. But consequences of a poor decision can be a cruel bitch.

More on the "evil" fucking fire department that offered a service it didn't have to... (http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801)

QuoteFire call
The fire that sparked the controversy apparently broke out about 2:30 p.m. Wednesday at Gene Cranick's property on Buddy Jones Road, located outside the city limits of South Fulton.
Vowell explained that the property owner was not a paying member of the rural fire subscription service offered to county residents by the City of South Fulton. He said as per city policy, established by city ordinance, the call was declined and the city's fire department could not respond.
"I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do," he said. "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
He said the South Fulton Fire Department did respond to a request to protect the property of the adjacent property owner, who is a member of the rural fire subscription service.
Vowell said county residents do not have guaranteed fire service since there is no countywide fire department to cover rural areas, but many municipalities offer rural fire coverage to residents in specified coverage areas for a nominal annual fee. South Fulton's fee is $75.
However, Vowell said residents in those rural areas cannot be forced to pay the fee and it's their decision whether to accept the coverage.
"We are a city fire department. We are responsible for the City of South Fulton and we offer a subscription (to rural residents). If they choose not to, we can't make them," he said.
He said Obion County government has been thoroughly studying rural fire protection and "has looked at it 100 different ways," with details of a proposal still being worked out. Ironically, the matter began to be discussed seriously just over two years ago following a similar situation where South Fulton firefighters could not respond to a rural call.
Rural service offered
South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said city officials don't want to see anyone's house burn, but he emphasized that South Fulton has a city fire department which is supported by city taxes in order to serve its residents — with a rural fire subscription service made available outside the city limits to county residents in the city's designated rural coverage area.
"We're very sorry their house burned," he said.
Mayor Crocker said if the fire department operated on a per-call basis outside the city, there would be no incentive for anyone to pay the rural fee. As an analogy, he said if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.
Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.
At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
"These folks were called and notified," Vowell said. "I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it's available. It's been there for 20 years, but it's very important to follow up."
Mayor Crocker added, "It's my understanding with talking with the firefighters that these folks had received their bill and they had also contacted them by phone."
"My worst nightmare is that, for whatever reason, you don't respond to someone who isn't (a rural fire service member). That's why we're so diligent and adamant," Vowell said. "No one wants what happened yesterday. I don't want it, the fire department doesn't want it, the (city commission) doesn't want it."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 04, 2010, 12:38:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 12:36:10 PM
I'm not sure why the FD wouldn't allow a non-buyer of the service a chance to pay a premium (several thousand dollars, I'm sure) to put out the fire, but...

I don't see what the problem here is. The guy didn't want fire protection (or at least to pay for it). Other people did. Those that did were protected. They live outside the city. Lower taxes. Fewer services.

People shouldn't be forced to make a choice most of us reasonably say is the correct one. But consequences of a poor decision can be a cruel bitch.

More on the "evil" fucking fire department that offered a service it didn't have to... (http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801)

QuoteFire call
The fire that sparked the controversy apparently broke out about 2:30 p.m. Wednesday at Gene Cranick's property on Buddy Jones Road, located outside the city limits of South Fulton.
Vowell explained that the property owner was not a paying member of the rural fire subscription service offered to county residents by the City of South Fulton. He said as per city policy, established by city ordinance, the call was declined and the city's fire department could not respond.
"I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do," he said. "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
He said the South Fulton Fire Department did respond to a request to protect the property of the adjacent property owner, who is a member of the rural fire subscription service.
Vowell said county residents do not have guaranteed fire service since there is no countywide fire department to cover rural areas, but many municipalities offer rural fire coverage to residents in specified coverage areas for a nominal annual fee. South Fulton's fee is $75.
However, Vowell said residents in those rural areas cannot be forced to pay the fee and it's their decision whether to accept the coverage.
"We are a city fire department. We are responsible for the City of South Fulton and we offer a subscription (to rural residents). If they choose not to, we can't make them," he said.
He said Obion County government has been thoroughly studying rural fire protection and "has looked at it 100 different ways," with details of a proposal still being worked out. Ironically, the matter began to be discussed seriously just over two years ago following a similar situation where South Fulton firefighters could not respond to a rural call.
Rural service offered
South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said city officials don't want to see anyone's house burn, but he emphasized that South Fulton has a city fire department which is supported by city taxes in order to serve its residents — with a rural fire subscription service made available outside the city limits to county residents in the city's designated rural coverage area.
"We're very sorry their house burned," he said.
Mayor Crocker said if the fire department operated on a per-call basis outside the city, there would be no incentive for anyone to pay the rural fee. As an analogy, he said if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.
Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.
At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
"These folks were called and notified," Vowell said. "I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it's available. It's been there for 20 years, but it's very important to follow up."
Mayor Crocker added, "It's my understanding with talking with the firefighters that these folks had received their bill and they had also contacted them by phone."
"My worst nightmare is that, for whatever reason, you don't respond to someone who isn't (a rural fire service member). That's why we're so diligent and adamant," Vowell said. "No one wants what happened yesterday. I don't want it, the fire department doesn't want it, the (city commission) doesn't want it."

Yeah. I agree. It sucks that there has to be a fee, but if you live in a town of 750 people like I do, there's no money for these things unless everybody's paying up. This guy gambled and he lost. Shit happens, but everyone else paid.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:43:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 12:36:10 PM
I'm not sure why the FD wouldn't allow a non-buyer of the service a chance to pay a premium (several thousand dollars, I'm sure) to put out the fire, but...

I don't see what the problem here is. The guy didn't want fire protection (or at least to pay for it). Other people did. Those that did were protected. They live outside the city. Lower taxes. Fewer services.

People shouldn't be forced to make a choice most of us reasonably say is the correct one. But consequences of a poor decision can be a cruel bitch.

More on the "evil" fucking fire department that offered a service it didn't have to... (http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801)

QuoteFire call
The fire that sparked the controversy apparently broke out about 2:30 p.m. Wednesday at Gene Cranick's property on Buddy Jones Road, located outside the city limits of South Fulton.
Vowell explained that the property owner was not a paying member of the rural fire subscription service offered to county residents by the City of South Fulton. He said as per city policy, established by city ordinance, the call was declined and the city's fire department could not respond.
"I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do," he said. "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
He said the South Fulton Fire Department did respond to a request to protect the property of the adjacent property owner, who is a member of the rural fire subscription service.
Vowell said county residents do not have guaranteed fire service since there is no countywide fire department to cover rural areas, but many municipalities offer rural fire coverage to residents in specified coverage areas for a nominal annual fee. South Fulton's fee is $75.
However, Vowell said residents in those rural areas cannot be forced to pay the fee and it's their decision whether to accept the coverage.
"We are a city fire department. We are responsible for the City of South Fulton and we offer a subscription (to rural residents). If they choose not to, we can't make them," he said.
He said Obion County government has been thoroughly studying rural fire protection and "has looked at it 100 different ways," with details of a proposal still being worked out. Ironically, the matter began to be discussed seriously just over two years ago following a similar situation where South Fulton firefighters could not respond to a rural call.
Rural service offered
South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said city officials don't want to see anyone's house burn, but he emphasized that South Fulton has a city fire department which is supported by city taxes in order to serve its residents — with a rural fire subscription service made available outside the city limits to county residents in the city's designated rural coverage area.
"We're very sorry their house burned," he said.
Mayor Crocker said if the fire department operated on a per-call basis outside the city, there would be no incentive for anyone to pay the rural fee. As an analogy, he said if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked.
Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.
At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
"These folks were called and notified," Vowell said. "I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it's available. It's been there for 20 years, but it's very important to follow up."
Mayor Crocker added, "It's my understanding with talking with the firefighters that these folks had received their bill and they had also contacted them by phone."
"My worst nightmare is that, for whatever reason, you don't respond to someone who isn't (a rural fire service member). That's why we're so diligent and adamant," Vowell said. "No one wants what happened yesterday. I don't want it, the fire department doesn't want it, the (city commission) doesn't want it."

I think my argument has more to do with basic fucking human decency, but that may just be me.

Fucking takers, amiright?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:47:39 PM
"Suppose my neighbor's home catches fire, and I have a length of garden hose four or five hundred feet away. If he can take my garden hose and connect it up with his hydrant, I may help him to put out his fire...I don't say to him before that operation, "Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it."... I don't want $15--I want my garden hose back after the fire is over."

-the evil FDR, 1941.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 12:52:52 PM
So as part of your platform, firefighters are indentured servants of the state? Very interesting.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 12:52:52 PM
So as part of your platform, firefighters are indentured servants of the state? Very interesting.

I think taxes should cover these kind of things, not some sort of fee per user model.

Also, I think that this notwithstanding, standing there while a person's home burns is a douche move.  Decency prevails above all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 01:03:58 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 12:52:52 PM
So as part of your platform, firefighters are indentured servants of the state? Very interesting.

And no, my argument is that they put out the fire and squabble over paying for it later.

My nominal-Catholicism controls here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
I think taxes should cover these kind of things, not some sort of fee per user model.

Um... Isn't the point that the guy chose to live in an area where TAXES SPECIFICALLY DON'T COVER THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF THING?!!!??  Moreover, he had a coluntay tax of $75 that HE CHOSE NOT TO PAY.  The guy tried to get something for free and lost.

Quote"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Fucking freeloader.  Deserved what he got.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
I think taxes should cover these kind of things, not some sort of fee per user model.

Um... Isn't the point that the guy chose to live in an area where TAXES SPECIFICALLY DON'T COVER THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF THING?!!!??  Moreover, he had a coluntay tax of $75 that HE CHOSE NOT TO PAY.  The guy tried to get something for free and lost.

Quote"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Fucking freeloader.  Deserved what he got.

So, he went Galt and lost?

That I can get behind.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
I think taxes should cover these kind of things, not some sort of fee per user model.

Um... Isn't the point that the guy chose to live in an area where TAXES SPECIFICALLY DON'T COVER THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF THING?!!!??  Moreover, he had a coluntay tax of $75 that HE CHOSE NOT TO PAY.  The guy tried to get something for free and lost.

Quote"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Fucking freeloader.  Deserved what he got.

So, he went Galt and lost?

That I can get behind.

First, I apologize for being so flippant. I haven't been in the best mood today. I blame Frank Omiyale.

Second, I understand your point that if you see someone in distress, your reaction should be to help him. I can get behind that, but...

... the fire dept is dealing with limited resources. A field fire started the house fire, and they were there to control the field fire and prevent subscribers' houses from burning.

The guy gambled and lost.

That all said, I don't know why the FD wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity to make extra money by charging a premium for the "Oh shit, my house is on fire and I didn't think I'd need fire protection" crowd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 01:41:45 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
I think taxes should cover these kind of things, not some sort of fee per user model.

Um... Isn't the point that the guy chose to live in an area where TAXES SPECIFICALLY DON'T COVER THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF THING?!!!??  Moreover, he had a coluntay tax of $75 that HE CHOSE NOT TO PAY.  The guy tried to get something for free and lost.

Quote"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Fucking freeloader.  Deserved what he got.

So, he went Galt and lost?

That I can get behind.

First, I apologize for being so flippant. I haven't been in the best mood today. I blame Frank Omiyale.

Second, I understand your point that if you see someone in distress, your reaction should be to help him. I can get behind that, but...

... the fire dept is dealing with limited resources. A field fire started the house fire, and they were there to control the field fire and prevent subscribers' houses from burning.

The guy gambled and lost.

That all said, I don't know why the FD wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity to make extra money by charging a premium for the "Oh shit, my house is on fire and I didn't think I'd need fire protection" crowd.

No problem.

I completely agree that this guy needs to pay.  I'm also pretty confident that he assumed that he could have his cake and eat it too.

However, I feel that this is something that can be addressed after the fire is put out.  Hell, the FD could add a large, lateness penalty on top of his fee.

If anything, this serves to remind him - and others - that government services cost money and that these things need to be paid for.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:53:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 01:41:45 PM
I completely agree that this guy needs to pay.  I'm also pretty confident that he assumed that he could have his cake and eat it too.

Especially because he specifically said so.
However, I feel that this is something that can be addressed after the fire is put out.  Hell, the FD could add a large, lateness penalty on top of his fee.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 01:41:45 PM
If anything, this serves to remind him - and others - that government services cost money and that these things need to be paid for.

That's something we've forgotten because half the politicians keep telling us we're overtaxed.  We're not.  We're over serviced.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
DPD:

So, polls show Murkowski can still win in Alaska.  Crist is running 3rd party in Florida.  Lieberman won re-election as an indy a few years back.  Third party candidates may act as spoilers in both the senate and gubernatorial races here in Illinois.

If third parties can so easily get on the ballot and either spoil or even win, why again are we taxpayers paying for primaries?  They seem to be a waste of my money.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
DPD:

So, polls show Murkowski can still win in Alaska.  Crist is running 3rd party in Florida.  Lieberman won re-election as an indy a few years back.  Third party candidates may act as spoilers in both the senate and gubernatorial races here in Illinois.

If third parties can so easily get on the ballot and either spoil or even win, why again are we taxpayers paying for primaries?  They seem to be a waste of my money.

I'd be interested in the wording of those polls in Alaska.  Simply asking a voter if they will vote for Mukowski is too simple, as her name will not be on the ballot.  Crist is faltering in Florida and splitting the vote.  There are probably several Democrats who want Meeks to drop out.

And here, in the land of Lincoln, no third party candidate will be viable.  Especially when the system serves to exclude the third-party candidate from any sort of debate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 02:17:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
DPD:

So, polls show Murkowski can still win in Alaska.  Crist is running 3rd party in Florida.  Lieberman won re-election as an indy a few years back.  Third party candidates may act as spoilers in both the senate and gubernatorial races here in Illinois.

If third parties can so easily get on the ballot and either spoil or even win, why again are we taxpayers paying for primaries?  They seem to be a waste of my money.

I'd be interested in the wording of those polls in Alaska.  Simply asking a voter if they will vote for Mukowski is too simple, as her name will not be on the ballot.  Crist is faltering in Florida and splitting the vote.  There are probably several Democrats who want Meeks to drop out.

And here, in the land of Lincoln, no third party candidate will be viable.  Especially when the system serves to exclude the third-party candidate from any sort of debate.

All I'm asking is: If you can get on the ballot without a primary, and in some cases even win, do we relly need taxpayer funded primaries?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 02:17:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
DPD:

So, polls show Murkowski can still win in Alaska.  Crist is running 3rd party in Florida.  Lieberman won re-election as an indy a few years back.  Third party candidates may act as spoilers in both the senate and gubernatorial races here in Illinois.

If third parties can so easily get on the ballot and either spoil or even win, why again are we taxpayers paying for primaries?  They seem to be a waste of my money.

I'd be interested in the wording of those polls in Alaska.  Simply asking a voter if they will vote for Mukowski is too simple, as her name will not be on the ballot.  Crist is faltering in Florida and splitting the vote.  There are probably several Democrats who want Meeks to drop out.

And here, in the land of Lincoln, no third party candidate will be viable.  Especially when the system serves to exclude the third-party candidate from any sort of debate.

All I'm asking is: If you can get on the ballot without a primary, and in some cases even win, do we relly need taxpayer funded primaries?

No.  It should be a free-for-all.

And we should get rid of the first-past-the-post system, too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 02:38:06 PM
In the same vein of the fire department discussion: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-03-feesforjustice_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 04, 2010, 02:41:46 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 04, 2010, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 01:09:15 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
I think taxes should cover these kind of things, not some sort of fee per user model.

Um... Isn't the point that the guy chose to live in an area where TAXES SPECIFICALLY DON'T COVER THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF THING?!!!??  Moreover, he had a coluntay tax of $75 that HE CHOSE NOT TO PAY.  The guy tried to get something for free and lost.

Quote"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Fucking freeloader.  Deserved what he got.

So, he went Galt and lost?

That I can get behind.

First, I apologize for being so flippant. I haven't been in the best mood today. I blame Frank Omiyale.

Second, I understand your point that if you see someone in distress, your reaction should be to help him. I can get behind that, but...

... the fire dept is dealing with limited resources. A field fire started the house fire, and they were there to control the field fire and prevent subscribers' houses from burning.

The guy gambled and lost.

That all said, I don't know why the FD wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity to make extra money by charging a premium for the "Oh shit, my house is on fire and I didn't think I'd need fire protection" crowd.

The thing that strikes me as odd is that even though this guy didn't pay the money, his house fire does still pose a threat to other fire services subscribers.  Yeah, they can stand by to exstinguish if it starts to spread, but a strong wind could easily spread the house fire more quickly than the Fire Department could react (not to mention if anything hazardous or explosive is in the home as it burns).  Anyway, I don't feel bad for the guy, but still think they should have put out the fire and fined the living shit out of him.

However, I still can't believe the dumbass didn't simply pay the $75.00.  He's really fucked now, because it seems extremely likely that by not electing to pay for fire services, he invalidated his homeowners insurance policy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: air2300 on October 04, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2010, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2010, 01:59:48 PM
DPD:

So, polls show Murkowski can still win in Alaska.  Crist is running 3rd party in Florida.  Lieberman won re-election as an indy a few years back.  Third party candidates may act as spoilers in both the senate and gubernatorial races here in Illinois.

If third parties can so easily get on the ballot and either spoil or even win, why again are we taxpayers paying for primaries?  They seem to be a waste of my money.

I'd be interested in the wording of those polls in Alaska.  Simply asking a voter if they will vote for Mukowski is too simple, as her name will not be on the ballot.  Crist is faltering in Florida and splitting the vote.  There are probably several Democrats who want Meeks to drop out.

And here, in the land of Lincoln, no third party candidate will be viable.  Especially when the system serves to exclude the third-party candidate from any sort of debate.
I def. do.  Him and Crist are splitting votes right now, which means we get Rubio.  Yay!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2010, 06:08:12 PM
This is more for BC, but it's from one of my favorite blogs.  And before you jump on the political proclivities of the author, bear in mind that Orin Kerr clerked for Justice Kennedy and served as special counsel to Senate Republicans during the Sotomayor hearings.

http://volokh.com/2010/10/06/some-tentative-thoughts-on-the-constitutionality-of-the-individual-mandate-under-current-supreme-court-doctrine/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2010, 07:16:42 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2010, 06:08:12 PM
This is more for BC, but it's from one of my favorite blogs.  And before you jump on the political proclivities of the author, bear in mind that Orin Kerr clerked for Justice Kennedy and served as special counsel to Senate Republicans during the Sotomayor hearings.

http://volokh.com/2010/10/06/some-tentative-thoughts-on-the-constitutionality-of-the-individual-mandate-under-current-supreme-court-doctrine/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29

This may be the first time I've read a comments thread at Volokh that hasn't given me some form of internet cancer or another.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 07, 2010, 10:01:01 AM
Classic. (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/10/07/was-lou-dobbs-high-horse-groomed-by-an-undocumented-worker/)

QuoteLou Dobbs, the former CNN host who turned up this week as a client on The Good Wife, is in a real-life legal controversy. After he made a name for years with his crusade against illegal immigration, a year-long investigation by The Nation charges that Dobbs himself employed undocumented workers  to maintain his estate and horses. The progressive-politics magazine says it spoke with five undocumented workers, whose jobs included grooming $1 million "European Warmbloods" (you cannot make that breed name up) for Dobbs' daughter.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 07, 2010, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 10:01:01 AM
Classic. (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/10/07/was-lou-dobbs-high-horse-groomed-by-an-undocumented-worker/)

QuoteLou Dobbs, the former CNN host who turned up this week as a client on The Good Wife, is in a real-life legal controversy. After he made a name for years with his crusade against illegal immigration, a year-long investigation by The Nation charges that Dobbs himself employed undocumented workers  to maintain his estate and horses. The progressive-politics magazine says it spoke with five undocumented workers, whose jobs included grooming $1 million "European Warmbloods" (you cannot make that breed name up) for Dobbs' daughter.

Is that ironic?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 07, 2010, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 07, 2010, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 10:01:01 AM
Classic. (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/10/07/was-lou-dobbs-high-horse-groomed-by-an-undocumented-worker/)

QuoteLou Dobbs, the former CNN host who turned up this week as a client on The Good Wife, is in a real-life legal controversy. After he made a name for years with his crusade against illegal immigration, a year-long investigation by The Nation charges that Dobbs himself employed undocumented workers  to maintain his estate and horses. The progressive-politics magazine says it spoke with five undocumented workers, whose jobs included grooming $1 million "European Warmbloods" (you cannot make that breed name up) for Dobbs' daughter.

Is that ironic?

I find it interesting that The Nation wasted one year looking into this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 07, 2010, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 07, 2010, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 07, 2010, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 10:01:01 AM
Classic. (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/10/07/was-lou-dobbs-high-horse-groomed-by-an-undocumented-worker/)

QuoteLou Dobbs, the former CNN host who turned up this week as a client on The Good Wife, is in a real-life legal controversy. After he made a name for years with his crusade against illegal immigration, a year-long investigation by The Nation charges that Dobbs himself employed undocumented workers  to maintain his estate and horses. The progressive-politics magazine says it spoke with five undocumented workers, whose jobs included grooming $1 million "European Warmbloods" (you cannot make that breed name up) for Dobbs' daughter.

Is that ironic?

I find it interesting that The Nation wasted one year looking into this.

Is *that* ironic?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 07, 2010, 10:36:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 07, 2010, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 07, 2010, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 07, 2010, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 10:01:01 AM
Classic. (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/10/07/was-lou-dobbs-high-horse-groomed-by-an-undocumented-worker/)

QuoteLou Dobbs, the former CNN host who turned up this week as a client on The Good Wife, is in a real-life legal controversy. After he made a name for years with his crusade against illegal immigration, a year-long investigation by The Nation charges that Dobbs himself employed undocumented workers  to maintain his estate and horses. The progressive-politics magazine says it spoke with five undocumented workers, whose jobs included grooming $1 million "European Warmbloods" (you cannot make that breed name up) for Dobbs' daughter.

Is that ironic?

I find it interesting that The Nation wasted one year looking into this.

Is *that* ironic?

Yes. Literally.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 07, 2010, 11:03:21 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 07, 2010, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 07, 2010, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 10:01:01 AM
Classic. (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/10/07/was-lou-dobbs-high-horse-groomed-by-an-undocumented-worker/)

QuoteLou Dobbs, the former CNN host who turned up this week as a client on The Good Wife, is in a real-life legal controversy. After he made a name for years with his crusade against illegal immigration, a year-long investigation by The Nation charges that Dobbs himself employed undocumented workers  to maintain his estate and horses. The progressive-politics magazine says it spoke with five undocumented workers, whose jobs included grooming $1 million "European Warmbloods" (you cannot make that breed name up) for Dobbs' daughter.

Is that ironic?

I find it interesting that The Nation wasted one year looking into this.

And what should they have spent that year doing?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 07, 2010, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 07, 2010, 11:03:21 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 07, 2010, 10:16:39 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 07, 2010, 10:03:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 10:01:01 AM
Classic. (http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/10/07/was-lou-dobbs-high-horse-groomed-by-an-undocumented-worker/)

QuoteLou Dobbs, the former CNN host who turned up this week as a client on The Good Wife, is in a real-life legal controversy. After he made a name for years with his crusade against illegal immigration, a year-long investigation by The Nation charges that Dobbs himself employed undocumented workers  to maintain his estate and horses. The progressive-politics magazine says it spoke with five undocumented workers, whose jobs included grooming $1 million "European Warmbloods" (you cannot make that breed name up) for Dobbs' daughter.

Is that ironic?

I find it interesting that The Nation wasted one year looking into this.

And what should they have spent that year doing?

Investigating why our Armed Forces hate the Constitution.

NOUN VERB UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 07, 2010, 02:54:38 PM
Many quick questions for you fhags who care about politics so much (SPOILER: Politics really fucking suck 99% of the time. The faces of each party should all die)

Are there STUDIES to show what Obamacare is going to do to healthcare costs? Are they mainly Lib STUDIES (that show it will save the world) and Conservative STUDIES (that show it will ruin everything middle America was founded on)? Have healthcare costs increased in the last year to raise insurance rates by 10%? Or would a company be increasing said rates based off of expected increases in rates? And if they are doing that, are they raising them by rates higher than the actual expected increase in costs (for example, if they expect costs to increase by 5-10%, then they're going to raise them by the high side of that estimate, so they can be 100% they'll cover all the cost increases and to be fucking assholes)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 07, 2010, 03:01:25 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 07, 2010, 02:54:38 PM
Many quick questions for you fhags who care about politics so much (SPOILER: Politics really fucking suck 99% of the time. The faces of each party should all die)

Are there STUDIES to show what Obamacare is going to do to healthcare costs? Are they mainly Lib STUDIES (that show it will save the world) and Conservative STUDIES (that show it will ruin everything middle America was founded on)? Have healthcare costs increased in the last year to raise insurance rates by 10%? Or would a company be increasing said rates based off of expected increases in rates? And if they are doing that, are they raising them by rates higher than the actual expected increase in costs (for example, if they expect costs to increase by 5-10%, then they're going to raise them by the high side of that estimate, so they can be 100% they'll cover all the cost increases and to be fucking assholes)

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to joke about the President dying without the Secret Service showing up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 07, 2010, 03:57:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 07, 2010, 02:54:38 PM
Many quick questions for you fhags who care about politics so much (SPOILER: Politics really fucking suck 99% of the time. The faces of each party should all die)

Are there STUDIES to show what Obamacare is going to do to healthcare costs? Are they mainly Lib STUDIES (that show it will save the world) and Conservative STUDIES (that show it will ruin everything middle America was founded on)? Have healthcare costs increased in the last year to raise insurance rates by 10%? Or would a company be increasing said rates based off of expected increases in rates? And if they are doing that, are they raising them by rates higher than the actual expected increase in costs (for example, if they expect costs to increase by 5-10%, then they're going to raise them by the high side of that estimate, so they can be 100% they'll cover all the cost increases and to be fucking assholes)

Everyone has their beefs with the CBO, but it's probably your best bet for nonpartisan analysis (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=434). Short answer is if you get insurance from your employer, not much will change. Keep in mind the bulk of the law isn't implemented until 2014, so these estimates are what'll hai by about 2016, compared to where we'd be with no reform.

CBO says if you work for a big company, your premiums will do anything from stay the same, to go down by 3 percent.

If you work for a smaller company (fewer than 50 employees), premiums will decrease by 2 percent in the best case estimate, increase by 1 percent in the worst case estimate.

If you buy insurance individually, your costs will go down significantly due to subsidies, but I'm guessing that doesn't apply to you.

So there's your answer in the abstract.

But I think your underlying question is: "Why am I, Yeti, seeing an increase in my health insurance costs?" I don't know, man. Depends on a lot of things like you're employer's financial situation, their insurance provider, the provider's reaction to current & expected changes due to health care reform, where you live, how many tubs of Country Crock you eat a day, etc.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 07, 2010, 04:12:57 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 07, 2010, 03:01:25 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 07, 2010, 02:54:38 PM
Many quick questions for you fhags who care about politics so much (SPOILER: Politics really fucking suck 99% of the time. The faces of each party should all die)

Are there STUDIES to show what Obamacare is going to do to healthcare costs? Are they mainly Lib STUDIES (that show it will save the world) and Conservative STUDIES (that show it will ruin everything middle America was founded on)? Have healthcare costs increased in the last year to raise insurance rates by 10%? Or would a company be increasing said rates based off of expected increases in rates? And if they are doing that, are they raising them by rates higher than the actual expected increase in costs (for example, if they expect costs to increase by 5-10%, then they're going to raise them by the high side of that estimate, so they can be 100% they'll cover all the cost increases and to be fucking assholes)

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to joke about the President dying without the Secret Service showing up.

Who said I was joking?

And, RV, thanks. I'll read through that later tonight at home. Part of my issue is this dialogue I had with my maternal birthparent today

Quote from: YetiphileStarting the first of the year, we are going to be paying $50 for insurance
Quote from: Most Disappointed Mother EverNot surprising. Gotta love Obamacare.
Quote from: YetiphileI blame it on the insurance companies. How about they see if they prices are going to go up before they jack up rates
(bear in mind I was just assuming that)
Quote from: Most Disappointed Mother EverYes but they are only anticipating Obamacare changes. And they already have to cover preventative things that fell under most deductibles before - such as mammograms, routine lab work, etc. That just took effect recently. The insurance companies are to blame as well - they are going to get as much as they can before their premiums are capped or the government runs them out of business which could also be the case.

It's more of the first part that she said. Just quickly blaming it on him. I admit that I haven't followed everything. It's just obnoxious and exhausting for me (so is getting the remote from underneath the seat cushion under 5 layers of lardbutter). It just seems that everytime anyone in my family mentions it they mention how Obama is ruining this "wonderful" country we have. Once when I questioned my stepdad, he had claimed he read the 1400-page bill. I'm just a little tired of mentioning anything to them and all of a sudden it's "OBAMA IS RUINING EVERYTHING". I don't know if they're right or wrong. I'm compelled to believe they're wrong because it sounds like the information they receive is nothing but fear-mongering from the likes of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I'm definitely looking for what you gave me, the best non-partisan analysis.

Basically, I'm impartial to Obama. Like I said in the shoutbox, I just want him to keep my taxes the same as last year (or this year).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 07, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 07, 2010, 04:54:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

So long as your insurance company is for profit, you'll also see this.  I, for one, don't understand why insurance companies have to be for profit enterprises.  Do I really want the people deciding if I get a treatment having to choose between my treatment and their shareholders?  Talk about a death panel.

Why can't insurance companies simply have metrics that decide if a payment is made or not made.  And set prices to fund said payments.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2010, 06:19:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2010, 06:19:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have tried, but I haven't figured out who's still for the idea of employment-based health insurance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 08, 2010, 08:32:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2010, 06:19:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have tried, but I haven't figured out who's still for the idea of employment-based health insurance.

I bet Mike Fontenot is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 08, 2010, 08:37:35 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 07, 2010, 04:54:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

So long as your insurance company is for profit, you'll also see this.  I, for one, don't understand why insurance companies have to be for profit enterprises.  Do I really want the people deciding if I get a treatment having to choose between my treatment and their shareholders?  Talk about a death panel.

Why can't insurance companies simply have metrics that decide if a payment is made or not made.  And set prices to fund said payments.

Chuck, there are no perfect solutions. Only tradeoffs. But why should grocery stores be for profit enterprises? Or banks?

If you allowed true consumer choice in the market, insurance companies would be a lot more responsive to the consumer.

Besides, a number of insurance companies -- even BCBS franchises -- are non-profit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
Hey, you wanted bipartisanship and getting things done?  How's this? (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/hr3808-equivalent-tarp-2-and-obamas-get-out-jail-gift-card-high-frequency-signing-scandal)  Passage of HR3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 is troubling, to say the least.

QuoteThe bill, it turns out, has passed both congress and senate, and is now quietly awaiting for Obama's signature to be enacted into law. In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents. In other words, with one simple signature Obama has the capacity to prevent tens of billions in damages to banks from legal fees, MBS deficiency claims, unwound sales, and to formally make what started this whole mess: Court Fraud (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jpmorgan-brings-foreclosure-case-mortgage-which-it-was-just-servicer-court-finds-bank-commit) perpetrated by banks, a legal act, and to finally trample over the constitution.

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

I think there's enough room for anger on all sides here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 08, 2010, 08:53:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
Hey, you wanted bipartisanship and getting things done?  How's this? (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/hr3808-equivalent-tarp-2-and-obamas-get-out-jail-gift-card-high-frequency-signing-scandal)  Passage of HR3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 is troubling, to say the least.

QuoteThe bill, it turns out, has passed both congress and senate, and is now quietly awaiting for Obama's signature to be enacted into law. In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents. In other words, with one simple signature Obama has the capacity to prevent tens of billions in damages to banks from legal fees, MBS deficiency claims, unwound sales, and to formally make what started this whole mess: Court Fraud (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jpmorgan-brings-foreclosure-case-mortgage-which-it-was-just-servicer-court-finds-bank-commit) perpetrated by banks, a legal act, and to finally trample over the constitution.

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

I think there's enough room for anger on all sides here.

Obama has said he will not sign this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/why-president-obama-not-signing-hr-3808).

The veto pen works.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:56:56 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 08, 2010, 08:53:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
Hey, you wanted bipartisanship and getting things done?  How's this? (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/hr3808-equivalent-tarp-2-and-obamas-get-out-jail-gift-card-high-frequency-signing-scandal)  Passage of HR3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 is troubling, to say the least.

QuoteThe bill, it turns out, has passed both congress and senate, and is now quietly awaiting for Obama's signature to be enacted into law. In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents. In other words, with one simple signature Obama has the capacity to prevent tens of billions in damages to banks from legal fees, MBS deficiency claims, unwound sales, and to formally make what started this whole mess: Court Fraud (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jpmorgan-brings-foreclosure-case-mortgage-which-it-was-just-servicer-court-finds-bank-commit) perpetrated by banks, a legal act, and to finally trample over the constitution.

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

I think there's enough room for anger on all sides here.

Obama has said he will not sign this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/why-president-obama-not-signing-hr-3808).

The veto pen works.

Good for Obama.  Credit where credit's due and all that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 08, 2010, 09:00:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2010, 06:19:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have tried, but I haven't figured out who's still for the idea of employment-based health insurance.

Really, I hadn't given it too much thought. What I would like to see is an opt-out and the company increases my compensation by the amount of the health insurance they're saving (and that amount can be reduced by the appropriate 6.85% for their portion of payroll taxes). For some reason, I'm thinking I could come out a little better than where I currently sit. From what I heard, I had some friends paying less a month for health insurance than what my company pays.  I know that if someone is paying less than me for insurance, then the insurance is probably shittier than mine. However, even though I'm an obese fucker, I'm pretty "healthy". I don't get sick often and I visit the doctor maybe once every 2 years.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 08, 2010, 09:11:30 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 08, 2010, 09:00:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:30:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2010, 06:19:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 07, 2010, 04:52:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 07, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
The problem with health insurance is that you're not the customer. Your employer is. Therefore, the insurance companies will have to only keep them happy. Your employer is basing its decisions primarily on cost as there is no shortage of labor out there to attract. Paying just $50 a month for insurance ($50 pretax) is pretty good in these parts. Thus, the employer will pass any increase on to the employee. At some point, when you're paying $300/mth for single coverage, the employer will begin offering shittier and shittier coverage as much as the law will allow. And then you'll continue to pay more.

Until your insurance carrier is not dependent on who your employer is, you'll continue to see a shitshow no matter what crap the Dems or Repubs come up with.

But yes, eliminating high deductible insurance and requiring insurance policies to cover certain things will necessarily increase costs as requiring everyone to buy insurance will necessarily decrease costs.

....that?

Those.

But, of course, in the US we can't even consider moving to divorce health insurance coverage from employment, no matter how much sense it makes to do so or how much the current status quo is a mere accident of history.

Because, as everyone knows, employer-based health insurance is guaranteed by the Constitution.

I have tried, but I haven't figured out who's still for the idea of employment-based health insurance.

Really, I hadn't given it too much thought. What I would like to see is an opt-out and the company increases my compensation by the amount of the health insurance they're saving (and that amount can be reduced by the appropriate 6.85% for their portion of payroll taxes). For some reason, I'm thinking I could come out a little better than where I currently sit. From what I heard, I had some friends paying less a month for health insurance than what my company pays.  I know that if someone is paying less than me for insurance, then the insurance is probably shittier than mine. However, even though I'm an obese fucker, I'm pretty "healthy". I don't get sick often and I visit the doctor maybe once every 2 years.

I doubt it. Considering how expensive the individual market is right now, I'm guessing the cheaper policies your friends have are piece of shit policies with huge deductibles and low lifetime caps. Meaning, if anything happens to you beyond the common cold you could be in deep shit with medical debt for the rest of your life. The lower premiums aren't worth the risk of being properfucked financially for the rest of your life due to one unforeseen medical problem.

The individual market sucks right now because the consumer has basically no purchasing power. The exchanges should help somewhat (pooling together consumers to increase their leverage), but not nearly as much as completely decoupling insurance from employment would.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 08, 2010, 09:13:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 08, 2010, 09:17:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 08, 2010, 09:13:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.


Yeah. That's...troubling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2010, 09:23:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2010, 09:17:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 08, 2010, 09:13:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.


Yeah. That's...troubling.

A voice vote can be subject to challenge during parliamentary proceedings if members don't think a legit majority was reached and thrown to a vote on the record. So I think voice votes can only be taken when the majority is big enough to not be challenged. For the sake of the record, I think you can blame them all.

What a bunch of clowns.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 08, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2010, 09:23:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2010, 09:17:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 08, 2010, 09:13:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.


Yeah. That's...troubling.

A voice vote can be subject to challenge during parliamentary proceedings if members don't think a legit majority was reached and thrown to a vote on the record. So I think voice votes can only be taken when the majority is big enough to not be challenged. For the sake of the record, I think you can blame them all.

What a bunch of clowns.

Well, I'm just glad to live in a country where we have the chance to continually elect saps who vote against our interests. I'd sure hate to lose that right.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 08, 2010, 09:32:10 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2010, 09:23:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2010, 09:17:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 08, 2010, 09:13:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.


Yeah. That's...troubling.

A voice vote can be subject to challenge during parliamentary proceedings if members don't think a legit majority was reached and thrown to a vote on the record. So I think voice votes can only be taken when the majority is big enough to not be challenged. For the sake of the record, I think you can blame them all.

What a bunch of clowns.

Well, I'm just glad to live in a country where we have the chance to continually elect saps who vote against our interests. I'd sure hate to lose that right.

It's your own fault for not living in 4th - N.C.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2010, 10:00:06 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2010, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2010, 09:23:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2010, 09:17:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 08, 2010, 09:13:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

DPD. I must be an ignorant sumbitch because I had no idea this was possible. Congress can take votes without recording each person's vote for posterity? What the hell? That's about as transparent as a warm Dr. Pepper.


Yeah. That's...troubling.

A voice vote can be subject to challenge during parliamentary proceedings if members don't think a legit majority was reached and thrown to a vote on the record. So I think voice votes can only be taken when the majority is big enough to not be challenged. For the sake of the record, I think you can blame them all.

What a bunch of clowns.

Well, I'm just glad to live in a country where we have the chance to continually elect saps who vote against our interests. I'd sure hate to lose that right.

I'm curious whether this veto might be Elizabeth Warren's first victory as special advisor to Obama.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 08, 2010, 11:46:14 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 08, 2010, 08:53:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 08:51:32 AM
Hey, you wanted bipartisanship and getting things done?  How's this? (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/hr3808-equivalent-tarp-2-and-obamas-get-out-jail-gift-card-high-frequency-signing-scandal)  Passage of HR3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 is troubling, to say the least.

QuoteThe bill, it turns out, has passed both congress and senate, and is now quietly awaiting for Obama's signature to be enacted into law. In summary, the bill requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states. That's the theoretical definition: the practical one - the legislation, if enacted, could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents. In other words, with one simple signature Obama has the capacity to prevent tens of billions in damages to banks from legal fees, MBS deficiency claims, unwound sales, and to formally make what started this whole mess: Court Fraud (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jpmorgan-brings-foreclosure-case-mortgage-which-it-was-just-servicer-court-finds-bank-commit) perpetrated by banks, a legal act, and to finally trample over the constitution.

From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3808
QuoteVotes: Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.  Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator's position was not kept.

I think there's enough room for anger on all sides here.

Obama has said he will not sign this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/07/why-president-obama-not-signing-hr-3808).

The veto pen works.

Or maybe it actually doesn't. He's just putting the bill in his desk somewhere. Pocket veto, second of the term.

This is actually the better form of vetoing it, as well. This way, Congress cannot vote on the bill without beginning the whole process over again.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 11:51:05 AM
Fallout?  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/BofA-halts-foreclosure-sales-apf-977158216.html

QuotePotential flaws in foreclosure documents are threatening to throw the real estate industry into a full-blown crisis, as Bank of America on Friday became the first bank to stop sales of foreclosed homes in all 50 states.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 08, 2010, 12:20:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2010, 11:51:05 AM
Fallout?  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/BofA-halts-foreclosure-sales-apf-977158216.html

QuotePotential flaws in foreclosure documents are threatening to throw the real estate industry into a full-blown crisis, as Bank of America on Friday became the first bank to stop sales of foreclosed homes in all 50 states.

Yikes. More good news: (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/what_does_64000_jobs_mean.html)

Quote64,000 private-sector jobs. That's about 35,000 less than the 100,000 or so jobs needed to keep up with population growth. It's about 180,000 less than the number of jobs needed to get back to 5 percent unemployment in the next 10 years. It's about 257,000 less than the 320,000 jobs needed to get back to 5 percent unemployment in five years.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMscxxELHEg/TK8Xj8DoNvI/AAAAAAAAJdo/6oCvggab-TQ/s1600/JobLossesAlignedSep2010.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 08, 2010, 12:40:05 PM

Boy, if you thought "Outsourced" wasn't funny before...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 09, 2010, 04:23:37 PM
Nation of shopkeepers, nation of thieves.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 11, 2010, 10:01:47 AM
It seems Bill Brady was for the train line to nowhere (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=greg-hinz&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3ae6ca6ec5-db81-4e7d-b946-d711852c126f&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com) so long as he doesn't have to pay for it.

QuoteAndwith GOP candidates for governor around the Midwest increasingly coming out against President Barack Obama's proposed high-speed rail network, it's interesting to note that the party's candidate in Illinois, Bill Brady, has a different view.

When I asked him about the issue recently, he responded by saying that most of the money involved is coming from the federal government.

Translation: Mr. Brady is from Downstate, which desperately needs infrastructure pops in the arm to revive its economy. And if that takes federal dough to do, he has no problem with that.

Fiscal frauds, the lot of them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 11, 2010, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 09, 2010, 04:23:37 PM
Nation of shopkeepers, nation of thieves.

Word (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/123243-dems-seize-on-foreign-contributions-to-pounce-on-chamber-backing).

The GOP is working a little too hard at saying "nothing to see here", for it to be believable that there's nothing to see there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 11, 2010, 03:57:43 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html
QuoteReasonable people can disagree about whether and how much the government should redistribute income. And, to be sure, the looming budget deficits require hard choices about spending and taxes. But don't let anyone fool you into thinking that when the government taxes the rich, only the rich bear the burden.

Or:  PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 11, 2010, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 11, 2010, 03:57:43 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html
QuoteReasonable people can disagree about whether and how much the government should redistribute income. And, to be sure, the looming budget deficits require hard choices about spending and taxes. But don't let anyone fool you into thinking that when the government taxes the rich, only the rich bear the burden.

Or:  PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Maybe we should stop filling the tax code with incentives and simply use the tax code to, you know, pay for what the government decides it needs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 11, 2010, 04:19:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 11, 2010, 03:57:43 PM
Or:  PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

TAUTOLOGIES DESCRIBE TAUTOLOGIES!

/pokestick
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 11, 2010, 04:20:42 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 11, 2010, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 11, 2010, 03:57:43 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html
QuoteReasonable people can disagree about whether and how much the government should redistribute income. And, to be sure, the looming budget deficits require hard choices about spending and taxes. But don't let anyone fool you into thinking that when the government taxes the rich, only the rich bear the burden.

Or:  PEOPLE RESPOND TO INCENTIVES.

Maybe we should stop filling the tax code with incentives and simply use the tax code to, you know, pay for what the government decides it needs.

I couldn't agree more.

EDIT: I think "pay for what the people decide the government needs" is a better way to put it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 12, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Godwin's Law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/12/candidate.nazi.outfit/index.html?hpt=Sbin), made simple.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2010, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 12, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Godwin's Law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/12/candidate.nazi.outfit/index.html?hpt=Sbin), made simple.

I guess they will go after anyone who appeared in The Sound of Music next?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 12, 2010, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2010, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 12, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Godwin's Law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/12/candidate.nazi.outfit/index.html?hpt=Sbin), made simple.

I guess they will go after anyone who appeared in The Sound of Music next?

George Hutchins says this guy is a NINO.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2010, 08:36:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 11, 2010, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 09, 2010, 04:23:37 PM
Nation of shopkeepers, nation of thieves.

Word (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/123243-dems-seize-on-foreign-contributions-to-pounce-on-chamber-backing).

The GOP is working a little too hard at saying "nothing to see here", for it to be believable that there's nothing to see there.

Shoah.  http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 12, 2010, 09:04:03 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2010, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 12, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Godwin's Law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/12/candidate.nazi.outfit/index.html?hpt=Sbin), made simple.

I guess they will go after anyone who appeared in The Sound of Music next?

Nah, first will be wife beaters from Carousel.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 09:13:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2010, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 12, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Godwin's Law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/12/candidate.nazi.outfit/index.html?hpt=Sbin), made simple.

I guess they will go after anyone who appeared in The Sound of Music next?

Recreating World War II is just plain odd.  No matter whose side you choose. 

It's even odder when the number 3 man in your party (at least on the House side) is Jewish.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 12, 2010, 09:44:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 09:13:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2010, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 12, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Godwin's Law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/12/candidate.nazi.outfit/index.html?hpt=Sbin), made simple.

I guess they will go after anyone who appeared in The Sound of Music next?

Recreating World War II is just plain odd.  No matter whose side you choose. 

It's even odder when the number 3 man in your party (at least on the House side) is Jewish.

They're doing a public service, telling the WWII story from the SS perspective.

Because History really hasn't given the SS a fair shake.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 09:52:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 09:13:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2010, 08:27:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 12, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Godwin's Law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/12/candidate.nazi.outfit/index.html?hpt=Sbin), made simple.

I guess they will go after anyone who appeared in The Sound of Music next?

Recreating World War II is just plain odd.  No matter whose side you choose. 

Adding that choosing to reenact a wing of the Nazi party (rather than, say, the German regular army) while ignoring the ugly historical facts of the Nazi regime seems to give something of a lie to its purported value as "living history."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 12, 2010, 01:14:26 PM
A straightforward explanation (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/why-foreclosure-fraud-is-so-dangerous-to-property-rights/) of foreclosure fraud.

QuoteIn a nation of laws, contract and property rights, there is no room for errors. Indeed, even small technical flaws can be repaired via a process called "perfecting title."

As we noted previously, esteemed economists such as Hernando de Soto have identified that the respect for title, proper documentation, contract law and private property rights are the underlying reason capitalism works in Western nations, but seems to flounder elsewhere.

We cannot have free market capitalism without this process.

QuoteThe verification of the specific data that is mandated legally is not taking place by bank executives. Reviewing a file can take anywhere from, 20 minutes to well over an hour. Yet some bank employees are testifying that they have signed off on as many as 150 per day (Wells Fargo) or 400 per day (Chase).

It is impossible to perform that many foreclosure reviews and data verifications in a single day. The only way this could happen is via a systemic banking fraud that orders its employees to violate the law. Hence, how we end up with the wrong house being foreclosed upon, the wrong person being sued for a mortgage note, a bank without an interest in a mortgage note suing for foreclosure, and cases where more than  one note holders are suing on the same property that is being foreclosed.

This is more than mere accident or error, it is willful recklessness. When that recklessness is part of a company's processes and procedures, it amounts to systemic fraud. (THIS IS CRIMINAL AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED).

The next step in our cavalcade of illegality is the Notary. Their signature and stamp allows these fraudulent documents to be entered into court as actual evidence (no live witness required). Hence, we have no only fraud, but contempt of court on top of it (BOTH OF WHICH REQUIRE PROSECUTION).

Law firms preparing the legal documents are not doing their job of further verifying the information. And, it seems certain states such as Florida have foreclosure mills who were set up from the outset as fraudulent enterprises. (EVEN MORE PROSECUTION NEEDED).

Lastly, some service processors are not bothering to do their job. This is the last step in the foreclosure proceedings that would put a person on notice of the errors (YET MORE FRAUD).

There are multiple failsafes and checkpoints along the way to insure that this system has zero errors. Indeed, one can argue that the entire system of property rights and contract law has been established over the past two centuries to ensure that this process is error free. There are multiple checks, fail-safes, rechecks, verifications, affirmations, reviews, and attestations that make sure the process does not fail.

It is a legal impossibility for someone without a mortgage to be foreclosed upon. It is a legal impossibility for the wrong house to be foreclosed upon, It is a legal impossibility for the wrong bank to sue for foreclosure.

And yet, all of those things have occurred. The only way these errors could have occurred is if several people involved in the process committed criminal fraud. This is not a case of "Well, something slipped through the cracks." In order for the process to fail, many people along the chain must commit fraud
.

That it is being done for expediency and to save a few dollars on the process is why the full criminal prosecution must occur.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 01:41:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2010, 01:14:26 PM
A straightforward explanation (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/why-foreclosure-fraud-is-so-dangerous-to-property-rights/) of foreclosure fraud.

QuoteIn a nation of laws, contract and property rights, there is no room for errors. Indeed, even small technical flaws can be repaired via a process called "perfecting title."

As we noted previously, esteemed economists such as Hernando de Soto have identified that the respect for title, proper documentation, contract law and private property rights are the underlying reason capitalism works in Western nations, but seems to flounder elsewhere.

We cannot have free market capitalism without this process.

QuoteThe verification of the specific data that is mandated legally is not taking place by bank executives. Reviewing a file can take anywhere from, 20 minutes to well over an hour. Yet some bank employees are testifying that they have signed off on as many as 150 per day (Wells Fargo) or 400 per day (Chase).

It is impossible to perform that many foreclosure reviews and data verifications in a single day. The only way this could happen is via a systemic banking fraud that orders its employees to violate the law. Hence, how we end up with the wrong house being foreclosed upon, the wrong person being sued for a mortgage note, a bank without an interest in a mortgage note suing for foreclosure, and cases where more than  one note holders are suing on the same property that is being foreclosed.

This is more than mere accident or error, it is willful recklessness. When that recklessness is part of a company's processes and procedures, it amounts to systemic fraud. (THIS IS CRIMINAL AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED).

The next step in our cavalcade of illegality is the Notary. Their signature and stamp allows these fraudulent documents to be entered into court as actual evidence (no live witness required). Hence, we have no only fraud, but contempt of court on top of it (BOTH OF WHICH REQUIRE PROSECUTION).

Law firms preparing the legal documents are not doing their job of further verifying the information. And, it seems certain states such as Florida have foreclosure mills who were set up from the outset as fraudulent enterprises. (EVEN MORE PROSECUTION NEEDED).

Lastly, some service processors are not bothering to do their job. This is the last step in the foreclosure proceedings that would put a person on notice of the errors (YET MORE FRAUD).

There are multiple failsafes and checkpoints along the way to insure that this system has zero errors. Indeed, one can argue that the entire system of property rights and contract law has been established over the past two centuries to ensure that this process is error free. There are multiple checks, fail-safes, rechecks, verifications, affirmations, reviews, and attestations that make sure the process does not fail.

It is a legal impossibility for someone without a mortgage to be foreclosed upon. It is a legal impossibility for the wrong house to be foreclosed upon, It is a legal impossibility for the wrong bank to sue for foreclosure.

And yet, all of those things have occurred. The only way these errors could have occurred is if several people involved in the process committed criminal fraud. This is not a case of "Well, something slipped through the cracks." In order for the process to fail, many people along the chain must commit fraud
.

That it is being done for expediency and to save a few dollars on the process is why the full criminal prosecution must occur.

Republicans to blame the borrowers in 5, 4, 3...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 12, 2010, 02:17:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

QuoteNow, Democrats are demanding that Kirk explain himself and apologize to African-American voters.

Fucking morons.  Don't ask for him to apologize.  Just go after him for being an idiot.  If he apologizes, you lose an issue.

This is such an easy play.  It's a no brainer.  It's like not lending money to a guy with a criminal background!

Oh...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 12, 2010, 02:18:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

This is the dumbest article ever written on any campaign for or effort to secure this Senate seat ever. And that includes articles Roland Burris' fitness to hold office, the feasability of the governor appointing himself or Oprah to the seat, Alan Keyes' lesbian daughter and Keyes' contention that Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter was a selfish hedonist, Mike Ditka or a bunch of freak show candidate possibly running for office, descriptions of Jack and Jeri Ryan's sex club excursions, Jim Oberweis' helicopter over Soldier Field looking for illegals, Jim Oberweis' bus to Canada for drugs, Blair Hull's cocaine in his desk drawer and card counter, Blair Hull's wife beating, Peter Fitzgerald's hijinks, Richard Williamson's awful, awful campaign in 1992, all the way to an old Chicago Daily Tribune article in 1858 about Abe Lincoln's crazy wife.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on October 12, 2010, 02:22:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

"Word" sounds suspiciously like another word.  The "word" to which I am referring?  Turd.  I was thinking of "turd".  And I'm offended, too. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

I completely agree.  We talk about dog whistle politics sometimes in here.  Here's one good example of it.

"That sounded like the n-word, good sir, and I demand you apologize!!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 12, 2010, 02:45:00 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

I completely agree.  We talk about dog whistle politics sometimes in here.  Here's one good example of it.

"That sounded like the n-word, good sir, and I demand you apologize!!"

Not only did he not say that word, but he didn't say it while being unknowingly recorded. And how fucking dare he accuse somebody in Chicago of voter fraud. That's just... that's just...

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 12, 2010, 02:46:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

I completely agree.  We talk about dog whistle politics sometimes in here.  Here's one good example of it.

"That sounded like the n-word, good sir, and I demand you apologize!!"

Reminds me of this setback in human evolution regarding the seldom-used word for cheapskatedness, "niggardly" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm)

(And Uncle Cecil with some further explanation. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1725/is-niggardly-a-racist-word))
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 12, 2010, 02:49:17 PM

This country would be much better off if we just returned to the principles that launched the United States into the great industrial/economic power we became over 100 years ago.

Hating the Micks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 12, 2010, 02:50:24 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 12, 2010, 02:49:17 PM

This country would be much better off if we just returned to the principles that launched the United States into the great industrial/economic power we became over 100 years ago.

Hating the Micks.

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsH/8333-1934.gif)

Fork Johnson is RIGHT!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Today on AZCentral.com.

(http://oi53.tinypic.com/bej6dj.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 12, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Today on AZCentral.com.

(http://oi53.tinypic.com/bej6dj.jpg)
Whom, indeed?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:55:22 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 12, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Today on AZCentral.com.

(http://oi53.tinypic.com/bej6dj.jpg)
Whom, indeed?

Bush.

It says so right in the image.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:55:22 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 12, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Today on AZCentral.com.

(http://oi53.tinypic.com/bej6dj.jpg)
Whom, indeed?

Bush.

It says so right in the image.

History will more fondly remember who?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 12, 2010, 04:53:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:55:22 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 12, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Today on AZCentral.com.

(http://oi53.tinypic.com/bej6dj.jpg)
Whom, indeed?

Bush.

It says so right in the image.

History will more fondly remember who?

Hard to say.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 12, 2010, 04:53:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:55:22 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 12, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Today on AZCentral.com.

(http://oi53.tinypic.com/bej6dj.jpg)
Whom, indeed?

Bush.

It says so right in the image.

History will more fondly remember who?

Hard to say.

[ || ]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 12, 2010, 02:46:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

I completely agree.  We talk about dog whistle politics sometimes in here.  Here's one good example of it.

"That sounded like the n-word, good sir, and I demand you apologize!!"

Reminds me of this setback in human evolution regarding the seldom-used word for cheapskatedness, "niggardly" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm)

(And Uncle Cecil with some further explanation. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1725/is-niggardly-a-racist-word))

According to a commenter on the TPM article about this story, I found this.  Again, take it for what it's worth, especially considering the source.

QuoteActually, and I'm just explaining something, not approving these terms, "jig" is short for "jigaboo". I have no clue where the latter word comes from, just that I've heard it only a few times, but in context it seemed to be a slur.

That seems to be a stretch, but whatever.

Like Thrill said, my major problem is with the fake and entirely non-existent canard of voter fraud that Kirk is reacting against.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 12, 2010, 05:07:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:55:22 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 12, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 12, 2010, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Today on AZCentral.com.

(http://oi53.tinypic.com/bej6dj.jpg)
Whom, indeed?

Bush.

It says so right in the image.

History will more fondly remember who?

Why wouldn't they? Admittedly, Keith Moon's death and the Cincinnati incident and Pete Townshend's child porn imbroglio all were black marks, but Quadrophenia was one hell of an album.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 12, 2010, 05:09:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 12, 2010, 02:46:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

I completely agree.  We talk about dog whistle politics sometimes in here.  Here's one good example of it.

"That sounded like the n-word, good sir, and I demand you apologize!!"

Reminds me of this setback in human evolution regarding the seldom-used word for cheapskatedness, "niggardly" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm)

(And Uncle Cecil with some further explanation. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1725/is-niggardly-a-racist-word))

According to a commenter on the TPM article about this story, I found this.  Again, take it for what it's worth, especially considering the source.

QuoteActually, and I'm just explaining something, not approving these terms, "jig" is short for "jigaboo". I have no clue where the latter word comes from, just that I've heard it only a few times, but in context it seemed to be a slur.

That seems to be a stretch, but whatever.

Like Thrill said, my major problem is with the fake and entirely non-existent canard of voter fraud that Kirk is reacting against.

To be unconcerned with voter fraud in Illinois is to live in rural Tennessee and not pay your $75 fire subscription fee.

Republicans and Democrats have pollwatchers to look out for fraud, voter suppression, etc., etc.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 12, 2010, 06:00:13 PM
Quote from: JD on October 12, 2010, 02:22:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

"Word" sounds suspiciously like another word.  The "word" to which I am referring?  Turd.  I was thinking of "turd".  And I'm offended, too. 

What is in a word?  Here in the Golden State we are dealing with a Jerry Brown staffer who called Meg Whitman a whore just because she would treat members of a law enforcement union that has contributed generously to her campaign more advantageously when it comes to pension issues than she would treat members of public employee unions that have not contributed to her campaign.  Can you imagine calling a politician a "whore"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 06:35:43 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 05:01:44 PM
According to a commenter on the TPM article about this story, I found this.  Again, take it for what it's worth, especially considering the source.

QuoteActually, and I'm just explaining something, not approving these terms, "jig" is short for "jigaboo". I have no clue where the latter word comes from, just that I've heard it only a few times, but in context it seemed to be a slur.

That seems to be a stretch, but whatever.

Is it anything like "biggledyboo"?

QuoteTracy: I'm telling you, Dot Com, old-school racism is back.

Toofer: How can racism be back when we elected a black president?

Tracy: Barry Obams is the one who brought it back!

Toofer: So you're saying that racism is back because white people no longer feel sorry for us?

Tracy: Hey, something's going on. You know what I saw last night? A Slovin Shield commercial with a black burglar!

Dot Com: That's not good.

Grizz: Come to think of it, I saw a white judge on Law and Order last night!

Tracy: Oh yeah, it's back on! Get ready, son. All you've ever known is your affirmative action job and Queen Latifah CoverGirl commercials.

(http://i.imgur.com/EN6ko.jpg)

"BLACK MAN!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on October 12, 2010, 07:05:24 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2010, 06:00:13 PM
Quote from: JD on October 12, 2010, 02:22:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

"Word" sounds suspiciously like another word.  The "word" to which I am referring?  Turd.  I was thinking of "turd".  And I'm offended, too. 

What is in a word?  Here in the Golden State we are dealing with a Jerry Brown staffer who called Meg Whitman a whore just because she would treat members of a law enforcement union that has contributed generously to her campaign more advantageously when it comes to pension issues than she would treat members of public employee unions that have not contributed to her campaign.  Can you imagine calling a politician a "whore"?

I've imagined doing worse things to a politician who works for gubment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on October 12, 2010, 07:57:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 05:01:44 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 12, 2010, 02:46:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 02:18:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2010, 02:05:22 PM
Oh Mark, this could have been the easiest election ever, but...

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/politics&id=7714744

Kirk pulling out the voter fraud canard is one thing, but this?

Quote"The problem I had is that it sounds so much like another word," Rev. Albert Tyson said.

Moses smell the roses. Just stop.

I completely agree.  We talk about dog whistle politics sometimes in here.  Here's one good example of it.

"That sounded like the n-word, good sir, and I demand you apologize!!"

Reminds me of this setback in human evolution regarding the seldom-used word for cheapskatedness, "niggardly" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm)

(And Uncle Cecil with some further explanation. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1725/is-niggardly-a-racist-word))

According to a commenter on the TPM article about this story, I found this.  Again, take it for what it's worth, especially considering the source.

QuoteActually, and I'm just explaining something, not approving these terms, "jig" is short for "jigaboo". I have no clue where the latter word comes from, just that I've heard it only a few times, but in context it seemed to be a slur.

That seems to be a stretch, but whatever.

Like Thrill said, my major problem is with the fake and entirely non-existent canard of voter fraud that Kirk is reacting against.

It's cool, Wikipedia has it covered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigger).

QuoteThe term jigger may refer to:

   * A traditional Newfoundland unbaited weighted hook, often designed like a small fish, used with a line to catch larger fish by giving a sharp, upward jerk.
   * A Handcar, a hand-operated railway car
   * A Jigger (bartending), a measure of alcoholic beverage ingredients, and the tool used to measure them.
   * A jigger flea or chigoe flea, a parasitic arthropod found in tropical climates
   * A jigger mast or jiggermast, the aftmost mast of a four-masted sailing ship.
   * A machine used in the production of ceramics such as pottery
   * The owner of Panathinaikos FC Giannis Vardinogiannis, a former rally driver under the alias "Jigger"
   * An alleyway in Liverpool
   * The sculpture of a coal miner in Brownhills
   * A small town in Louisiana
   * Inmate slang for a jailer or correctional officer.
   * A pallet jack
   * To alter, re-arrange, or manipulate.


(http://i.imgur.com/wEV8g.png)

I'm not good with irony, but isn't this irony?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 12, 2010, 09:09:18 PM
Kirk apologized.  He said, "I made a jiggerboo boo."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 12, 2010, 10:54:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 12, 2010, 09:09:18 PM
Kirk apologized.  He said, "I made a jiggerboo boo."

It's truly sad that in this thread full of abominations, this is the worst thing that has been uttered.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 13, 2010, 08:39:10 AM
Wow, in one short day we've learned that

1) "Jigger" is some sort of slur?

2) People borrowed money they couldn't pay back during the housing bubble, but it wasn't their fault?

3) Voter fraud is not a problem in Illinois?

4) Bush II and Obama are running neck-and-neck among Arizonans?

5) Quadrophenia was a heck of an album?

Jebus, this whole thread should be renamed
(http://thorgolucky.com/forum/images/smiles/smiley_poke_with_stick.gif)
(OK, there's some merit to #5...)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 13, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Why we should have to hide her fabric?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:55:31 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Why we should have to hide her fabric?

Huey forgetting internet something is something least something...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 13, 2010, 08:56:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Why we should have to hide her fabric?

Why we should not?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 13, 2010, 08:59:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 13, 2010, 08:39:10 AM

3) Voter fraud is not a problem in Illinois?


It's not not a problem. It's just a canard. And by the way, you're a racist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 13, 2010, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2010, 08:56:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Why we should have to hide her fabric?



Why we should not?

Moe you no talka da English!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 13, 2010, 09:02:09 AM
Can't Palin do pr0n or Playboy like all washed up stars?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 13, 2010, 09:05:18 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 13, 2010, 09:02:09 AM
Can't Palin do pr0n or Playboy like all washed up stars?

That sure sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 13, 2010, 09:09:23 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Quad has Ox & Moon's best playing - if you like Leeds, try seeking out the Who at Fillmore East, 4/5/68. You'll be glad you did.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2010, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2010, 08:56:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Why we should have to hide her fabric?



Why we should not?

Moe you no talka da English!

Huey fucking up a Simpsons quote? Something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 13, 2010, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2010, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2010, 08:56:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Why we should have to hide her fabric?



Why we should not?

Moe you no talka da English!

Huey fucking up a Simpsons quote? Something.

Look out Itchy! He's Croatian!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2010, 09:22:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 13, 2010, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2010, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2010, 08:56:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Why we should have to hide her fabric?



Why we should not?

Moe you no talka da English!

Huey fucking up a Simpsons quote? Something.

Look out Itchy Vlade! He's Croatian!

Anyone else watch any of this (http://30for30.espn.com/film/once-brothers.html) last night?'d
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 13, 2010, 09:28:37 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 13, 2010, 09:09:23 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Quad has Ox & Moon's best playing - if you like Leeds, try seeking out the Who at Fillmore East, 4/5/68. You'll be glad you did.

Thanks. I will.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Kermit IV on October 13, 2010, 02:30:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2010, 09:22:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 13, 2010, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2010, 09:19:13 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 13, 2010, 08:56:53 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 13, 2010, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 13, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Quadrophenia is ok, but I'm a Live at Leeds and Sell Out man myself.


Also: Sarah Palin, secret Muslin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-and-palin-related-w_n_760689.html)?

Why we should have to hide her fabric?



Why we should not?

Moe you no talka da English!

Huey fucking up a Simpsons quote? Something.

Look out Itchy Vlade! He's Croatian!

Anyone else watch any of this (http://30for30.espn.com/film/once-brothers.html) last night?'d

Yeah.  Finally ESPN is producing something awesome.  I watched this one, the Muhammed Ali one, and the first half of the one about the 2004 ALCS (DVR cut if off).  All of them were pretty excellent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 13, 2010, 03:09:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Or until Oberweis' campaign manager infers that his opponent may be gay.  (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/10/13/20101013brewer-campaign-manager-apology-to-goddard.html)

Quote
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's campaign manager is apologizing to anyone offended by his suggestion that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry Goddard is gay.
A message posted Wednesday on the website of Brewer campaign manager Chuck Coughlin's political consulting firm says his suggestion Tuesday regarding 20-year-old rumors about Goddard was only intended to make a point.

A very, very stupid point.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 13, 2010, 03:50:54 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2010, 03:09:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Or until Oberweis' campaign manager infers that his opponent may be gay.  (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/10/13/20101013brewer-campaign-manager-apology-to-goddard.html)

Quote
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's campaign manager is apologizing to anyone offended by his suggestion that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry Goddard is gay.
A message posted Wednesday on the website of Brewer campaign manager Chuck Coughlin's political consulting firm says his suggestion Tuesday regarding 20-year-old rumors about Goddard was only intended to make a point.

A very, very stupid point.

Isn't there anyone in the GOP leadership who thinks that they could appeal to a far wider audience by culling the gay baiting and the Christian-or-else religious fervor and simply pushing a message of tolerance and economics?

Probably not.  Too much money to be raised from the gay baiting and the Christian-or-else religious fervor.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on October 13, 2010, 04:14:54 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 13, 2010, 03:50:54 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2010, 03:09:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2010, 03:30:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 12, 2010, 03:26:35 PM
Fuck these assholes for making Arizona look sane.

Hey, now. I think Arizona retains the crown until Oberweis starts claiming Soldier Field is full of headless bodies.

Or until Oberweis' campaign manager infers that his opponent may be gay.  (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/10/13/20101013brewer-campaign-manager-apology-to-goddard.html)

Quote
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's campaign manager is apologizing to anyone offended by his suggestion that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry Goddard is gay.
A message posted Wednesday on the website of Brewer campaign manager Chuck Coughlin's political consulting firm says his suggestion Tuesday regarding 20-year-old rumors about Goddard was only intended to make a point.

A very, very stupid point.

Isn't there anyone in the GOP leadership who thinks that they could appeal to a far wider audience by culling the gay baiting and the Christian-or-else religious fervor and simply pushing a message of tolerance and economics?

Probably not.  Too much money to be raised from the gay baiting and the Christian-or-else religious fervor.

I am a "conservative" who is way over the GOP and these tactics... shit, I'm just sick of politics.  Locally, I can vote for the neo-liberal John Yarmuth, whose policies I can't stand (he is a nice guy though), or I can vote for Todd Lally, who is running to "defend marriage".  Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dumbass; nice choice, Jim.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 13, 2010, 10:25:49 PM
So, I'm sitting in a hotel room in downtown Pittsburgh right now, watching television, and within a span of 10 minutes there were 6 political advertising commercials from either the NRSC, the RNC, the RGA, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Holee shit, you'd think that Joe Sestak is the spawn of the devil.

In short, fuck politics.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 13, 2010, 10:48:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 13, 2010, 10:25:49 PM
So, I'm sitting in a hotel room in downtown Pittsburgh right now, watching television, and within a span of 10 minutes there were 6 political advertising commercials from either the NRSC, the RNC, the RGA, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Holee shit, you'd think that Joe Sestak is the spawn of the devil.

In short, fuck politics.

We get it.  You're gay for Pittsburgh just like CFiHP.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 13, 2010, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 13, 2010, 10:48:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 13, 2010, 10:25:49 PM
So, I'm sitting in a hotel room in downtown Pittsburgh right now, watching television, and within a span of 10 minutes there were 6 political advertising commercials from either the NRSC, the RNC, the RGA, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Holee shit, you'd think that Joe Sestak is the spawn of the devil.

In short, fuck politics.

We get it.  You're gay for Pittsburgh just like CFiHP.

Ahem...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 14, 2010, 07:23:47 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2010, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 13, 2010, 10:48:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 13, 2010, 10:25:49 PM
So, I'm sitting in a hotel room in downtown Pittsburgh right now, watching television, and within a span of 10 minutes there were 6 political advertising commercials from either the NRSC, the RNC, the RGA, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Holee shit, you'd think that Joe Sestak is the spawn of the devil.

In short, fuck politics.

We get it.  You're gay for Pittsburgh just like CFiHP.

Ahem...

Those guys are only gay for Pittsburgh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 14, 2010, 12:18:24 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 14, 2010, 07:23:47 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 13, 2010, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 13, 2010, 10:48:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 13, 2010, 10:25:49 PM
So, I'm sitting in a hotel room in downtown Pittsburgh right now, watching television, and within a span of 10 minutes there were 6 political advertising commercials from either the NRSC, the RNC, the RGA, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Holee shit, you'd think that Joe Sestak is the spawn of the devil.

In short, fuck politics.

We get it.  You're gay for Pittsburgh just like CFiHP.

Ahem...

Those guys are only gay for Pittsburgh.

I laughed, okay? You happy now?!?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 14, 2010, 09:17:19 PM
At least he acquitted himself well in tonight's debate (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2801976,CST-NWS-whitney14.article).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 15, 2010, 08:11:40 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 14, 2010, 09:17:19 PM
At least he acquitted himself well in tonight's debate (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2801976,CST-NWS-whitney14.article).

Does Michelle Obama know about this?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/14/4655632.html)

QuoteHere's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 08:59:25 AM
The foreclosure mess, for those who are interested. (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/10/12/367291/the-mbs-mess-from-the-beginning-the-deal-docs/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/14/4655632.html)

QuoteHere's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 09:21:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/14/4655632.html)

QuoteHere's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

For the next two years, anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/14/4655632.html)

QuoteHere's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:34:51 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/14/4655632.html)

QuoteHere's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 15, 2010, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:34:51 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/14/4655632.html)

QuoteHere's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

Alternately, instead of higher tax rates for the penniless in the name of J. Walter Weatherman-style lesson-teaching, we could give them a receipt. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/shouldnt_taxpayers_get_a_recei.html) This just shows income tax - I think a combined payroll/income tax receipt would be more useful.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/taxpayerreceipt.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 09:50:47 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:34:51 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/14/4655632.html)

QuoteHere's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

Alternately, instead of higher tax rates for the penniless in the name of J. Walter Weatherman-style lesson-teaching, we could give them a receipt. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/shouldnt_taxpayers_get_a_recei.html) This just shows income tax - I think a combined payroll/income tax receipt would be more useful.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/taxpayerreceipt.jpg)

In the interest of bipartisan consensus-building I'm going to go ahead and say that I think this is a great idea.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 15, 2010, 09:53:17 AM
24 cents for the Perverted Arts?!?

OUTRAGEOUS!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 15, 2010, 09:53:39 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 09:45:05 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:34:51 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:15:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 08:46:10 AM
Even though he's a commie pinko fag, I should thank RV for pointing me to TaxVox (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/10/14/4655632.html)

QuoteHere's why: The biggest government programs—defense, Medicare and to a lesser degree even Social Security-- are not aimed at the poor. Many other subsidy programs, both those administered through the tax code and those designed as direct spending, tend to be regressive. For instance, the biggest beneficiaries of farm assistance are agribusinesses, not family farmers. The big winners from the home mortgage deduction or the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance are higher-earners, not the middle-class households.

Quantifying all this is not simple, but I certainly wouldn't assume that more tax revenues will equal more spending on the poor or middle-class. And even if it did, the amount of increase would be pretty small.   

Bottom line: The Democrats are right that income inequality is a problem. But they are wrong if they think that letting the 2001-2003 tax cuts on high-earners expire will do much to solve it.

The reason the tax rates should be returned to 90's era levels on high earners has nothing to do with income inequality and everything to do with funding the government.

Why would they need to increase it for the lowest earners (middle class)? I mean, don't we contribute to a very small percentage of the tax income?

There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

Alternately, instead of higher tax rates for the penniless in the name of J. Walter Weatherman-style lesson-teaching, we could give them a receipt. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/shouldnt_taxpayers_get_a_recei.html) This just shows income tax - I think a combined payroll/income tax receipt would be more useful.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/taxpayerreceipt.jpg)

They have every part of military spending itemized on here, with the exception of materials. Good thing that's not a big expenditure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 15, 2010, 10:00:51 AM
Legalize drugs and give me my three bills and change back, thankyouverymuch.  Or apply it to some program that's not utter bullshit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 09:34:51 AM
There are several reasons why low earners should pay some income tax.  First, if you don't pay for something, you don't understand the real cost of it and it makes you tend to over consume a good.  This is a big reason why most people weren't upset with the spending under Bush - it didn't cost them anything and they got more government services and/or lower taxes.

Second, the government needs the money.  We've still got two wars to pay for and a few trillion in debt that has ongoing interest payments.

Now, some will respond and say low earners already are taxed via payroll taxes.  True.  But for many, that's an invisible cost and leads back to the "not understanding the real cost of government" issue.  If everyone had to write a check to the IRS every April, perhaps more people would have become tea partiers in 2004 when Medicare D was being discussed and not after their houses were foreclosed on and they began to understand the problem with having too much debt.

I'm not saying that lower earners shouldn't pay income tax. I'm just asking why we should increase them from what they are. Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years. And honestly, increasing taxes on the lower income earners is much more damaging than increasing taxes on the higher income earners, on a household to household basis. My position on this has been made clear. I'm a penniless bitch and I'm extremely worried about the government increases my taxes because, for me, that would be a bit of a blow. I'd survive but they're going to make it just that much more difficult for me. And I'll turn into a very pissed off angry white man. And we all know the kind of shit that happens when there's a shitload of angry white men.

Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 09:45:05 AM
Alternately, instead of higher tax rates for the penniless in the name of J. Walter Weatherman-style lesson-teaching, we could give them a receipt. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/shouldnt_taxpayers_get_a_recei.html) This just shows income tax - I think a combined payroll/income tax receipt would be more useful.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/taxpayerreceipt.jpg)

Yea. It does nothing for me. Sorry. I can visually see the amount I'm paying each pay period by looking at my paystub. That has about the same impact.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 10:06:07 AM
There's one problem with this receipt.  It's wrong.  What this receipt shows is how their taxes were divided up.  It does NOT show how much was spent.

Say I go to Target and pick up a bunch of stuff worth $125, but I only give them $100.  The receipt should still show that I spent $125 but have put $25 o the bill on my Target credit card.

For a person paying $5,400 in taxes, how much did we actually spend?  $5,800?  $6,000?  I don't know.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 15, 2010, 10:28:38 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 15, 2010, 10:00:51 AM
Legalize drugs and give me my three bills and change back, thankyouverymuch.  Or apply it to some program that's not utter bullshit.

OLEG HUEY IS RIGHT!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 15, 2010, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

No. and no.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 15, 2010, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

No. and no.

Somebody please tell Yeti what he was saying.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

No. and no.

Somebody please tell Yeti what he was saying.

I'm not saying that people budget 10 years in advance, however, I'm saying they budget on a monthly basis. And if you alter that monthly income, you can screw things up for people. I assume you understand the concept of a budget, right? If you have $2500 in monthly income, and you have bills in the amount of $2250, and save or "waste" (unplanned spending) the remaining $250, and then that income gets reduced by, say $75 a month, then you're reducing that "save" cushion for a family. And when you're making only that much, you need to have a cushion. Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Plus, the government first encouraged us to buy buy buy these houses and cars while we're at a certain income point, and then they're going to lower our income to put us in more of a bind because of those larger monthly expenditures? Makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

If you're saying that you want higher tax rates on the middle class, just say it. If you're just picking apart one single part of my post to be a dense fucking bitch, then say so as well.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2010, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
I assume you understand the concept of a budget, right?

Is this the part of Desipio where Yeti explains why outs are bad?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:19:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2010, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
I assume you understand the concept of a budget, right?

Is this the part of Desipio where Yeti explains why outs are bad?

Oh, trust me, I recalled that vividly. And outs are bad. They are the opposite of non-outs, which is the goal of baseball, to not make outs. Simple game.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Ivy6 on October 15, 2010, 11:21:40 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

No. and no.

Somebody please tell Yeti what he was saying.

I'm not saying that people budget 10 years in advance, however, I'm saying they budget on a monthly basis. And if you alter that monthly income, you can screw things up for people. I assume you understand the concept of a budget, right? If you have $2500 in monthly income, and you have bills in the amount of $2250, and save or "waste" (unplanned spending) the remaining $250, and then that income gets reduced by, say $75 a month, then you're reducing that "save" cushion for a family. And when you're making only that much, you need to have a cushion. Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Plus, the government first encouraged us to buy buy buy these houses and cars while we're at a certain income point, and then they're going to lower our income to put us in more of a bind because of those larger monthly expenditures? Makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

If you're saying that you want higher tax rates on the middle class, just say it. If you're just picking apart one single part of my post to be a dense fucking bitch, then say so as well.

I can attest to this.  My monthly expenses are the exact same every month.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:25:01 AM
Quote from: Ivy6 on October 15, 2010, 11:21:40 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

No. and no.

Somebody please tell Yeti what he was saying.

I'm not saying that people budget 10 years in advance, however, I'm saying they budget on a monthly basis. And if you alter that monthly income, you can screw things up for people. I assume you understand the concept of a budget, right? If you have $2500 in monthly income, and you have bills in the amount of $2250, and save or "waste" (unplanned spending) the remaining $250, and then that income gets reduced by, say $75 a month, then you're reducing that "save" cushion for a family. And when you're making only that much, you need to have a cushion. Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Plus, the government first encouraged us to buy buy buy these houses and cars while we're at a certain income point, and then they're going to lower our income to put us in more of a bind because of those larger monthly expenditures? Makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

If you're saying that you want higher tax rates on the middle class, just say it. If you're just picking apart one single part of my post to be a dense fucking bitch, then say so as well.

I can attest to this.  My monthly expenses are the exact same every month.

Yes, I was saying they're completely static.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Ivy6 on October 15, 2010, 11:37:00 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:25:01 AM
Quote from: Ivy6 on October 15, 2010, 11:21:40 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

No. and no.

Somebody please tell Yeti what he was saying.

I'm not saying that people budget 10 years in advance, however, I'm saying they budget on a monthly basis. And if you alter that monthly income, you can screw things up for people. I assume you understand the concept of a budget, right? If you have $2500 in monthly income, and you have bills in the amount of $2250, and save or "waste" (unplanned spending) the remaining $250, and then that income gets reduced by, say $75 a month, then you're reducing that "save" cushion for a family. And when you're making only that much, you need to have a cushion. Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Plus, the government first encouraged us to buy buy buy these houses and cars while we're at a certain income point, and then they're going to lower our income to put us in more of a bind because of those larger monthly expenditures? Makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

If you're saying that you want higher tax rates on the middle class, just say it. If you're just picking apart one single part of my post to be a dense fucking bitch, then say so as well.

I can attest to this.  My monthly expenses are the exact same every month.

Yes, I was saying they're completely static.

Me too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:44:14 AM
Quote from: Ivy6 on October 15, 2010, 11:37:00 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:25:01 AM
Quote from: Ivy6 on October 15, 2010, 11:21:40 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 11:03:15 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:00:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 10:53:53 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 10:02:03 AM
Especially since people have budgeted for these taxes for 10 years.

Are you saying that some people budget 10 years in advance? Or that people have simply grown accustomed to these tax rates, so they shouldn't change?

No. and no.

Somebody please tell Yeti what he was saying.

I'm not saying that people budget 10 years in advance, however, I'm saying they budget on a monthly basis. And if you alter that monthly income, you can screw things up for people. I assume you understand the concept of a budget, right? If you have $2500 in monthly income, and you have bills in the amount of $2250, and save or "waste" (unplanned spending) the remaining $250, and then that income gets reduced by, say $75 a month, then you're reducing that "save" cushion for a family. And when you're making only that much, you need to have a cushion. Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Plus, the government first encouraged us to buy buy buy these houses and cars while we're at a certain income point, and then they're going to lower our income to put us in more of a bind because of those larger monthly expenditures? Makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

If you're saying that you want higher tax rates on the middle class, just say it. If you're just picking apart one single part of my post to be a dense fucking bitch, then say so as well.

I can attest to this.  My monthly expenses are the exact same every month.

Yes, I was saying they're completely static.

Me too.

Then we're in agreement. Great

However, I suppose that when you're deciding whether or not to order Wrestlemania XXIV or UFC 213 or Sweet Teenie Babes 17 it could change
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 15, 2010, 12:51:20 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:19:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2010, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
I assume you understand the concept of a budget, right?

Is this the part of Desipio where Yeti explains why outs are bad?

Oh, trust me, I recalled that vividly. And outs are bad. They are the opposite of non-outs, which is the goal of baseball, to not make outs. Simple game.

there's 9 guys. Just pick one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 15, 2010, 01:25:13 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

In the abstract.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 15, 2010, 01:39:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

I think he means it should be part of the process, but not the focus. At least that's what I hope he means.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 15, 2010, 01:44:46 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.

Drywall costs: the silent killer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.

Right, those things do have to be factored in, but I'm not going to decide if I can buy a house based off of the final sales price. Sure it ties into the monthly payment but my decision will ultimately boil down to the monthly payment, because that's what I will have to pay from my pocket each month. The equity in the house (I'm assuming you're looking at down payment) and the interest rate are factored into said payment. The property taxes (and insurance) are sometimes included in the payment as well. So, that's a good chunk of your factors. Unless you're paying cash for a car or house, the monthly payment is a big part of the decision. If you will have to pay a lot in upkeep, then you make sure your payment is low enough. So, no matter what, you will be looking at that payment amount
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:47:29 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.

Exactly, TJ.  Same goes for other purchases.  Car salesmen love it when people come in and say what they want to pay per month, because then the salesman can play around with terms, interest rates, etc. to drive up the cost.  And people don't notice because they're simply willing to pay x-amount of dollars per month until the car is paid off.

Furthermore, drywall something something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 15, 2010, 01:48:26 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.

Right, those things do have to be factored in, but I'm not going to decide if I can buy a house based off of the final sales price. Sure it ties into the monthly payment but my decision will ultimately boil down to the monthly payment, because that's what I will have to pay from my pocket each month. The equity in the house (I'm assuming you're looking at down payment) and the interest rate are factored into said payment. The property taxes (and insurance) are sometimes included in the payment as well. So, that's a good chunk of your factors. Unless you're paying cash for a car or house, the monthly payment is a big part of the decision. If you will have to pay a lot in upkeep, then you make sure your payment is low enough. So, no matter what, you will be looking at that payment amount

But what if, by bunting, I move the runner into scoring position?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 15, 2010, 01:49:32 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.

Right, those things do have to be factored in, but I'm not going to decide if I can buy a house based off of the final sales price. Sure it ties into the monthly payment but my decision will ultimately boil down to the monthly payment, because that's what I will have to pay from my pocket each month. The equity in the house (I'm assuming you're looking at down payment) and the interest rate are factored into said payment. The property taxes (and insurance) are sometimes included in the payment as well. So, that's a good chunk of your factors. Unless you're paying cash for a car or house, the monthly payment is a big part of the decision. If you will have to pay a lot in upkeep, then you make sure your payment is low enough. So, no matter what, you will be looking at that payment amount

Chuck or morph, could you just write Yeti a fucking check so he can stop bellyaching about his personal financial issues?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:47:29 PM
Exactly, TJ.  Same goes for other purchases.  Car salesmen love it when people come in and say what they want to pay per month, because then the salesman can play around with terms, interest rates, etc. to drive up the cost.  And people don't notice because they're simply willing to pay x-amount of dollars per month until the car is paid off.

Furthermore, drywall something something.

So we went from me advocating for the gov't to keep middle/lower class income tax rates the same to budgeting to "there are people who make shitty economic decisions and I'm assuming yeti is bitching because I find one phrase in his post that I can dissect beyond belief and piss him off because I'm a pedantic asshole"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:54:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 01:49:32 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.

Right, those things do have to be factored in, but I'm not going to decide if I can buy a house based off of the final sales price. Sure it ties into the monthly payment but my decision will ultimately boil down to the monthly payment, because that's what I will have to pay from my pocket each month. The equity in the house (I'm assuming you're looking at down payment) and the interest rate are factored into said payment. The property taxes (and insurance) are sometimes included in the payment as well. So, that's a good chunk of your factors. Unless you're paying cash for a car or house, the monthly payment is a big part of the decision. If you will have to pay a lot in upkeep, then you make sure your payment is low enough. So, no matter what, you will be looking at that payment amount

Chuck or morph, could you just write Yeti a fucking check loan so he can stop bellyaching about his personal financial issues, and just pay you back with a monthly payment schedule he could afford?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:58:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 01:49:32 PM
Chuck or morph, could you just write Yeti a fucking check so he can stop bellyaching about his personal financial issues?

I'm just trying to figure out why I made a poor financial decision for looking at my house's monthly payment when I got it. If only I had come to desipio when I bought it so I would have been advised to not look at it and buy that nice trailer off the coast of Lake Springfield.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 02:07:44 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:47:29 PM
Exactly, TJ.  Same goes for other purchases.  Car salesmen love it when people come in and say what they want to pay per month, because then the salesman can play around with terms, interest rates, etc. to drive up the cost.  And people don't notice because they're simply willing to pay x-amount of dollars per month until the car is paid off.

Furthermore, drywall something something.

So we went from me advocating for the gov't to keep middle/lower class income tax rates the same to budgeting to "there are people who make shitty economic decisions and I'm assuming yeti is bitching because I find one phrase in his post that I can dissect beyond belief and piss him off because I'm a pedantic asshole"?

http://blog.american.com/?p=4619
QuoteThe unavoidable reality is that much of the burden of addressing the fiscal imbalance will fall on the middle class, broadly defined, either in the form of tax increases or entitlement reductions. That reality may not be pleasant, but it will be less painful if faced sooner rather than later.
Yup.  The maths say that there just aren't enough "rich" to address the fiscal imbalance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 01:49:32 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.

Right, those things do have to be factored in, but I'm not going to decide if I can buy a house based off of the final sales price. Sure it ties into the monthly payment but my decision will ultimately boil down to the monthly payment, because that's what I will have to pay from my pocket each month. The equity in the house (I'm assuming you're looking at down payment) and the interest rate are factored into said payment. The property taxes (and insurance) are sometimes included in the payment as well. So, that's a good chunk of your factors. Unless you're paying cash for a car or house, the monthly payment is a big part of the decision. If you will have to pay a lot in upkeep, then you make sure your payment is low enough. So, no matter what, you will be looking at that payment amount

Chuck or morph, could you just write Yeti a fucking check so he can stop bellyaching about his personal financial issues?
Can I just make him a loan?  What monthly payment can he afford?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:58:42 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why I made a poor financial decision for looking at my house's monthly payment when I got it. If only I had come to desipio when I bought it so I would have been advised to not look at it and buy that nice trailer off the coast of Lake Springfield.

You didn't by that single data point.

But say you got a house where the payment is $1,000 per month.  You chose that over a house where the payment was $1,250 per month.

In house/loan1, it's an interest only loan. Since you pay no principal, you build no equity and are possibly subject to re-appraisal and foreclosure if your value on the house falls.

House/loan2 is a higher payment, but you are paying the loan down on a 30 year schedule.  This increases equity and mitigates asset devaluation risk.

Which one should you have taken?

FYI, both are real world numbers for a $220,000 mortgage at 5.50%.  The house/loan2 is a traditional 30 year mortgage.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:29:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 02:07:44 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:47:29 PM
Exactly, TJ.  Same goes for other purchases.  Car salesmen love it when people come in and say what they want to pay per month, because then the salesman can play around with terms, interest rates, etc. to drive up the cost.  And people don't notice because they're simply willing to pay x-amount of dollars per month until the car is paid off.

Furthermore, drywall something something.

So we went from me advocating for the gov't to keep middle/lower class income tax rates the same to budgeting to "there are people who make shitty economic decisions and I'm assuming yeti is bitching because I find one phrase in his post that I can dissect beyond belief and piss him off because I'm a pedantic asshole"?

http://blog.american.com/?p=4619
QuoteThe unavoidable reality is that much of the burden of addressing the fiscal imbalance will fall on the middle class, broadly defined, either in the form of tax increases or entitlement reductions. That reality may not be pleasant, but it will be less painful if faced sooner rather than later.
Yup.  The maths say that there just aren't enough "rich" to address the fiscal imbalance.

What percentage of the tax income (gov't side) do they make up? I remember once seeing something on Rush (and I am taking it loosely based off of the source) that the top 1% pays 85% of the taxes and the top 10% pays 99% of the taxes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:32:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:58:42 PM
I'm just trying to figure out why I made a poor financial decision for looking at my house's monthly payment when I got it. If only I had come to desipio when I bought it so I would have been advised to not look at it and buy that nice trailer off the coast of Lake Springfield.

You didn't by that single data point.

But say you got a house where the payment is $1,000 per month.  You chose that over a house where the payment was $1,250 per month.

In house/loan1, it's an interest only loan. Since you pay no principal, you build no equity and are possibly subject to re-appraisal and foreclosure if your value on the house falls.

House/loan2 is a higher payment, but you are paying the loan down on a 30 year schedule.  This increases equity and mitigates asset devaluation risk.

Which one should you have taken?

FYI, both are real world numbers for a $220,000 mortgage at 5.50%.  The house/loan2 is a traditional 30 year mortgage.

I don't know any situation where I'd like to take an interest-only loan. I guess what I'm saying (and is apparently getting missed) is that someone factors in the monthly payment into buying a house. It's not the end-all be-all but it's an important factor since it's the direct monthly expenditure. In that situation, if I wasn't comfortable with the higher payment, I'd find a different house that's cheaper (and has a lower monthly payment).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 02:41:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:32:27 PM
I don't know any situation where I'd like to take an interest-only loan.

Good for you.  One of the reasons we are in the mess we are in now is the madness that was no money down, interest only, no-income-verification loans that were approved.

Fanny and Freddy were essentially landlords and "home buyers" (in these cases) were really renters.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 02:41:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:32:27 PM
I don't know any situation where I'd like to take an interest-only loan.

Good for you.  One of the reasons we are in the mess we are in now is the madness that was no money down, interest only, no-income-verification loans that were approved.

Fanny and Freddy were essentially landlords and "home buyers" (in these cases) were really renters.

Why were they even offered? They sound like they're doomed for failure. Is that one of the things that the government was pushing? If so, fuck them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 02:45:54 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:29:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 02:07:44 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:47:29 PM
Exactly, TJ.  Same goes for other purchases.  Car salesmen love it when people come in and say what they want to pay per month, because then the salesman can play around with terms, interest rates, etc. to drive up the cost.  And people don't notice because they're simply willing to pay x-amount of dollars per month until the car is paid off.

Furthermore, drywall something something.

So we went from me advocating for the gov't to keep middle/lower class income tax rates the same to budgeting to "there are people who make shitty economic decisions and I'm assuming yeti is bitching because I find one phrase in his post that I can dissect beyond belief and piss him off because I'm a pedantic asshole"?

http://blog.american.com/?p=4619
QuoteThe unavoidable reality is that much of the burden of addressing the fiscal imbalance will fall on the middle class, broadly defined, either in the form of tax increases or entitlement reductions. That reality may not be pleasant, but it will be less painful if faced sooner rather than later.
Yup.  The maths say that there just aren't enough "rich" to address the fiscal imbalance.

What percentage of the tax income (gov't side) do they make up? I remember once seeing something on Rush (and I am taking it loosely based off of the source) that the top 1% pays 85% of the taxes and the top 10% pays 99% of the taxes.

From 2008 : http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls  It's more like the top 20% paying 85% of taxes...  Doesn't matter though... the point is that if you raised the top rates to something stupidly confiscatory it still wouldn't make up enough of fiscal imbalances to matter.  The middle class is going to get hit with higher taxes.  I'm guessing it will be a VAT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 15, 2010, 02:46:31 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:29:32 PM


What percentage of the tax income (gov't side) do they make up? I remember once seeing something on Rush (and I am taking it loosely based off of the source) that the top 1% pays 85% of the taxes and the top 10% pays 99% of the taxes.

OK, best practice is to take anything any pundit says and flush it.

That being said, here's the numbers from the American Enterprise Institute (http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes) (WARNING: Slightly stale data):
Top 1% = 37%
Top 10% = 68%

This (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23408.html#fed_indincome_allcharts-20101005) is a bit more comprehensive.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 15, 2010, 02:46:43 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:32:27 PM
I guess what I'm saying (and is apparently getting missed) is that someone factors in the monthly payment into buying a house. It's not the end-all be-all but it's an important factor since it's the direct monthly expenditure.

Of course.  And really, I wasn't directing any of my comments specifically at you or your finance decisions; sorry if you took offense.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 15, 2010, 02:48:20 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:29:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 02:07:44 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:54:34 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:47:29 PM
Exactly, TJ.  Same goes for other purchases.  Car salesmen love it when people come in and say what they want to pay per month, because then the salesman can play around with terms, interest rates, etc. to drive up the cost.  And people don't notice because they're simply willing to pay x-amount of dollars per month until the car is paid off.

Furthermore, drywall something something.

So we went from me advocating for the gov't to keep middle/lower class income tax rates the same to budgeting to "there are people who make shitty economic decisions and I'm assuming yeti is bitching because I find one phrase in his post that I can dissect beyond belief and piss him off because I'm a pedantic asshole"?

http://blog.american.com/?p=4619
QuoteThe unavoidable reality is that much of the burden of addressing the fiscal imbalance will fall on the middle class, broadly defined, either in the form of tax increases or entitlement reductions. That reality may not be pleasant, but it will be less painful if faced sooner rather than later.
Yup.  The maths say that there just aren't enough "rich" to address the fiscal imbalance.

What percentage of the tax income (gov't side) do they make up? I remember once seeing something on Rush (and I am taking it loosely based off of the source) that the top 1% pays 85% of the taxes and the top 10% pays 99% of the taxes.

A Rush music video? Or does your radio show pictures?

For what it's worth, here are effective federal tax rates (effective rate is what you actually pay after factoring in credits, deductions, etc) for some different groups, as of 2006 (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf):

Lowest 20% of earners: -7%
2nd lowest 20%: -1%
Middle 20%: 3%
2nd highest 20%: 16%
Top 20%: 14%

Top 10%: 16%
Top 5%: 18%
Top 1%: 19%
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 15, 2010, 02:51:29 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:43:53 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 02:41:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 02:32:27 PM
I don't know any situation where I'd like to take an interest-only loan.

Good for you.  One of the reasons we are in the mess we are in now is the madness that was no money down, interest only, no-income-verification loans that were approved.

Fanny and Freddy were essentially landlords and "home buyers" (in these cases) were really renters.

Why were they even offered? They sound like they're doomed for failure. Is that one of the things that the government was pushing? If so, fuck them.

Don't forget about the negative-amortization loans and the 2/28's.  Woof.

Why were they offered?  They were offered for a myriad of reasons.  Banks made money off of them because they were able to lay the risk off on someone else through securitization.  Fannie and Freddie were pushed by Congress to meet "affordable housing" goals, which ultimately meant lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay it off, and couldn't or wouldn't provide the necessary support that an underwriter would normally demand.

These tools, by themselves, were not the problem.  It was in the application of the tools.  There might be times when someone wants to do an interest-only loan and it makes sense for the borrower.  However, giving them to someone without the necessary underwriting support is madness.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 02:46:43 PM
And really, I wasn't directing any of my comments specifically at you or your finance decisions; sorry if you took offense.  

Yea. It's not your fault. I've admittedly been a major bitch lately. And my issue of uncontrollable anger is something I have to deal with.

I will say that a big part of my contention about a potential tax increase is due to my own financial concerns. That is fact. However, it's not *just* this potential increase. It's an expected state income tax increase. It's an expected county sales tax rate increase. It's a change in benefits at work and the stinginess by my employer, e.g. raises (and I'm not saying I'm bitching about that per se, because they need to pull a profit, but it does effect me). It's the lack of a second income that was expected around this time or so. So, really, it's a myriad of reasons. I guess this is just one "front". How's that for sincerity, KD?!?! (or RD, I don't remember who). Things definitely aren't coming up Yeti.

So, in short don't take offense to my bitchiness, because when it comes down to it, I'm just a cockbag who is wanting the government to bail me out of my own trailer park life from downstate IL.

Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 02:48:20 PM
A Rush music video? Or does your radio show pictures?

For what it's worth, here are effective federal tax rates (effective rate is what you actually pay after factoring in credits, deductions, etc) for some different groups, as of 2006 (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/effective_rates.pdf):

Lowest 20% of earners: -7%
2nd lowest 20%: -1%
Middle 20%: 3%
2nd highest 20%: 16%
Top 20%: 14%

Top 10%: 16%
Top 5%: 18%
Top 1%: 19%

I've never said I haven't recently said Rush Limbaugh is worth a shit. Well, I'm guessing I lie in the 3% range, so I should probably bite the bullet and just take it. I suppose it's my 'merican duty. LIVESTRONG. Also, the Top 20% should be higher than the 2nd highest 20%. Fuckers
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 15, 2010, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2010, 01:49:32 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:46:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 15, 2010, 01:42:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 01:27:43 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 15, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Also, people buy a car or a house not only based off of the whole sale price, but probably more importantly, on the monthly payment.

Buying a house or car while focusing on the monthly payment is an awful, awful financial decision. Not that you're advocating it, necessarily.  Just saying that people probably shouldn't do that, even though they do.

Edit: My final sentence is positively BC-ian, I realize.

So you don't look at the monthly payment amount? Shit, I got this all wrong! I should have bought that $300,000 house because it was really nice, not because it was out of my monthly budget

No, he's saying quite the opposite. Too many people buy a house or car, justifying that they can afford it simply on the basis of the monthly payment. The amount of equity you have in the house, the interest rate, the value of the house, property taxes, the upkeep of the house, etc. are factors often overlooked.

Right, those things do have to be factored in, but I'm not going to decide if I can buy a house based off of the final sales price. Sure it ties into the monthly payment but my decision will ultimately boil down to the monthly payment, because that's what I will have to pay from my pocket each month. The equity in the house (I'm assuming you're looking at down payment) and the interest rate are factored into said payment. The property taxes (and insurance) are sometimes included in the payment as well. So, that's a good chunk of your factors. Unless you're paying cash for a car or house, the monthly payment is a big part of the decision. If you will have to pay a lot in upkeep, then you make sure your payment is low enough. So, no matter what, you will be looking at that payment amount

Chuck or morph, could you just write Yeti a fucking check so he can stop bellyaching about his personal financial issues?
Can I just make him a loan?  What monthly payment can he afford?

I don't know. I wonder if anyone's suggested the Bears try Chris Williams at guard either... (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg228921#msg228921)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.

What's missing here is the actual worried song.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 15, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.

What's missing here is the actual worried song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 15, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.

What's missing here is the actual worried song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU)

He's the Yeti who never returned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2010, 11:28:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 15, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.

What's missing here is the actual worried song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU)

He's the Yeti who never returned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU).

Oi! Oi! Oi! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNMDXEdxG9o)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 18, 2010, 12:26:27 AM
Bonertime. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc5IliWcfAY)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 18, 2010, 07:40:37 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20101015/wl_csm/332509_1 In case you think the Tea Party is a condemnation of American society alone, since every country seems to be dealing with their own branch of angry, crazy, and stupid reactionaries.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2010, 07:47:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2010, 07:40:37 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20101015/wl_csm/332509_1 In case you think the Tea Party is a condemnation of American society alone, since every country seems to be dealing with their own branch of angry, crazy, and stupid reactionaries.

*hands Bort boxing gloves*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 08:28:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2010, 11:28:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 15, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.

What's missing here is the actual worried song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU)

He's the Yeti who never returned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU).

Oi! Oi! Oi! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNMDXEdxG9o)

I'm a little sad that I keep on finding out that my favorite Irish band has maybe written 2 or 3 of their songs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 18, 2010, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 08:28:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2010, 11:28:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 15, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.

What's missing here is the actual worried song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU)

He's the Yeti who never returned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU).

Oi! Oi! Oi! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNMDXEdxG9o)

I'm a little sad that I keep on finding out that my favorite Irish band has maybe written 2 or 3 of their songs.

There are about 5 Irish songs. They all get remade by everyone.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 09:24:06 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 18, 2010, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 08:28:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2010, 11:28:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 15, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.

What's missing here is the actual worried song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU)

He's the Yeti who never returned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU).

Oi! Oi! Oi! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNMDXEdxG9o)

I'm a little sad that I keep on finding out that my favorite Irish band has maybe written 2 or 3 of their songs.

There are about 5 Irish songs. They all get remade by everyone.

We're not a creative bunch. That's science
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music. So, so very much.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 18, 2010, 09:37:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music. So, so very much.

I have one Pogues album. That is all I need. I listen to it once a year.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 18, 2010, 09:39:02 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music. So, so very much.

They would too, but anything sounds good when you're drunk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 18, 2010, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2010, 09:39:02 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music the Greatful Dead. So, so very much.

They would too, but anything sounds good when you're drunk higher than five Olegs.

Versatility'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music. So, so very much.

Yea, well I hate y.... ok, no I don't. But it makes me sad to hear your disgust of my beloved Dropkicks and Floggings
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 18, 2010, 09:44:36 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music. So, so very much.

Yea, well I hate y.... ok, no I don't. But it makes me sad to hear your disgust of my beloved Dropkicks and Floggings

Least surprising...whatever.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 18, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
TPex just wrote to me that Rahm E. was at the Sheridan Red Line stop this morning glad handing people. I told her to disinfect ASAP. She said nobody was paying much attention to him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 18, 2010, 09:48:34 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 18, 2010, 09:45:42 AM
TPex just wrote to me that Rahm E. was at the Sheridan Red Line stop this morning glad handing people. I told her to disinfect ASAP. She said nobody was paying much attention to him.

Nobody was paying attention to that Moor on the subway? What if he was going to plant a bomb?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 18, 2010, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music. So, so very much.

Yea, well I hate y.... ok, no I don't. But it makes me sad to hear your disgust of my beloved Dropkicks and Floggings

The fact that I really only like the Mike McColgan era for DKM is probably the least something something something...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 10:07:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 18, 2010, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music. So, so very much.

Yea, well I hate y.... ok, no I don't. But it makes me sad to hear your disgust of my beloved Dropkicks and Floggings

The fact that I really only like the Mike McColgan era for DKM is probably the least something something something...

Indeed. His new group Street Dogs is alright.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 18, 2010, 10:12:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 18, 2010, 09:44:36 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 09:43:34 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 18, 2010, 09:27:03 AM
I hate Irish music. So, so very much.

Yea, well I hate y.... ok, no I don't. But it makes me sad to hear your disgust of my beloved Dropkicks and Floggings

Least surprising...whatever.

The surprise is that Black 47 wasn't mentioned.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 18, 2010, 02:51:53 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

He's clearly more of a Real McKenzies fan.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on October 18, 2010, 11:00:22 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 09:24:06 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 18, 2010, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Yeti on October 18, 2010, 08:28:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2010, 11:28:02 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:53:22 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 15, 2010, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 15, 2010, 07:11:19 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 15, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 15, 2010, 03:19:16 PM
Not reading this thread has become one of my most cherished daily rituals.

It was a butthurt machine. I shouldn't even had read it.

What's missing here is the actual worried song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AUZEdFeVwU)

He's the Yeti who never returned (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU).

Oi! Oi! Oi! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNMDXEdxG9o)

I'm a little sad that I keep on finding out that my favorite Irish band has maybe written 2 or 3 of their songs.

There are about 5 Irish songs. They all get remade by everyone.

We're not a creative bunch. That's science

I'm not so sure about that.  The Irish are extremely gifted at making any food taste like boiled water.  Such a skill must require a ridiculous amount of creativity. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 19, 2010, 08:20:26 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

It's that little part of the island that England is on. You know, that little thing on the west side.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 19, 2010, 08:29:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey have fun when the working day is done. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Jack Black'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.

I know, I have a long way to go if I hope to catch up with you as the stereotype for a fat, drunken, incoherent, and ill-tempered paddy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 19, 2010, 08:34:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.

I know, I have a long way to go if I hope to catch up with you as the stereotype for a fat, drunken, incoherent, and ill-tempered paddy.

You forgot papist.

Not your fault.   I blame your Appalachian ancestors.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 19, 2010, 08:34:40 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.

I still think it's idiotic that all you kilt-wearing, sheep-fucking, guff-talking work slackers are pretending there's any damn difference between a Scot/Mick/Limey/Welshman/Aussie/Kiwi.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 19, 2010, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: CT III on October 19, 2010, 08:34:40 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.

I still think it's idiotic that all you kilt-wearing, sheep-fucking, guff-talking work slackers are pretending there's any damn difference between a Scot/Mick/Limey/Welshman/Aussie/Kiwi.

Whatever, you Slav.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:38:49 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:34:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.

I know, I have a long way to go if I hope to catch up with you as the stereotype for a fat, drunken, incoherent, and ill-tempered paddy.

You forgot papist.

Not your fault.   I blame your Appalachian ancestors.

That too. My great-grandmother, whose parents had just come over here and were Protestants, once told my mom as a little girl that she couldn't talk to the Catholic boy down the street because "Catholics are bad people and they will lie and hurt you."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 19, 2010, 08:44:11 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:38:49 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:34:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.

I know, I have a long way to go if I hope to catch up with you as the stereotype for a fat, drunken, incoherent, and ill-tempered paddy.

You forgot papist.

Not your fault.   I blame your Appalachian ancestors.

That too. My great-grandmother, whose parents had just come over here and were Protestants, once told my mom as a little girl that she couldn't talk to the Catholic boy down the street because "Catholics are bad people and they will lie and hurt you."

I see. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=4307.msg117297#msg117297)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 19, 2010, 08:53:27 AM
We need the Rent is Too Damn High party (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/10/19/the-rent-is-too-damn-high/) in Illinois. So Yeti can marry his shoe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 19, 2010, 09:01:05 AM
I got some Irish in me (||) somewhere. I bought House of Pain's first two albums but the third one is crap.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 19, 2010, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:38:49 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:34:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.

I know, I have a long way to go if I hope to catch up with you as the stereotype for a fat, drunken, incoherent, and ill-tempered paddy.

You forgot papist.

Not your fault.   I blame your Appalachian ancestors.

That too. My great-grandmother, whose parents had just come over here and were Protestants, once told my mom as a little girl that she couldn't talk to the Catholic boy down the street because "Catholics are bad people and they will lie and hurt you."

When I learned as a kid from a Lutheran friend that Protestants and Catholics didn't get along I didn't quite get why.  Imagine my confusion  when I later learned that Polish Catholics and Italian Catholics had their issues.   There weren't any  Irish Catholics in my neighborhood.   I know that I would never be able to  make any sense out of everyone who hated them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 19, 2010, 09:32:00 AM
Quote from: CBStew on October 19, 2010, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:38:49 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:34:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:32:58 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 19, 2010, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 19, 2010, 08:25:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 08:03:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 18, 2010, 02:42:20 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 18, 2010, 10:48:54 AM
The Dropkick Murphys can [bodily function] my [part of the human anatomy].  Fucking plastic Micks.

... muttered the Plastic Jock sheepishly.

I wondered how long that would take.  I could get all defensive asshurt about it, but I won't.

Okay, I will.  My Mother is Scots, born and bred, and I lived in Scotland until the age of three at which stage my old man's job took us all away.  My folks live back in Scotland now, however, and you can ask any of my many, many cousins who still live in and around Glasgow how Scottish they think I am*.  Most of your Boston "Irish" couldn't pick Ireland out on a map of Ireland.

* the answer is, of course, "completely" - wise guy.

I'm Irish. I can blow up a British car with the best of them and I can hold my whiskey. Outside of that I don't really shout it from the rooftops like those chodes.

Pfft.  Scotch Irish doesn't even count, ya Downstate Presbytarian hilljackal.

I know, I have a long way to go if I hope to catch up with you as the stereotype for a fat, drunken, incoherent, and ill-tempered paddy.

You forgot papist.

Not your fault.   I blame your Appalachian ancestors.

That too. My great-grandmother, whose parents had just come over here and were Protestants, once told my mom as a little girl that she couldn't talk to the Catholic boy down the street because "Catholics are bad people and they will lie and hurt you."

When I learned as a kid from a Lutheran friend that Protestants and Catholics didn't get along I didn't quite get why.  Imagine my confusion  when I later learned that Polish Catholics and Italian Catholics had their issues.   There weren't any  Irish Catholics in my neighborhood.   I know that I would never be able to  make any sense out of everyone who hated them.

Yeah, well, at least they weren't Kikes. I mean, AMIRITE?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 11:32:29 AM
...aaaaaaand, two pages of racial slurs and ethnic generalisations later, my work here is done.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 19, 2010, 11:40:15 AM
Christine O'Donnell, everybody!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZ1QQxkvUw15IjhGIveoszz67aIA?docId=612ea91debdb4492bfb5af83baa68cc0

QuoteThe exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

QuoteO'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 19, 2010, 11:40:15 AM
Christine O'Donnell, everybody!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZ1QQxkvUw15IjhGIveoszz67aIA?docId=612ea91debdb4492bfb5af83baa68cc0

QuoteThe exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

QuoteO'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Hey!  This is no place for politics!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 19, 2010, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 19, 2010, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 19, 2010, 11:40:15 AM
Christine O'Donnell, everybody!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZ1QQxkvUw15IjhGIveoszz67aIA?docId=612ea91debdb4492bfb5af83baa68cc0

QuoteThe exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

QuoteO'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Hey!  This is no place for politics!

Yeah, we're talking about running the Irish out of town.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2010, 06:08:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 19, 2010, 11:40:15 AM
Christine O'Donnell, everybody!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZ1QQxkvUw15IjhGIveoszz67aIA?docId=612ea91debdb4492bfb5af83baa68cc0

QuoteThe exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

QuoteO'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

I love that woman.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on October 19, 2010, 06:11:51 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2010, 06:08:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 19, 2010, 11:40:15 AM
Christine O'Donnell, everybody!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZ1QQxkvUw15IjhGIveoszz67aIA?docId=612ea91debdb4492bfb5af83baa68cc0

QuoteThe exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

QuoteO'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

I love that woman.

O'Donnell, eh?  If that freckle-faced bitch was able to say anything while her tongue was swollen from the whiskey, I still would've been too distracted by her crimson hair to have noticed! 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2010, 07:48:52 PM
Watching the Kirk - Alexi debate right now. Kirk actually seems reasonable, whereas Alexi seems to be playing to the cameras.

Difficult choice for voters, and yes, I'm being serious.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: FrankS on October 19, 2010, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2010, 07:48:52 PM
Watching the Kirk - Alexi debate right now. Kirk actually seems reasonable, whereas Alexi seems to be playing to the cameras.

Difficult choice for voters, and yes, I'm being serious.

They are both douches. They are both lying, career politicians who will vote based on the whims of the special interests who own them. Big business owns both parties.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 19, 2010, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: FrankS on October 19, 2010, 10:32:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2010, 07:48:52 PM
Watching the Kirk - Alexi debate right now. Kirk actually seems reasonable, whereas Alexi seems to be playing to the cameras.

Difficult choice for voters, and yes, I'm being serious.

They are both douches. They are both lying, career politicians who will vote based on the whims of the special interests who own them. Big business owns both parties.

Alexi isn't a career politician.  He's been in politics for 4 years.  He's the dumb son of a rich bank owner who slept at the switch and helped bankrupt said bank (at taxpayer expense) while he pursued his ambition of power and poontang.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: FrankS on October 20, 2010, 05:17:09 AM
Okay, Alexi isn't a career politician. He just plans on being one the rest of his life. And he's still a douche.

I made the mistake of answering a telephone opinion poll regarding some of the Illinois races. When asked about Kirk versus Giannoulias, I told the person that I didn't want to vote for either of the candidates. And I may not. I have been literally buried under an avalanche of junk mail this year and it just makes me sick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 20, 2010, 07:49:17 AM
Quote from: FrankS on October 20, 2010, 05:17:09 AM
Okay, Alexi isn't a career politician. He just plans on being one the rest of his life. And he's still a douche.

I made the mistake of answering a telephone opinion poll regarding some of the Illinois races. When asked about Kirk versus Giannoulias, I told the person that I didn't want to vote for either of the candidates. And I may not. I have been literally buried under an avalanche of junk mail this year and it just makes me sick.

cue the HUEBITER
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 20, 2010, 08:06:32 AM
Quote from: FrankS on October 20, 2010, 05:17:09 AM
Okay, Alexi isn't a career politician. He just plans on being one the rest of his life. And he's still a douche.

I made the mistake of answering a telephone opinion poll regarding some of the Illinois races. When asked about Kirk versus Giannoulias, I told the person that I didn't want to vote for either of the candidates. And I may not. I have been literally buried under an avalanche of junk mail this year and it just makes me sick.

Literally?  Wow, that *is* a lot of junk mail.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 20, 2010, 12:49:17 PM
Sharron Angle, zipperhead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBesRZD0ymc).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 21, 2010, 02:50:01 PM
For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

QuoteThe consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 21, 2010, 03:22:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 21, 2010, 02:50:01 PM
For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

QuoteThe consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

I think moving people from employer-based insurance onto the exchanges is a feature, not a bug. But I've been reading a lot of Phil Rogers lately so I don't really trust my opinions.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 21, 2010, 03:26:29 PM
I think I don't take people seriously when they use the phrase ObamaCare.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 21, 2010, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2010, 03:26:29 PM
I think I don't take people seriously when the use the phrase ObamaCare.

Me neither.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 21, 2010, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 21, 2010, 02:50:01 PM
For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

QuoteThe consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

Wouldn't this lead to more jobs? I keep hearing about how putting more money in the pockets of business owners will create jobs. Lowering the employers' costs (via cost of benefits being assumed by the Gubment) would, by that logic, spur hiring.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 21, 2010, 04:45:56 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2010, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 21, 2010, 02:50:01 PM
For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

QuoteThe consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

Wouldn't this lead to more jobs? I keep hearing about how putting more money in the pockets of business owners will create jobs. Lowering the employers' costs (via cost of benefits being assumed by the Gubment) would, by that logic, spur hiring.

You'd have to assume that 1) the employers' costs end up lower than they were *before* PPACA, which may or may not be the case, and 2) that the demand effects coming from having to pay the subsidies (that money still comes from somewhere) and from having to pay for your health insurance through the exchanges (which may or may not be higher priced to you than what your employer might have offered) are lower as well.  I'm not sure you can make those assumptions.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 22, 2010, 12:27:12 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 21, 2010, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2010, 03:26:29 PM
I think I don't take people seriously when the use the phrase ObamaCare.

Me neither.

"Pelosicare" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 22, 2010, 07:48:00 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 22, 2010, 12:27:12 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 21, 2010, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2010, 03:26:29 PM
I think I don't take people seriously when the use the phrase ObamaCare.

Me neither.

"Pelosicare" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Dammit, can't we just call it "Socialism" and move on? I'm tired of updating the glossary.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 22, 2010, 08:45:30 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 22, 2010, 07:48:00 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 22, 2010, 12:27:12 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 21, 2010, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 21, 2010, 03:26:29 PM
I think I don't take people seriously when the use the phrase ObamaCare.

Me neither.

"Pelosicare" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Dammit, can't we just call it "Socialism" and move on? I'm tired of updating the glossary.

I already do?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 22, 2010, 08:51:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 21, 2010, 04:45:56 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 21, 2010, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 21, 2010, 02:50:01 PM
For those still interested in hearing about ObamaCare's incentive problems: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562643804015252.html

QuoteThe consequence of these generous subsidies will be that America's health reform may well drive many more people than projected out of employer-sponsored insurance and into the heavily subsidized federal system. Perhaps this is a miscalculation by the Congress, perhaps not. One principle of game theory is to think like your opponent; another is that there's always a larger game.

Indeed, Mr. Bredesen (D - TN).  Indeed.

Wouldn't this lead to more jobs? I keep hearing about how putting more money in the pockets of business owners will create jobs. Lowering the employers' costs (via cost of benefits being assumed by the Gubment) would, by that logic, spur hiring.

You'd have to assume that 1) the employers' costs end up lower than they were *before* PPACA, which may or may not be the case, and 2) that the demand effects coming from having to pay the subsidies (that money still comes from somewhere) and from having to pay for your health insurance through the exchanges (which may or may not be higher priced to you than what your employer might have offered) are lower as well.  I'm not sure you can make those assumptions.

Response to the WSJ editoria (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/78583/health-reform-critic-flunks-math)l: when Massachusetts enacted a similar law - with much softer penalties, which would imply a greater incentive to drop coverage - employer-based coverage actually went up.

QuoteIn 2006, the state of Massachusetts put in place a system much like the one the Affordable Care Act will create nationally--with subsidies for low income groups (subsidies that are even more generous than those in the Affordable Care Act) and an individual mandate, but without the small group tax credit or meaningful penalties on firms that don't offer insurance. The result? Employer-sponsored insurance has risen in the state by more than 100,000 persons.

Bredesen does talk about another state--his home, Tennessee--and does some calculations to suggest it would save money by dropping insurance for its public employees. But his math is way off. First of all, Tennessee state employees generally make too much money to get big subsidies through the exchanges. Forty percent have incomes higher than 400 percent of the poverty lines, which means they'd be eligible for no tax credits at all; even for those with incomes below that level, the average tax credit would offset just a third of their premium cost. Second, if these individuals lost their public employee insurance and went into the exchanges, they would want to receive the same very generous benefits they get now–coverage comparable to the platinum plans offered in the exchange. Working from CBO's estimate of the cost of less generous plans in the exchange in 2016, those plans would cost about $6650 for an individual and $17,400 for a family in 2014.

Using the Governor's estimates of 40,000 state employees, and accounting for the low subsidization and high cost of the very generous benefits they would need to get in the exchange, I estimate that it would cost state employees about $425 million out of their own pockets to replicate in the exchange what they get today from the state. Accounting for the amount already paid by employees ($63 million after tax), that is a net increase in cost to them of $362 million. Providing a raise to state employees sufficient to offset that cost would cost the state about $496 million, which is itself an understatement since the higher wages would lower the employees' subsidies and require additional raises. Add to that the $80 million the state would have to pay in free rider assessment, and the cost to the state is $576 million. Thus, by dropping insurance, the state wouldn't save money, as Bredesen claims. It would incur a new cost of around $230 million--and, along the way, displace state employees from their existing source of insurance. I find it hard to believe Bredesen--or any sane governor--would even think about doing that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 22, 2010, 08:53:12 AM
I love living in the pas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102106645_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010102004599)t:

Quote"(Clarence Thomas) was obsessed with porn," (Lillian McEwen) said of Thomas, who is now 63. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting."

Fork for SCOTUS?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 22, 2010, 09:00:32 AM
I'm sure Democrats will be too lame to actually follow this advice (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/4165/i-have-seen-future-us-politics-its-name-prop-19), but it's interesting.

QuoteBy looking separately at voters who only use cell phones, those who have both cell and home phones, and those only with home telephones, SUSA has found significant differences in the voting intentions of the cell phone-only citizens and the rest. It is no secret to young people (of all ages) who use cell phones exclusively that they are culturally distinct from land liners in ways that extend beyond hardware preferences.

Nomadic, and on the move, more reliant on the Internet than the television for their news intake, they're the future of the United States. And they're also a lot more multi-racial – and more actively defy societal apartheids - than the rest of the population. OMG! Wait... wait... see that little light bulb popping on over our heads? By Jove, I think we get it! Those are the 2008 first time Obama voters, duh! And getting them to vote in the midterm elections is the biggest headache that the White House and the Democratic party has right now leading up to November 2.

But it is less of a headache in California this year, precisely because Proposition 19 is on the ballot.

QuoteThe best case scenario for Democrats, however, is not that Prop 19 loses and comes up again in California in 2012, but to the contrary: If the historic Proposition 19 passes, the pundits and talking heads that generate the misnamed "conventional wisdom" in the Washington DC beltway will be falling all over each other to note that Prop 19 won and it pulled Boxer out of the fire with it. If coming out of Election Night, Prop 19 emerges with the sheen of a  newly-minted winner, Democratic strategists will have little choice but to adopt a "50 state strategy" (especially in the 26 states - Maine, Massachusetts, and virtually everything west of the Mississippi River - that have citizen generated statewide ballot initiative processes), and go "all in" on legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana, even if their politicians continue to balk at saying it aloud.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 22, 2010, 09:06:56 AM
I filled out my absentee ballot last night.  Tell Oleg that I voted for Prop. 19.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 22, 2010, 09:28:23 AM

Weed is Liberal marriage protection.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on October 22, 2010, 09:32:06 AM
Quote from: CBStew on October 22, 2010, 09:06:56 AM
I filled out my absentee ballot last night.  Tell Oleg that I voted for Prop. 19.

I can hear you.  I'm sitting right here!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 22, 2010, 09:34:00 AM
always good to have a Plan B (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102210dnmetbroden.1b2338185.html).

BONUS: Commenter named "PresidentJeffersonDavis". No way that's not awesome.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 22, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
From an email to Andrew Sullivan's blog.

Quote"At least there's one good thing to come out of this whole Juan Williams v. NPR mess: we've finally found a program that Republicans are willing to say they would cut."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2010, 11:04:23 AM
What did the investment banks know and when did they know it? (And does that open them up to risk of lawsuits?)

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/13/the-enormous-mortgage-bond-scandal/

QuoteBut remember that Clayton had tested only a small portion of the loans in the pool. So Citi knew that if there were a bunch of bad loans among the loans that Clayton tested, there were bound to be even more bad loans among the loans that Clayton had not tested. And those loans it couldn't put back to the originator, because Citi didn't know exactly which loans they were.

If there had been any common sense in the investment banks, that would have been the end of the deal. But there wasn't. Rather than simply telling the originator that its loan pool wasn't good enough, the investment banks would instead renegotiate the amount of money they were paying for the pool.

This is where things get positively evil. The investment banks didn't mind buying up loans they knew were bad, because they considered themselves to be in the moving business rather than the storage business. They weren't going to hold on to the loans: they were just going to package them up and sell them on to some buy-side sucker.

In fact, the banks had an incentive to buy loans they knew were bad. Because when the loans proved to be bad, the banks could go back to the originator and get a discount on the amount of money they were paying for the pool. And the less money they paid for the pool, the more profit they could make when they turned it into mortgage bonds and sold it off to investors.

Now here's the scandal: the investors were never informed of the results of Clayton's test. The investment banks were perfectly happy to ask for a discount on the loans when they found out how badly-underwritten the loan pool was. But they didn't pass that discount on to investors, who were kept in the dark about that fact.


I talked to one underwriting bank — not Citi — which claimed that investors were told that the due diligence had been done: on page 48 of the prospectus, there's language about how the underwriter had done an "underwriting guideline review", although there's nothing specifically about hiring a company to re-underwrite a large chunk of the loans in the pool, and report back on whether they met the originator's standards.

In any case, it's clear that the banks had price-sensitive information on the quality of the loan pool which they failed to pass on to investors in that pool. That's a lie of omission, and if I was one of the investors in one of these pools, I'd be inclined to sue for my money back. Prosecutors, too, are reportedly looking at these deals, and I can't imagine they'll like what they find.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/18/the-mortgage-bond-scandal-faq/

QuoteSo that's why the Clayton findings count as material information, right? They were directly responsible for lowering the price of the loan pool.

Right. The banks were willing to pay X for the loan pool based on the electronic file data supplied by the originators, but after having Clayton go in and test that electronic data against the original loan files, the banks were only willing to pay some sum less than X.

But isn't Clayton's research just like anybody else's research—just an opinion about publicly-available information? Investment banks doing a secondary offering of shares don't need to tell investors about other banks' buy or sell ratings on those shares, even if those ratings affect the share price.

No, this is different. Because the loan files that Clayton had access to were not publicly available. And in any case, Clayton wasn't being paid for its opinion. It was being paid to diligently go through a subset of the loan pool, one loan at a time, and check each loan against various underwriting standards. Clayton's opinion didn't matter to anyone. What mattered was the new information that Clayton dug up.

What do you expect, that the banks would put all the loan-level information into the bond prospectus? That would make it thousands of pages long! Didn't John Hintze report back in May that, in the words of his headline, "The Loan Data Was There for All to See"? Anybody could have done the Clayton analysis, and in fact people like John Paulson and Michael Burry did do the Clayton analysis of loan-level data. They didn't like what they saw, they shorted the bonds, and they made lots of money. So long as the information was public, there can't be anything wrong here.

Yes, the investment banks, as well as companies like CoreLogic, did make some loan-level data available to investors. But that data, presented in easily-digestible spreadsheet form, was essentially the same as the electronic data that the banks were using to price the loan pool before they sent in Clayton. That data alone, it turns out, if looked at in the right way by someone like Paulson or Burry, was all you needed to short the bonds and make lots of money. But the original loan files which Clayton checked that data against? They were not publicly available, and for good reason: they included things like the borrowers' names, salaries, social security numbers, and other private information.

Clayton's report, then, was non-public information: it was the product of looking at private loan files, not semi-public spreadsheets. No one else—not Paulson, not Burry—could do what Clayton was doing, and so Clayton was adding a valuable layer of information to what was publicly known.

Now, it's true that even when investors knew that Clayton had done these tests, they evinced precious little interest in seeing the results. All they really cared about was the credit rating. And even the ratings agencies weren't interested in seeing Clayton's results, which is scandalous in and of itself. But the securities laws don't say that banks can withhold material non-public information if the investors don't seem to care about it.

Still, it seems that you're seeking to punish banks for doing more work on these bonds than they needed to do. The banks were not required to do due diligence on these loan pools. If they didn't want investors to know the results of the due diligence, they could have simply not done any due diligence at all, and then, according to you, there would have been no scandal. Instead, they spent their own money on hiring the likes of Clayton to double-check everything — and for that you want to punish them?

Yes. It's great that the banks did the double-checking. But the whole point of double-checking is to make sure that nothing unexpected is lurking in the loan pool. When something unexpected did turn out to be lurking in the loan pool, the banks had an obligation to pass that information on to their buy-side customers. The banks put themselves in a situation where they found themselves in possession of material non-public information. That they did so voluntarily is beside the point; they still had an obligation to disclose it.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/15/regulators-have-known-about-the-mortgage-bond-scandal-for-three-years/
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/17/the-historical-echoes-of-the-mortgage-bond-scandal/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 01:28:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/18/the-mortgage-bond-scandal-faq/

QuoteA bunch of bad shit that the investment banks did

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/15/regulators-have-known-about-the-mortgage-bond-scandal-for-three-years/
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/17/the-historical-echoes-of-the-mortgage-bond-scandal/

This is troubling to be sure... my problem with this is that investors generally counted on the rating agencies to do their jobs.  Salmon very briefly mentions this but he doesn't really do it justice.  Many, many, many investors simply looked and said "it's AAA-rated so it must be safe, otherwise how did it get to be AAA?"  I guarantee you that most bond investors who were reaching for yield by buying these things thought that the ratings provided them some kind of comfort that they wouldn't lose their shirts. 

I am not absolving the investment banks of their responsibility to disclose material information to the buyers of these bonds, only adding on to the guilt list.  Investors *really* depended on those credit ratings... it's hard to look at a credit rating now without a lot of skepticism, since the agencies have demonstrated a lack of ability to analyze credits. 

Anedcotally, some portfolios I was involved with pre-crisis (tangentially - these portfolios had components that were run by a certain set of fixed-income managers) were buying fixed-rate second mortgage bonds that were rated AAA.  They got written down to something like 20 cents on the dollar, a shocking loss for a AAA security.  Clearly the agencies that rated these didn't understand what they were doing, or screwed up.  Plain and simple.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on October 25, 2010, 01:54:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 01:28:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/18/the-mortgage-bond-scandal-faq/

QuoteA bunch of bad shit that the investment banks did

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/15/regulators-have-known-about-the-mortgage-bond-scandal-for-three-years/
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/17/the-historical-echoes-of-the-mortgage-bond-scandal/

This is troubling to be sure... my problem with this is that investors generally counted on the rating agencies to do their jobs.  Salmon very briefly mentions this but he doesn't really do it justice.  Many, many, many investors simply looked and said "it's AAA-rated so it must be safe, otherwise how did it get to be AAA?"  I guarantee you that most bond investors who were reaching for yield by buying these things thought that the ratings provided them some kind of comfort that they wouldn't lose their shirts. 

I am not absolving the investment banks of their responsibility to disclose material information to the buyers of these bonds, only adding on to the guilt list.  Investors *really* depended on those credit ratings... it's hard to look at a credit rating now without a lot of skepticism, since the agencies have demonstrated a lack of ability to analyze credits. 

Anedcotally, some portfolios I was involved with pre-crisis (tangentially - these portfolios had components that were run by a certain set of fixed-income managers) were buying fixed-rate second mortgage bonds that were rated AAA.  They got written down to something like 20 cents on the dollar, a shocking loss for a AAA security.  Clearly the agencies that rated these didn't understand what they were doing, or screwed up.  Plain and simple.

So it was the credit agencys' faults for not finding out the information that the investor banks kept secret on purpose?

The reason those 2nd mortgages, which at their peak were going for 90-95 cents on the dollar, were fixed rate to begin with was to make them even that attractive to the investors.  Frankly, that should have been a red flag, except the investors, whether on purpose or not, were still playing by conventional mortgage security rules (max mortgage was usually never kept for more than 9 years, no more than 3% of loans were going to involve some sort of fraud, no more than 3% of loans were going to default in the first 3 months, etc).  The fact was, the investor banks were writing the underwriting guidelines, albeit indirectly, by telling us which loans they would buy and which they wouldn't.  We just simply adjusted our guidelines accordingly, sometime even on a monthly basis, depending on what the banks were buying.

I used to think that the investment bankers who were responsible for buying these loans were just greedy and negligent or incompetent.  Heck, they were just playing the numbers and there was no history of anything like this boom to reference when making these decisions.  Now, I know they knew what they were doing and did it anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 25, 2010, 01:54:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 01:28:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/18/the-mortgage-bond-scandal-faq/

QuoteA bunch of bad shit that the investment banks did

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/15/regulators-have-known-about-the-mortgage-bond-scandal-for-three-years/
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/17/the-historical-echoes-of-the-mortgage-bond-scandal/

This is troubling to be sure... my problem with this is that investors generally counted on the rating agencies to do their jobs.  Salmon very briefly mentions this but he doesn't really do it justice.  Many, many, many investors simply looked and said "it's AAA-rated so it must be safe, otherwise how did it get to be AAA?"  I guarantee you that most bond investors who were reaching for yield by buying these things thought that the ratings provided them some kind of comfort that they wouldn't lose their shirts. 

I am not absolving the investment banks of their responsibility to disclose material information to the buyers of these bonds, only adding on to the guilt list.  Investors *really* depended on those credit ratings... it's hard to look at a credit rating now without a lot of skepticism, since the agencies have demonstrated a lack of ability to analyze credits. 

Anedcotally, some portfolios I was involved with pre-crisis (tangentially - these portfolios had components that were run by a certain set of fixed-income managers) were buying fixed-rate second mortgage bonds that were rated AAA.  They got written down to something like 20 cents on the dollar, a shocking loss for a AAA security.  Clearly the agencies that rated these didn't understand what they were doing, or screwed up.  Plain and simple.

So it was the credit agencys' faults for not finding out the information that the investor banks kept secret on purpose?

The reason those 2nd mortgages, which at their peak were going for 90-95 cents on the dollar, were fixed rate to begin with was to make them even that attractive to the investors.  Frankly, that should have been a red flag, except the investors, whether on purpose or not, were still playing by conventional mortgage security rules (max mortgage was usually never kept for more than 9 years, no more than 3% of loans were going to involve some sort of fraud, no more than 3% of loans were going to default in the first 3 months, etc).  The fact was, the investor banks were writing the underwriting guidelines, albeit indirectly, by telling us which loans they would buy and which they wouldn't.  We just simply adjusted our guidelines accordingly, sometime even on a monthly basis, depending on what the banks were buying.

I used to think that the investment bankers who were responsible for buying these loans were just greedy and negligent or incompetent.  Heck, they were just playing the numbers and there was no history of anything like this boom to reference when making these decisions.  Now, I know they knew what they were doing and did it anyway.

No one said the investment banks were without guilt.  Just that there was enough to spread around.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
No one said the investment banks were without guilt.  Just that there was enough to spread around.

That.

Anyone looking for a single point of failure in this whole debacle is missing more than a few pieces of the puzzle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:12:24 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
No one said the investment banks were without guilt.  Just that there was enough to spread around.

That.

Anyone looking for a single point of failure in this whole debacle is missing more than a few pieces of the puzzle.

I think Tank and I just agreed on something.  That, after RV and I agreed at least TWICE on things in this thread.  Is it time to shut it down yet?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on October 25, 2010, 02:34:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:12:24 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
No one said the investment banks were without guilt.  Just that there was enough to spread around.

That.

Anyone looking for a single point of failure in this whole debacle is missing more than a few pieces of the puzzle.

I think Tank and I just agreed on something.  That, after RV and I agreed at least TWICE on things in this thread.  Is it time to shut it down yet?

If it makes a difference, I also agree.  I just put more of the blame ont he investment bankers than anyone else, and it's not really even close.

Having said that, the 25 year olds working for the sub-prime wholesale lenders who were driving 5-series beamers, maxing out their 401(k) contributions on their first commission check of the year, and doing blow in the bathrooms with rolled up hundos also get a bunch of the blame.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2010, 03:39:47 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 25, 2010, 02:34:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:12:24 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
No one said the investment banks were without guilt.  Just that there was enough to spread around.

That.

Anyone looking for a single point of failure in this whole debacle is missing more than a few pieces of the puzzle.

I think Tank and I just agreed on something.  That, after RV and I agreed at least TWICE on things in this thread.  Is it time to shut it down yet?

If it makes a difference, I also agree.  I just put more of the blame ont he investment bankers than anyone else, and it's not really even close.

Having said that, the 25 year olds working for the sub-prime wholesale lenders who were driving 5-series beamers, maxing out their 401(k) contributions on their first commission check of the year, and doing blow in the bathrooms with rolled up hundos also get a bunch of the blame.

I didn't know you ever drove a beemer, Boiler Room.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on October 25, 2010, 04:34:48 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2010, 03:39:47 PM
Quote from: Oleg on October 25, 2010, 02:34:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:12:24 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2010, 02:09:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
No one said the investment banks were without guilt.  Just that there was enough to spread around.

That.

Anyone looking for a single point of failure in this whole debacle is missing more than a few pieces of the puzzle.

I think Tank and I just agreed on something.  That, after RV and I agreed at least TWICE on things in this thread.  Is it time to shut it down yet?

If it makes a difference, I also agree.  I just put more of the blame ont he investment bankers than anyone else, and it's not really even close.

Having said that, the 25 year olds working for the sub-prime wholesale lenders who were driving 5-series beamers, maxing out their 401(k) contributions on their first commission check of the year, and doing blow in the bathrooms with rolled up hundos also get a bunch of the blame.

I didn't know you ever drove a beemer, Boiler Room.

I also wasn't 25.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 26, 2010, 09:17:03 AM
The lamestream media is reporting that the curbstomper outside the Kentucky senate debate was a Rand Paul supporter. Yeah right. I don't see any bootstraps on those high tops.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ezZTQ_r9jRM/TMZZfHhxd5I/AAAAAAAAAHU/PoKlSRV4uHg/s320/randpaulviolence102510-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2010, 09:33:15 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2010, 09:17:03 AM
The lamestream media is reporting that the curbstomper outside the Kentucky senate debate was a Rand Paul supporter. Yeah right. I don't see any bootstraps on those high tops.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ezZTQ_r9jRM/TMZZfHhxd5I/AAAAAAAAAHU/PoKlSRV4uHg/s320/randpaulviolence102510-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg)

God bless America.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 26, 2010, 09:46:46 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2010, 09:17:03 AM
The lamestream media is reporting that the curbstomper outside the Kentucky senate debate was a Rand Paul supporter. Yeah right. I don't see any bootstraps on those high tops.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ezZTQ_r9jRM/TMZZfHhxd5I/AAAAAAAAAHU/PoKlSRV4uHg/s320/randpaulviolence102510-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg)

The screencap is from a Fox affiliate. The Stompee has a RepubliCorp sign. I'm sure there was a calm, measured exchange of opposing viewpoints leading up to this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on October 26, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 26, 2010, 09:46:46 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2010, 09:17:03 AM
The lamestream media is reporting that the curbstomper outside the Kentucky senate debate was a Rand Paul supporter. Yeah right. I don't see any bootstraps on those high tops.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ezZTQ_r9jRM/TMZZfHhxd5I/AAAAAAAAAHU/PoKlSRV4uHg/s320/randpaulviolence102510-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg)

The screencap is from a Fox affiliate. The Stompee has a RepubliCorp sign. I'm sure there was a calm, measured exchange of opposing viewpoints leading up to this.

Teh Paul said to prove it.  Welcome to Kentucky, hippy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on October 26, 2010, 10:00:41 AM
Quote from: powen01 on October 26, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 26, 2010, 09:46:46 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2010, 09:17:03 AM
The lamestream media is reporting that the curbstomper outside the Kentucky senate debate was a Rand Paul supporter. Yeah right. I don't see any bootstraps on those high tops.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ezZTQ_r9jRM/TMZZfHhxd5I/AAAAAAAAAHU/PoKlSRV4uHg/s320/randpaulviolence102510-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg)

The screencap is from a Fox affiliate. The Stompee has a RepubliCorp sign. I'm sure there was a calm, measured exchange of opposing viewpoints leading up to this.

Teh Paul said to prove it.  Welcome to Kentucky, hippy.

That being said, that wasn't very gentlemanly of those boys.  Not one bit.  Methinks they need some to sip some sweet tea and CTFO.

PS:  DPD
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2010, 05:25:24 PM
Your latest GOP ballot wedge...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/oklahomas-preemptive-strike-against-sharia-law/65081/

Ain't no damn Muslin faqīh gonna make Oklahoma fast durin' Rambodon. No, suh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 26, 2010, 06:13:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2010, 05:25:24 PM
Your latest GOP ballot wedge...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/oklahomas-preemptive-strike-against-sharia-law/65081/

Ain't no damn Muslin faqīh gonna make Oklahoma fast durin' Rambodon. No, suh.

Gingrich has seen through Breyer's and Kagan's phony claims to being Jewish.  They are closet Muslims who have all this time been plotting to replace the Constitution with Sharia law. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2010, 06:41:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2010, 05:25:24 PM
Your latest GOP ballot wedge...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/oklahomas-preemptive-strike-against-sharia-law/65081/

Ain't no damn Muslin faqīh gonna make Oklahoma fast durin' Rambodon. No, suh.

Read the comments.  This Republichic has to be a parody.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 09:53:29 AM
DPD, but here is the real GOP platform for the coming election.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," - Senator Mitch McConnell.

Go RED TEAM, DEFEAT THE BLUE TEAM...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 27, 2010, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 09:53:29 AM
DPD, but here is the real GOP platform for the coming election.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," - Senator Mitch McConnell.

Go RED TEAM, DEFEAT THE BLUE TEAM...

Nothing will ensure an Obama reelection more than a Republican House of Representatives.

Oh, and the collection of second stringers who will wind up running for a shot at being Goldwater '64.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 27, 2010, 10:09:06 AM
I'm terribly close to voting for all Tea Partiers just for the LOLZ.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 27, 2010, 10:10:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2010, 10:09:06 AM
I'm terribly close to voting for all Tea Partiers just for the LOLZ.

Nothing stops complainers faster than giving them the burden of solution.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 27, 2010, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2010, 10:10:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2010, 10:09:06 AM
I'm terribly close to voting for all Tea Partiers just for the LOLZ.

Nothing stops complainers faster than giving them the burden of solution.

How do you not want to see what a Christine O'Donnell would do if elected? I wish I could vote for her.

A newt in ev'ry cauldron!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Indolent Reader on October 27, 2010, 10:49:18 AM
Bill Brady wants to gas puppies!

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 27, 2010, 11:18:13 AM
Why does British Airways support jihad?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/10/26/BA.U.S.security.ft/index.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 27, 2010, 11:35:50 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2010, 10:09:06 AM
I'm terribly close to voting for all Tea Partiers just for the LOLZ.

I've seen Jesse in the gym, working the fuck out, too, for getting into shape. 
                   
You know he got a chance he can win. White dudes like to do shit like that...
                 
...vote for the wrong dude as a goof.
           
They get drunk and shit and go like:
"Let's vote for Jesse Jackson !"
                 
"I just voted for Jesse Jackson !"
                   
And next day would be like this:

"He fuckin' won?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 27, 2010, 12:12:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 27, 2010, 11:35:50 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 27, 2010, 10:09:06 AM
I'm terribly close to voting for all Tea Partiers just for the LOLZ.

I've seen Jesse in the gym, working the fuck out, too, for getting into shape. 
                   
You know he got a chance he can win. White dudes like to do shit like that...
                 
...vote for the wrong dude as a goof.
           
They get drunk and shit and go like:
"Let's vote for Jesse Jackson !"
                 
"I just voted for Jesse Jackson !"
                   
And next day would be like this:

"He fuckin' won?"

I didn't do it. I wrote in Obama for every election. SUPREME RULER OBAMA.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:21:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2010, 06:41:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2010, 05:25:24 PM
Your latest GOP ballot wedge...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/oklahomas-preemptive-strike-against-sharia-law/65081/

Ain't no damn Muslin faqīh gonna make Oklahoma fast durin' Rambodon. No, suh.

Read the comments.  This Republichic has to be a parody.

What is this Fox News of which she speaks?  I have been searching for the Grail for my entire life and she seems to have found it. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 27, 2010, 12:45:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Why would NJ want to buy something it can't pay for?  I think that's probably the more relevant question.  Tunnels cost money to build and NJ doesn't have any money; it is in debt and would have to borrow more to pay its share of the tunnel expenses.

I apologize if you were writing in green font there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 27, 2010, 12:56:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

Soon there will be no such thing as Chicago or Illinois or America. It will just be Iowa.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 27, 2010, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 27, 2010, 12:56:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

Soon there will be no such thing as Chicago or Illinois or America. It will just be Iowa.

Then SKO has well and truly won.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:58:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

Just want to point out that noted Chris Christie and teaparty-affiliated lobbying group Sierra Club also doesn't think it's a good project. (http://newjersey.sierraclub.org/PressReleases/0070.asp)
Quote
Originally, the ARC project was designed to serve several purposes. First, the plan was to create another tunnel into New York. There were other important goals, including providing New Jersey commuters access to the Grand Central Station and the East Side of Manhattan, creating a backup tunnel for Amtrak that would service Penn Station or the new Moynihan Station, and enabling trains to travel from one area of the metropolitan region to another.

"Unfortunately, this tunnel now only meets the first of those goals and not the other four," NJ Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel said. "Instead of connecting to Penn Station or the new Moynihan Station, the tunnel dead ends 180 feet below the ground, two blocks from Penn Station. The project is now the tunnel to Macy's basement."

The Sierra Club is concerned that this configuration will undermine good transportation planning for the region. Because it the tunnel is proposed to be so far under ground, it may deter people from using it and could be a risk in the event of an emergency.

As proposed, to get to ground level, passengers will have to travel the equivalent of 20 stories via a series of escalators that will be longer than two football fields. "This labyrinth of tunnels will be more reminiscent of a corn maze than a train station," Tittel said.

Besides the long travel time involved in getting to ground levels and the added risk during an emergency, the configuration as planned will be confusing for passengers. For example, NJ Transit will continue to use Penn Station in addition to the tunnel station. At rush hour, when there many trains are coming and departing, it will be confusing for passengers, who will have to determine if they are leaving from Penn Station or the ARC tunnel station two blocks away.

Once they figure out their departure location, passengers then will then have to navigate through the series of underground walkways. One of the options NJ Transit is considering in order to alleviate the confusion is to have all train lines go to Penn Station except the two Bergen Lines, which will use the new tunnel.

"The Bergen Line would then be the railroad from Xanadu to Macy's basement," Tittel said. "This project seems to be more about pay to play and overdevelopment in the Meadowlands."

There are presently five major proposals for the expansion of train service in and out of Midtown Manhattan. Mayor Bloomberg is working to extend the Seven Train, which will go right above this NJ Transit tunnel. The Long Island Railroad wants to provide access to the East Side. Sen. Chuck Schumer is pushing for the new Moynihan Station in Midtown. Congressman Jerry Nadler wants to establish a freight rail tunnel to displace traffic from the roads. Then there's this NJ Transit tunnel proposal. Each project is expecting, and actively seeking, federal dollars.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 27, 2010, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 27, 2010, 12:57:41 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 27, 2010, 12:56:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

Soon there will be no such thing as Chicago or Illinois or America. It will just be Iowa.

Then SKO has well and truly won.

You were never supposed to discover the plan this soon. I cannot be responsible for the blood that must be shed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 01:01:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

State government: the last vestige of fiscal conservatism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2010, 01:11:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!
Actually, they are looking at a 5 hour trip from Chicago to IC on 78 MPH trains.

In case anyone is curious, the distance is about 240 miles.

Good for Christie canceling this project.  At least, in a vacuum it seems to be a good decision.  We don't have money to spend. But what projects is he keeping? Are there better projects to cancel?  Aren't roads and infrastructure exactly what government is for?  And, maybe the real reason for canceling this is his reluctance to raise a gas tax.  You would think a new tunnel would relieve congestion and reduce the economic burden of longer commutes and make the flow of capital easier thereby reducing the actual long-term cost.

Bully for him for not spending the money.  So long as the reasons make sense.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2010, 01:12:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 01:01:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

State government: the last vestige of fiscal conservatism.

Or, perhaps, the rebirth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 27, 2010, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 27, 2010, 12:45:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Why would NJ want to buy something it can't pay for?  I think that's probably the more relevant question.  Tunnels cost money to build and NJ doesn't have any money; it is in debt and would have to borrow more to pay its share of the tunnel expenses.

I apologize if you were writing in green font there.

NJ has been an ecponomic trainwreck of irresponsible tax cuts and off-budget spending for decades. This tunnel is a bad idea, but I have every confidence that if it is killed, it will be replaced by another economic sinkhole that is as bad or worse than this one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2010, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 27, 2010, 12:45:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Why would NJ want to buy something it can't pay for?  I think that's probably the more relevant question.  Tunnels cost money to build and NJ doesn't have any money; it is in debt and would have to borrow more to pay its share of the tunnel expenses.

I apologize if you were writing in green font there.

NJ has been an ecponomic trainwreck of irresponsible tax cuts and off-budget spending for decades. This tunnel is a bad idea, but I have every confidence that if it is killed, it will be replaced by another economic sinkhole that is as bad or worse than this one.

Just as long as they don't shut down the money pit.  That project is well worth it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on October 27, 2010, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

For once it's good to see any politician who preached fiscal responsibility actually follow through.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 27, 2010, 04:04:44 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on October 27, 2010, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

For once it's good to see any politician who preached fiscal responsibility actually follow through.

Again, it's NJ. He's merely looking to divert the funding to another project with friendlier backing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 27, 2010, 04:30:49 PM
I think this is the Onion's first non-satirical article ever, since this is pretty much what has happened lately.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/democrats-if-were-gonna-lose-lets-go-down-running,18333/

QuoteWASHINGTON—Conceding almost certain Republican gains in next month's crucial midterm elections, Democratic lawmakers vowed Tuesday not to give up without making one final push to ensure their party runs away from every major legislative victory of the past two years.

Party leaders told reporters that regardless of the ultimate outcome, they would do everything in their power from now until the polls closed to distance themselves from their hard-won passage of a historic health care overhaul, the toughest financial regulations since the 1930s, and a stimulus package most economists now credit with preventing a second Great Depression.

"There's a great deal on the line, and we know it isn't going to be easy for us," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), speaking from the steps of the Capitol. "But if we suffer defeat, we will do so knowing we cowered away from absolutely anything we produced that was even remotely progressive or valuable in any way."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 27, 2010, 07:45:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2010, 04:04:44 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on October 27, 2010, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

For once it's good to see any politician who preached fiscal responsibility actually follow through.

Again, it's NJ. He's merely looking to divert the funding to another project with friendlier backing.

Thank the imaginary sky creature that nothing of the sort could ever happen here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 27, 2010, 07:54:34 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 27, 2010, 07:45:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2010, 04:04:44 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on October 27, 2010, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

For once it's good to see any politician who preached fiscal responsibility actually follow through.

Again, it's NJ. He's merely looking to divert the funding to another project with friendlier backing.

Thank the imaginary sky creature that nothing of the sort could ever happen here.

Thank the imaginary sky creature that we can just completely discredit Christie without any evidence whatsoever. EVEN WHEN THEY ACT LIKE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES, THEY PROBABLY AREN'T REALLY!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 08:40:06 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2010, 04:04:44 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on October 27, 2010, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

For once it's good to see any politician who preached fiscal responsibility actually follow through.

Again, it's NJ. He's merely looking to divert the funding to another project with friendlier backing.

If the decision is made on the basis of it being a hell  of a lot of money and that the price tag  is actually going to be higher, that doesn't take guts.  The decision must be made on a cost benefit analysis.  If in the long run it is going to pay off, such as the investment in General Motors, or yes, the bank bail out, then it takes guts to go along with it in spite of the political fallout.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2010, 09:46:39 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 08:40:06 PM
If the decision is made on the basis of it being a hell  of a lot of money and that the price tag  is actually going to be higher, that doesn't take guts.  The decision must be made on a cost benefit analysis.  If in the long run it is going to pay off, such as the investment in General Motors, or yes, the bank bail out, then it takes guts to go along with it in spite of the political fallout.

That requires leaders, Stew.  These guys are looking for jobs in the short term and speaking gigs and wealth in the long term.

Congress is a jobs program for those 535 people with the connections to get enough money to fool enough people to get them elected.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 27, 2010, 10:22:14 PM
Quote from: SKO on October 27, 2010, 07:54:34 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 27, 2010, 07:45:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2010, 04:04:44 PM
Quote from: Waco Kid on October 27, 2010, 01:50:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

For once it's good to see any politician who preached fiscal responsibility actually follow through.

Again, it's NJ. He's merely looking to divert the funding to another project with friendlier backing.

Thank the imaginary sky creature that nothing of the sort could ever happen here.

Thank the imaginary sky creature that we can just completely discredit Christie without any evidence whatsoever. EVEN WHEN THEY ACT LIKE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES, THEY PROBABLY AREN'T REALLY!

You're absolutely right. And Albert Pujols is a drug-free 30 year old.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 10:42:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 27, 2010, 09:46:39 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 08:40:06 PM
If the decision is made on the basis of it being a hell  of a lot of money and that the price tag  is actually going to be higher, that doesn't take guts.  The decision must be made on a cost benefit analysis.  If in the long run it is going to pay off, such as the investment in General Motors, or yes, the bank bail out, then it takes guts to go along with it in spite of the political fallout.

That requires leaders, Stew.  These guys are looking for jobs in the short term and speaking gigs and wealth in the long term.

Congress is a jobs program for those 535 people with the connections to get enough money to fool enough people to get them elected.

WE NEED TO ELECT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SERVE!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 27, 2010, 11:50:32 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 27, 2010, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 27, 2010, 12:45:15 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 27, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2010, 12:17:45 PM
Some news from New Jersey:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-tunnel-christie-20101028,0,2187939.story

Governor Christie's conservative values demand that we immediately return to the 19th Century.  Why do we need train tunnels under rivers when there are all of those perfectly good horse drawn carriages left over in the museums?  Anyway, why would people in New Jersey want to get to New York?  Oh.  Wait.  That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Why would NJ want to buy something it can't pay for?  I think that's probably the more relevant question.  Tunnels cost money to build and NJ doesn't have any money; it is in debt and would have to borrow more to pay its share of the tunnel expenses.

I apologize if you were writing in green font there.

NJ has been an ecponomic trainwreck of irresponsible tax cuts and off-budget spending for decades. This tunnel is a bad idea, but I have every confidence that if it is killed, it will be replaced by another economic sinkhole that is as bad or worse than this one.

Yeah.  New Jersey's taxes are just way too low. (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/nj_property_taxes_climb_70_per.html)

Quote from: Brownie on October 27, 2010, 12:51:57 PM
OK, so the tunnel to Macy's basement was originally going to be a mere $5B. Then, it rose to $8.7B. Then, to $11B or $14B. And all the overruns would fall on NJ.

Chris Christie has balls. That's nice to see.

How about the several hundred million Illinois will be spending to connect Chicago with that bustling but remote and hard to get to center of commerce Iowa City. Why, a 3-hour drive down I-80 needs to be cut to 1 1/2 hours at any cost!

And that's before they got started.  This thing had "Big Dig II"  written all over it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 28, 2010, 08:13:14 AM
All you Obama dong chuggers in here, get ready to chug like you've never chugged before... the Iranians say he's on his way out. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/148446.html)

Of course, this can only mean one thing.  President Biden.

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Mm9Ch22Y0EnMOM:http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/BIDEN_HENNESSY_ARTICLE_redo.jpg&t=1)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 28, 2010, 08:33:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 28, 2010, 08:13:14 AM
All you Obama dong chuggers in here, get ready to chug like you've never chugged before... the Iranians say he's on his way out. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/148446.html)

Of course, this can only mean one thing.  President Biden.

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Mm9Ch22Y0EnMOM:http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/BIDEN_HENNESSY_ARTICLE_redo.jpg&t=1)

Look for President Biden and Speaker Boehner to have a bipartisan tanning bed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 28, 2010, 03:15:02 PM
To spread the fun: http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell

There's some current talk to decide if it's bullshit or not.

QuoteI won't get into the nitty gritty details of what happened between the sheets that evening. But I will say that it wasn't half as exciting as I'd been hoping it would be. Christine was a decent kisser, but as soon as soon as her clothes came off and she was naked in my bed, Christine informed me that she was a virgin.

"You've got to be kidding," I said. She didn't explain at the time that she was a "born-again virgin." She made it seem like she'd never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn't very experienced sexually. When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.

Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. It was almost four o'clock in the morning. I had to get up at 6:30 to go to work
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 03:46:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 28, 2010, 03:15:02 PM
To spread the fun: http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell

There's some current talk to decide if it's bullshit or not.

QuoteI won't get into the nitty gritty details of what happened between the sheets that evening. But I will say that it wasn't half as exciting as I'd been hoping it would be. Christine was a decent kisser, but as soon as soon as her clothes came off and she was naked in my bed, Christine informed me that she was a virgin.

"You've got to be kidding," I said. She didn't explain at the time that she was a "born-again virgin." She made it seem like she'd never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn't very experienced sexually. When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.

Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. It was almost four o'clock in the morning. I had to get up at 6:30 to go to work

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. There are a manner of men who would abandon ship at the sight of female pubic hair. Those men are known as homosexuals. If the dude said she just wouldn't shut up about something something something... Ok, I'd buy it.

EDIT: I guess there is another type of dude who would recoil at the sight of a hairy box. Ask Yeti about it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 28, 2010, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 03:46:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 28, 2010, 03:15:02 PM
To spread the fun: http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell

There's some current talk to decide if it's bullshit or not.

QuoteI won't get into the nitty gritty details of what happened between the sheets that evening. But I will say that it wasn't half as exciting as I'd been hoping it would be. Christine was a decent kisser, but as soon as soon as her clothes came off and she was naked in my bed, Christine informed me that she was a virgin.

"You've got to be kidding," I said. She didn't explain at the time that she was a "born-again virgin." She made it seem like she'd never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn't very experienced sexually. When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.

Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. It was almost four o'clock in the morning. I had to get up at 6:30 to go to work

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. There are a manner of men who would abandon ship at the sight of female pubic hair. Those men are known as homosexuals. If the dude said she just wouldn't shut up about something something something... Ok, I'd buy it.

EDIT: I guess there is another type of dude who would recoil at the sight of a hairy box. Ask Yeti about it.

Yep, that's gotta be a lie. You part the Hair Sea and you go to town. You don't bring someone all the way home with and work her underwear off just to recoil at some fucking pubes. Fuck this guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 28, 2010, 04:19:49 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 28, 2010, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 03:46:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 28, 2010, 03:15:02 PM
To spread the fun: http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell

There's some current talk to decide if it's bullshit or not.

QuoteI won't get into the nitty gritty details of what happened between the sheets that evening. But I will say that it wasn't half as exciting as I'd been hoping it would be. Christine was a decent kisser, but as soon as soon as her clothes came off and she was naked in my bed, Christine informed me that she was a virgin.

"You've got to be kidding," I said. She didn't explain at the time that she was a "born-again virgin." She made it seem like she'd never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn't very experienced sexually. When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.

Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. It was almost four o'clock in the morning. I had to get up at 6:30 to go to work

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. There are a manner of men who would abandon ship at the sight of female pubic hair. Those men are known as homosexuals. If the dude said she just wouldn't shut up about something something something... Ok, I'd buy it.

EDIT: I guess there is another type of dude who would recoil at the sight of a hairy box. Ask Yeti about it.

Yep, that's gotta be a lie. You part the Hair Sea and you go to town. You don't bring someone all the way home with and work her underwear off just to recoil at some fucking pubes. Fuck this guy.

THI. See, I'd kind of like it to be semi-true because for some reason she got a little bit hot to me. I have a proclivity for moderately attractive older women with power though, so I suppose it suits me. If it's bullshit, then he can jump back to the fact that he didn't claim he banged her if he gets shit from her camp. And what's she going to do about the bush claim? Say she waxes and prove it?

Her and Palin can tagteam me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JakeD on October 28, 2010, 04:33:38 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 28, 2010, 08:13:14 AM
All you Obama dong chuggers in here, get ready to chug like you've never chugged before... the Iranians say he's on his way out. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/148446.html)

Of course, this can only mean one thing.  President Biden.

(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Mm9Ch22Y0EnMOM:http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/BIDEN_HENNESSY_ARTICLE_redo.jpg&t=1)

They're just copying storylines from 24 now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 28, 2010, 05:30:35 PM
Interesting analysis from Stratfor. (http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2010/10/27/u-s-midterm-elections-obama-and-iran.aspx)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 28, 2010, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 28, 2010, 05:30:35 PM
Interesting analysis from Stratfor. (http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2010/10/27/u-s-midterm-elections-obama-and-iran.aspx)

I think it's a great analysis with two exceptions.  One, the Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate, not 60, and could not enforce CLOTURE!!! whenever they wished.  Two, the article cites Obama's putatively "low" approval ratings.  I don't know if having W. in office for 8 years affected our collective sense of "low," but Obama's numbers approval numbers are hovering around 45%.  Looking at the approval ratings for the beatified Ronnie (http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx) with similar historic analogues, I wouldn't call Obama's number's "low."

But, that having been said, the article has a good analysis.  Again, I think Obama's chances in 2012 are pretty good, especially considering the three oft-cited potential opponents: Newt, Palin, and Romney.  Some analysis here. (http://today.yougov.com/news/2010/10/26/looking-2010-its-lose-lose-obama-still-ahead/)  I think a GOP House will provide Obama with a good pivot, while perhaps allowing for some good compromise legislation.  However, after hearing McConnell, Boehner, and Pence this past week, I doubt that is likely, as nihilism seems to be in order for the GOP.

I think it's sad, because while voters are obviously upset about the course of the country, I think most polls indicate that they are willing to give the GOP control of the legislature because they think it will force both sides to work together.

I guess we'll see.

PS - Spell check wanted to correct Boehner as "Boner."  Tee hee.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 28, 2010, 05:55:57 PM
DPD, but here are the results from the latest Communist, America-hating, leftist, TAXOLIB-HOMOCRAT New York Times/CBS poll.

See generally http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-a-pre-election-day-glimpse-of-a-politically-disappointed-nation?ref=politics
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on October 28, 2010, 06:25:13 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 28, 2010, 05:50:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 28, 2010, 05:30:35 PM
Interesting analysis from Stratfor. (http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2010/10/27/u-s-midterm-elections-obama-and-iran.aspx)

I think it's a great analysis with two exceptions.  One, the Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate, not 60, and could not enforce CLOTURE!!! whenever they wished.  Two, the article cites Obama's putatively "low" approval ratings.  I don't know if having W. in office for 8 years affected our collective sense of "low," but Obama's numbers approval numbers are hovering around 45%.  Looking at the approval ratings for the beatified Ronnie (http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx) with similar historic analogues, I wouldn't call Obama's number's "low."

But, that having been said, the article has a good analysis.  Again, I think Obama's chances in 2012 are pretty good, especially considering the three oft-cited potential opponents: Newt, Palin, and Romney.  Some analysis here. (http://today.yougov.com/news/2010/10/26/looking-2010-its-lose-lose-obama-still-ahead/)  I think a GOP House will provide Obama with a good pivot, while perhaps allowing for some good compromise legislation.  However, after hearing McConnell, Boehner, and Pence this past week, I doubt that is likely, as nihilism seems to be in order for the GOP.

I think it's sad, because while voters are obviously upset about the course of the country, I think most polls indicate that they are willing to give the GOP control of the legislature because they think it will force both sides to work together.

I guess we'll see.

PS - Spell check wanted to correct Boehner as "Boner."  Tee hee.

That's a pretty interesting article. I thought this was a pretty good observation:

QuoteReagan's ratings were higher than the averages of his three immediate predecessors -- Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon, supporting the arguments of those who contend that one of Reagan's major contributions was to restore confidence in the presidency after the battering it took in the 1970s. But the two presidents who followed Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, each had higher average ratings than Reagan, as did three earlier presidents -- Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower.

(http://imgur.com/O7PkK.gif)

[Obamadongchug]You can really see a bit of a trajectory on that graph, and you have to wonder how much of an approval rating is due to perceptions of the Office that are completely independent from perceptions of the Man (e.g. maybe Obama has an approval rating ceiling due to perceptions of the Office caused by the W administration and he'll never be able to jump above a given number.) Of course, maybe it's simpler than that and the car/ditch analogy that Obama has pointed to has exhibited itself (to a lesser extent) during each transition.[/slurp]

That said, in majoritarian electoral politics, there is a gigantic difference between 45% and 53%.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on October 28, 2010, 06:52:20 PM
DPD. Grabbing the data from this Gallup chart (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx), Obama's average approval rating has been 52.22370618. Average disapproval is 40.15525876.

And per this article (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113641/Despite-Recent-Lows-Bush-Approval-Average-Midrange.aspx), GW's average approval rating was 49.4%. So Obama's declining approval ratings would stay true to the general downward trend.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 08:57:19 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 28, 2010, 06:52:20 PM
DPD. Grabbing the data from this Gallup chart (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx), Obama's average approval rating has been 52.22370618. Average disapproval is 40.15525876.

And per this article (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113641/Despite-Recent-Lows-Bush-Approval-Average-Midrange.aspx), GW's average approval rating was 49.4%. So Obama's declining approval ratings would stay true to the general downward trend.

This is the first time I can recall being so firmly entrenched in the Meh Bloc. It's kind of cathartic. People can dongchug or hateanger on old Barry. But you what has two thumbs and doesn't give a shit? This guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 28, 2010, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 08:57:19 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 28, 2010, 06:52:20 PM
DPD. Grabbing the data from this Gallup chart (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx), Obama's average approval rating has been 52.22370618. Average disapproval is 40.15525876.

And per this article (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113641/Despite-Recent-Lows-Bush-Approval-Average-Midrange.aspx), GW's average approval rating was 49.4%. So Obama's declining approval ratings would stay true to the general downward trend.

This is the first time I can recall being so firmly entrenched in the Meh Bloc. It's kind of cathartic. People can dongchug or hateanger on old Barry. But you what has two thumbs and doesn't give a shit? This guy.

The whole you?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 09:34:53 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 28, 2010, 09:28:06 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 08:57:19 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on October 28, 2010, 06:52:20 PM
DPD. Grabbing the data from this Gallup chart (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx), Obama's average approval rating has been 52.22370618. Average disapproval is 40.15525876.

And per this article (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113641/Despite-Recent-Lows-Bush-Approval-Average-Midrange.aspx), GW's average approval rating was 49.4%. So Obama's declining approval ratings would stay true to the general downward trend.

This is the first time I can recall being so firmly entrenched in the Meh Bloc. It's kind of cathartic. People can dongchug or hateanger on old Barry. But you what has two thumbs and doesn't give a shit? This guy.

The whole you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1ZSZUSrXc8
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Kermit IV on October 29, 2010, 02:08:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 28, 2010, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 03:46:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 28, 2010, 03:15:02 PM
To spread the fun: http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell

There's some current talk to decide if it's bullshit or not.

QuoteI won't get into the nitty gritty details of what happened between the sheets that evening. But I will say that it wasn't half as exciting as I'd been hoping it would be. Christine was a decent kisser, but as soon as soon as her clothes came off and she was naked in my bed, Christine informed me that she was a virgin.

"You've got to be kidding," I said. She didn't explain at the time that she was a "born-again virgin." She made it seem like she'd never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn't very experienced sexually. When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.

Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. It was almost four o'clock in the morning. I had to get up at 6:30 to go to work

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. There are a manner of men who would abandon ship at the sight of female pubic hair. Those men are known as homosexuals. If the dude said she just wouldn't shut up about something something something... Ok, I'd buy it.

EDIT: I guess there is another type of dude who would recoil at the sight of a hairy box. Ask Yeti about it.

Yep, that's gotta be a lie. You part the Hair Sea and you go to town. You don't bring someone all the way home with and work her underwear off just to recoil at some fucking pubes. Fuck this guy.

I'm pretty sure this is the highest approval rating bush has gotten in this thread.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 29, 2010, 08:42:42 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on October 29, 2010, 02:08:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 28, 2010, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 28, 2010, 03:46:12 PM
Quote from: Yeti on October 28, 2010, 03:15:02 PM
To spread the fun: http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell

There's some current talk to decide if it's bullshit or not.

QuoteI won't get into the nitty gritty details of what happened between the sheets that evening. But I will say that it wasn't half as exciting as I'd been hoping it would be. Christine was a decent kisser, but as soon as soon as her clothes came off and she was naked in my bed, Christine informed me that she was a virgin.

"You've got to be kidding," I said. She didn't explain at the time that she was a "born-again virgin." She made it seem like she'd never had sex in her life, which seemed pretty improbable for a woman her age. And she made it clear that she was planning on staying a virgin that night. But there were signs that she wasn't very experienced sexually. When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.

Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. It was almost four o'clock in the morning. I had to get up at 6:30 to go to work

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that. There are a manner of men who would abandon ship at the sight of female pubic hair. Those men are known as homosexuals. If the dude said she just wouldn't shut up about something something something... Ok, I'd buy it.

EDIT: I guess there is another type of dude who would recoil at the sight of a hairy box. Ask Yeti about it.

Yep, that's gotta be a lie. You part the Hair Sea and you go to town. You don't bring someone all the way home with and work her underwear off just to recoil at some fucking pubes. Fuck this guy.

I'm pretty sure this is the highest approval rating bush has gotten in this thread.

More on O'Donnell's hair-o-phobic suitor here (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/gawker/trail-anonymous-christine-odonnells-sex-free-pal).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 29, 2010, 08:49:05 AM
LASERS! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/manchin-web-ad-john-raese-is-an-imperial-storm-trooper-video.php?ref=dcblt)

QuoteDemocratic Senate candidate Joe Manchin has an amazing set of new Web videos in the West Virginia Senate race -- possibly the best Web-based campaign spots of the whole cycle. Remember that fun moment when Republican nominee John Raese said that the country needs "1,000 laser systems put in the sky, and we need it right now," and said it would only cost $20 billion? Well, now Manchin's campaign is connecting that to Raese's other positions -- and also to the Death Star and those white-armored storm troopers.

"We need 1,000 laser systems put int he sky, and we need it right now," Raese is shown saying in the video clip.

Then in comes that John Williams Darth Vader theme music, images of people in storm trooper costumes on parade, and laser beams from the sky wiping out a public school, clean drinking water and a Social Security card. The final image: John Raese's head on a storm trooper body, with laser beams raining down upon Earth in the background.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 29, 2010, 08:52:59 AM
I strongly support NMA becoming the #1 news source in the world.  Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6QdOBwMK5s) their depiction of the Reid/Angle race, and it has to be the best description of a political race I've ever seen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 29, 2010, 09:18:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 29, 2010, 08:52:59 AM
I strongly support NMA becoming the #1 news source in the world.  Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6QdOBwMK5s) their depiction of the Reid/Angle race, and it has to be the best description of a political race I've ever seen.

"Will shimmy for food."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 29, 2010, 12:58:32 PM
Old school attack ads. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 29, 2010, 01:03:44 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 29, 2010, 12:58:32 PM
Old school attack ads. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI)

Oh shut up, you hatchet-faced nutmeg dealer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on October 30, 2010, 11:38:22 AM
I apparently can't post in the right thread, but here goes anyway:

TWITTER FIGHT. (http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/126535-palin-pounces-on-state-dept-over-ahmadinejad-birthday-tweet)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 30, 2010, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 29, 2010, 12:58:32 PM
Old school attack ads. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI)

"An error occured.  Please try again later."    Those are fighting words.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 30, 2010, 04:08:22 PM
I'm guessing a noise complaint about the Obama rally on the Midway might get me on a "list."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 31, 2010, 04:09:11 PM
And the Bobby Rush robocall that I just got sounded like he was holding a loofah in front of his mouth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2010, 12:10:27 PM
If the TSA can't take a picture of your junk, they're damn well gonna grope it...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-time-the-tsa-meets-resistance-updated/65390/

QuoteIn part because of the back-scatter imager's invasiveness (a TSA employee in Miami was arrested recently after he physically assaulted a colleague who had mocked his modestly sized penis, which was fully apparent in a captured back-scatter image), the TSA is allowing passengers to opt-out of the back-scatter and choose instead a pat-down. I've complained about TSA pat-downs in the past, because they, too, were more security theater than anything else. They are, as I would learn, becoming more serious, as well.

At BWI, I told the officer who directed me to the back-scatter that I preferred a pat-down. I did this in order to see how effective the manual search would be. When I made this request, a number of TSA officers, to my surprise, began laughing. I asked why. One of them -- the one who would eventually conduct my pat-down -- said that the rules were changing shortly, and that I would soon understand why the back-scatter was preferable to the manual search. I asked him if the new guidelines included a cavity search. "No way. You think Congress would allow that?"

I answered, "If you're a terrorist, you're going to hide your weapons in your anus or your vagina." He blushed when I said "vagina."

"Yes, but starting tomorrow, we're going to start searching your crotchal area" -- this is the word he used, "crotchal" -- and you're not going to like it."

"What am I not going to like?" I asked.

"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," he explained.

"Resistance?" I asked.

"Your testicles," he explained.

...

I asked him if he was looking forward to conducting the full-on pat-downs. "Nobody's going to do it," he said, "once they find out that we're going to do."

In other words, people, when faced with a choice, will inevitably choose the Dick-Measuring Device over molestation? "That's what we're hoping for. We're trying to get everyone into the machine." He called over a colleague. "Tell him what you call the back-scatter," he said. "The Dick-Measuring Device," I said. "That's the truth," the other officer responded.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2010, 02:50:29 PM
Turns out that not all of the attendees at Stewart-Colbert-palooza hated TEC...

(http://i.imgur.com/1OnBK.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on November 01, 2010, 04:26:15 PM
DEATH TAX IS KILLING FARMERS (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/11/1/4669734.html)

QuoteWho needs death panels? Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) claims that ranchers and farmers in her state are planning on ending dialysis or other life-extending medical treatment before the end of the year so they can avoid paying the estate tax. This may cost the Treasury some revenue, but there is a silver lining for deficit hawks. After all, it will save Medicare a bundle.

...............

Thus, we have a specter of a tough and independent Clint Eastwood-like cowboy who chooses to head prematurely for that great roundup in the sky, all to save his hard-earned herd from some Internal Revenue Service bureaucrat hovering over his hospital bed, awaiting that final breath. It brings a tear to the eye.

Except it is all a carefully crafted myth.

Start with the cowboy. Some Wyoming ranchers have been on their land for generations—property stolen fair and square from Native Americans in the 19th century. Others are grazing their herds on federal land while paying cut-rate fees for the privilege. And still others are LA doctors, lawyers, and actors who spend a few weekends a year on their ranchettes, where they enjoy both spectacular scenery and generous income tax subsidies for grazing a few head of someone else's cattle.

The second myth is that their heirs will lose their ranches to the taxman. To start, there is no serious discussion in Congress of allowing the estate tax to return to 2000 levels. Even President Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership would at least return the law to where it was in 2009, exempting the first $3.5 million ($7 million for couples) from tax and setting a rate of no more than 45 percent. In addition, family farmers and small businesses get an extra $1 million exemption ($2 million for couples) for a total exemption of $9 million. And in the rare case where farm estates do owe tax, they can defer the debt for up to five years and extend payments for a decade after that.

So how many of these yeoman ranchers would lose their land if we returned to the 2009 law? Roughly none. The Tax Policy Center estimates that in the entire United States, about 110 small farm and small business estates would owe any estate tax in 2011. Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that under the 2004 rules (when the exemption was only $1.5 million) only 62 Wyoming estates of any kind owed tax. And not all of them, of course, had farm assets.

Finally, a rancher who chooses to die this year may end up costing his heirs money. Because 2010 is also a year when heirs lose the benefit of stepped-up basis, if they eventually sell the ranch they will end up paying capital gains tax based on its value when it was first acquired rather than on what it was worth at the time of death. While this provision applies to all assets, ranches, where the tax basis is usually quite low, are exactly the sort of property that could get hit.

Over-the-top hyperbole is all part of the political game, of course. But if Rep. Lummis is aware of constituents who are planning on killing themselves to avoid the estate tax, she has something of a responsibility to let them know the difference between reality and myth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 01, 2010, 08:49:12 PM
What does Hawaii have to do with this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 01, 2010, 09:44:56 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 01, 2010, 08:49:12 PM
What does Hawaii have to do with this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU)

Well done.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 01, 2010, 09:47:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 01, 2010, 09:44:56 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 01, 2010, 08:49:12 PM
What does Hawaii have to do with this? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU)

Well done.

Hey, I know Andy Cobb. Like 12 years ago I worked backstage for the Second City touring company. Glad to see he's still working. Funny guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 02, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
In case you're looking for guidance on judges in the Chicago area. (http://www.chicagobar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Judicial_Evaluation_Committee&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5697)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
In case you're looking for guidance on judges in the Chicago area. (http://www.chicagobar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Judicial_Evaluation_Committee&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5697)

More links here:

http://voteforjudges.org/evaluations.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
In case you're looking for guidance on judges in the Chicago area. (http://www.chicagobar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Judicial_Evaluation_Committee&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5697)

More links here:

http://voteforjudges.org/evaluations.html

I can help you all out.  For every judicial race (which is such a silly concept in its own right, but c'est la vie) vote...

NO
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 02, 2010, 10:12:34 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
In case you're looking for guidance on judges in the Chicago area. (http://www.chicagobar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Judicial_Evaluation_Committee&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5697)

More links here:

http://voteforjudges.org/evaluations.html

I can help you all out.  For every judicial race (which is such a silly concept in its own right, but c'est la vie) vote...

NO

This, this and this. Hell, if Gil wants to start a "Vote No on Judges" PAC, sign me up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 02, 2010, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 02, 2010, 10:12:34 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
In case you're looking for guidance on judges in the Chicago area. (http://www.chicagobar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Judicial_Evaluation_Committee&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5697)

More links here:

http://voteforjudges.org/evaluations.html

I can help you all out.  For every judicial race (which is such a silly concept in its own right, but c'est la vie) vote...

NO

This, this and this. Hell, if Gil wants to start a "Vote No on Judges" PAC, sign me up.

What about Judge Reinhold?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 10:36:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 02, 2010, 10:12:34 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
In case you're looking for guidance on judges in the Chicago area. (http://www.chicagobar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Judicial_Evaluation_Committee&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5697)

More links here:

http://voteforjudges.org/evaluations.html

I can help you all out.  For every judicial race (which is such a silly concept in its own right, but c'est la vie) vote...

NO

This, this and this. Hell, if Gil wants to start a "Vote No on Judges" PAC, sign me up.

I've voted "no" across the board before. But I usually print out the evaluations and vote "yes" on the consensus "keeps" and "no" on the rest.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Indolent Reader on November 02, 2010, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 02, 2010, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 02, 2010, 10:12:34 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
In case you're looking for guidance on judges in the Chicago area. (http://www.chicagobar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Judicial_Evaluation_Committee&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5697)

More links here:

http://voteforjudges.org/evaluations.html

I can help you all out.  For every judicial race (which is such a silly concept in its own right, but c'est la vie) vote...

NO

This, this and this. Hell, if Gil wants to start a "Vote No on Judges" PAC, sign me up.

What about Judge Reinhold?

I vote yes on:
MOCK TRIAL WITH J. REINHOLD!  MOCK TRIAL WITH J. REINHOLD!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 02, 2010, 12:47:50 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2010, 08:47:03 AM
In case you're looking for guidance on judges in the Chicago area. (http://www.chicagobar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Judicial_Evaluation_Committee&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5697)

I am waiting until I find out who Tonker is voting for before I make up my mind. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 02, 2010, 01:07:22 PM
Thanks for posting that on the retention judges.  I actually pulled that up while I was voting on the mobile phone.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 02, 2010, 01:31:29 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 02, 2010, 01:07:22 PM
Thanks for posting that on the retention judges.  I actually pulled that up while I was voting on the mobile phone.

You mean I can phone my vote in from California?  Chicago politics are wonderful!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 02, 2010, 04:46:11 PM
A ballot proposal even Oleg can love: Cubs request for money from Mesa is ballot provision 420.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 06:32:17 PM
For those who waited until the last minute and don't know where to vote:

http://yourfuckingpollingplace.com/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 06:44:09 PM
Fuck its silent in here....... (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03elect.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
Jesus... That stupid recall amendment is gonna pass, isn't it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
Jesus... That stupid recall amendment is gonna pass, isn't it?

Pretty resoundingly, I think.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on November 02, 2010, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
Jesus... That stupid recall amendment is gonna pass, isn't it?

Pretty resoundingly, I think.

Awe. Some. Which actor are we going to elect as governor?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on November 02, 2010, 09:50:55 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
Jesus... That stupid recall amendment is gonna pass, isn't it?

Pretty resoundingly, I think.

Awe. Some. Which actor are we going to elect as governor?

CUSACK!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 02, 2010, 09:53:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
Jesus... That stupid recall amendment is gonna pass, isn't it?

Pretty resoundingly, I think.

Probably DRLP or something, but why wouldn't we want that option?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 02, 2010, 09:57:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 02, 2010, 09:53:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
Jesus... That stupid recall amendment is gonna pass, isn't it?

Pretty resoundingly, I think.

Probably DRLP or something, but why wouldn't we want that option?

Because it's far too easy for the losing party in a close election to kick off a national fundraising drive to push for recall over the first slight, real or imagined.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 02, 2010, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 02, 2010, 09:53:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
Jesus... That stupid recall amendment is gonna pass, isn't it?

Pretty resoundingly, I think.

Probably DRLP or something, but why wouldn't we want that option?

I voted against it because it's expensive and unnecessary.  If you don't like the guy you JUST ELECTED, then wait until he runs for re-election and vote him out then.  I don't understand this need to install some sort of a mulligan just because the electorate had second thoughts about the guy they just elected.

And if a an elected offical is deemed unfit for the office for which the electorate had installed him, well there are already checks and balances in place for that.  We didn't need a recall election to get Blago out of office--the state legislature did that for us.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 02, 2010, 10:04:49 PM
All valid arguments, which I understand. But...

"Any effort to recall a governor would need to be signed by what amounts to several hundreds of thousands of voters. And it'd need support from 10 state senators and 20 representatives - an equal number Democrats and Republicans. "

http://www.wbez.org/story/news/politics/election-2010-close-look-illinois-recall-amendent

So, this is actually kind of slapdick. I doubt it ever gets used.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 02, 2010, 10:50:43 PM
So are the people electing these Tea Party candidates with zero political experience the same people who bitched about Obama's lack of experience in 2008?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on November 02, 2010, 10:56:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2010, 10:50:43 PM
So are the people electing these Tea Party candidates with zero political experience the same people who bitched about Obama's lack of experience in 2008?

They're not the best kind of inexperienced; but they're the right kind of inexperienced (?). Also, I hate America and the troops. Also I'm drunker than TDubbs' mother.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 10:58:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2010, 09:21:48 PM
Jesus... That stupid recall amendment is gonna pass, isn't it?

Pretty resoundingly, I think.

It needed a threshold of 60%. Which it appears to have cleared.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 11:02:10 PM
Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Looks like Kirk's pulling away, along with Toomey. Nevada, Colorado, and Washington state still too close.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 02, 2010, 11:14:43 PM
Alexi is out of politics for now.  America and Illinois wins.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 11:40:05 PM
Harry Reid, you magnificent bastard, you won me 250 dollars!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 11:40:05 PM
Harry Reid, you magnificent bastard, you won me 250 dollars!!!

Thank the Tea Party. That moron was right there in the crosshairs and they gave us Sharron Angle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 02, 2010, 11:55:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 02, 2010, 11:14:43 PM
Alexi is out of politics for now.  America and Illinois wins.

THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 01:02:09 AM
Interesting.  20%+ of the electorate in this midterm were voters over 65 years old.  They overwhelmingly voted Republican.  Should be fun to watch the dynamic between this constituency and the Tea Party faction's desire to cut the very sources of their livelihood (Medicare and Social Security).

Also, I think any proclamation that this election is a portent for 2012 is wildly overblown.

Welcome to thunderdome, indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 07:09:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 11:40:05 PM
Harry Reid, you magnificent bastard, you won me 250 dollars!!!

Thank the Tea Party. That moron was right there in the crosshairs and they gave us Sharron Angle.

Harry Reid is not only still in the Senate, but still the majority leader because of one person: Sarah Palin.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 03, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not. (http://www.slate.com/id/2272780/pagenum/all/)

QuoteSo the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on November 03, 2010, 07:28:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 01:02:09 AM
Interesting.  20%+ of the electorate in this midterm were voters over 65 years old.  They overwhelmingly voted Republican.  Should be fun to watch the dynamic between this constituency and the Tea Party faction's desire to cut the very sources of their livelihood (Medicare and Social Security).

Also, I think any proclamation that this election is a portent for 2012 is wildly overblown.

Welcome to thunderdome, indeed.

Now that GOP has successfully used the Tea Party for their own gains, those tea party candidates will be shoved aside as the GOP returns to their version of big government and deficit spending.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 03, 2010, 08:08:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 07:09:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:41:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2010, 11:40:05 PM
Harry Reid, you magnificent bastard, you won me 250 dollars!!!

Thank the Tea Party. That moron was right there in the crosshairs and they gave us Sharron Angle.

Harry Reid is not only still in the Senate, but still the majority leader because of one person: Sarah Palin.

You're going to see some real Shakespearian shit go down between her & Karl Rove in the next 2 years...she cost Turd Blossom the Senate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on November 03, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

Legislative diarrhoea?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 03, 2010, 08:54:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

He's busy carving his next post into his thigh with a rusty spoon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on November 03, 2010, 09:03:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Getting a orange spray tan to honor Boehner?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 09:05:48 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 03, 2010, 08:54:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

He's busy carving his next post into his thigh with a rusty spoon.

I figured he'd be fellating Sharron Angle right now in consolation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 03, 2010, 09:14:49 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 03, 2010, 08:25:38 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

Legislative diarrhoea?

Made of foeces?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 03, 2010, 09:16:48 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on November 03, 2010, 09:03:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 08:07:37 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Getting a orange spray tan to honor Boehner?

Boehner is a maudlin, sloppy drunk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

I really wish he'd show up though. I like his avatar.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:39:49 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

I really wish he'd show up though. I like his avatar.

(http://i.imgur.com/16K0q.gif)

Now with less grammatical confusion and unnecessary spittle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 09:49:06 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:39:49 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 09:31:25 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

I really wish he'd show up though. I like his avatar.

(http://i.imgur.com/16K0q.gif)

Now with less grammatical confusion and unnecessary spittle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 03, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not. (http://www.slate.com/id/2272780/pagenum/all/)

QuoteSo the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on November 03, 2010, 10:20:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 03, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not. (http://www.slate.com/id/2272780/pagenum/all/)

QuoteSo the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.

I didn't really have any reasoning. I seem to remember a discussion in here where some evidence vaguely supported the idea that the economy has been strongest when there's been gridlock.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 03, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 10:20:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 03, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not. (http://www.slate.com/id/2272780/pagenum/all/)

QuoteSo the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.

I didn't really have any reasoning. I seem to remember a discussion in here where some evidence vaguely supported the idea that the economy has been strongest when there's been gridlock.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 10:20:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 03, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not. (http://www.slate.com/id/2272780/pagenum/all/)

QuoteSo the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.

I didn't really have any reasoning. I seem to remember a discussion in here where some evidence vaguely supported the idea that the economy has been strongest when there's been gridlock.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

Nice work, boys.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 03, 2010, 11:03:46 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 10:20:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 03, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not. (http://www.slate.com/id/2272780/pagenum/all/)

QuoteSo the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.

I didn't really have any reasoning. I seem to remember a discussion in here where some evidence vaguely supported the idea that the economy has been strongest when there's been gridlock.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

Nice work, boys.

Shall we close up shop? I'm ready to discuss the Aubrey Huff/Juan Uribe platoon the Cubs are going to use at first base next year.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 11:16:56 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 11:03:46 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 10:20:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 03, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not. (http://www.slate.com/id/2272780/pagenum/all/)

QuoteSo the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.

I didn't really have any reasoning. I seem to remember a discussion in here where some evidence vaguely supported the idea that the economy has been strongest when there's been gridlock.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

Nice work, boys.

Shall we close up shop? I'm ready to discuss the Aubrey Huff/Juan Uribe platoon the Cubs are going to use at first base next year.

I think we can all agree that a lack of payroll flexibility does not equal concurrent improvement. I think last season did a good job of proving that but nothing else affirmatively.

Bottom line: There are lots of young players on the roster who could improve enough to make the Cubs competitive in their shortbus division. So let's just wait and see how it all plays out.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 03, 2010, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex link=topic=7174.msg230409#msg230409

Bottom line: There are lots of young players on the roster who could improve enough to make the Cubs competitive in their shortbus division. So let's just wait and see how it all plays out.  

So you knew Jim Jones?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 11:37:41 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 03, 2010, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex link=topic=7174.msg230409#msg230409

Bottom line: There are lots of young players on the roster who could improve enough to make the Cubs competitive in their shortbus division. So let's just wait and see how it all plays out.  

So you knew Jim Jones?

Intimately. (||)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Powdered Toast Man on November 03, 2010, 12:35:39 PM
Hey, anybody wanna go to India?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 10:20:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 03, 2010, 10:18:22 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 03, 2010, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 02, 2010, 11:13:49 PM
We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not. (http://www.slate.com/id/2272780/pagenum/all/)

QuoteSo the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.

I didn't really have any reasoning. I seem to remember a discussion in here where some evidence vaguely supported the idea that the economy has been strongest when there's been gridlock.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/11/03/the-economic-consequences-of-gridlock/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on November 03, 2010, 04:15:20 PM
Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2010, 04:15:20 PM
Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.

Epic Fail means retaining control of the Senate?

How are those tea baggers going to vote on the debt ceiling?  A lot of them said no to any increase?  What's going to happen?  Are you ready to trigger a global economic pandemic, MikeC?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2010, 04:15:20 PM
Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

Just calling a spade a spade.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:43:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2010, 04:15:20 PM
Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.

Also, how are the tea baggers going to respond to the fact that 1/4th of the electorate that voted them into power deeply depend on the social services the new majority intends to cut?

Watching this new House majority is going to be fun.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 03, 2010, 04:49:41 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2010, 04:15:20 PM
Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.

Yeah, the teabaggers really showed us here in California.  It is good to know that you can't buy the governor's office with $141 million. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:56:02 PM
I just think this is worth noting.

QuoteOne of the first tests of [Boehner's] ability to discipline populist revolutionaries fresh from the electoral barricades will come when the new Congress is asked to raise the federal debt limit from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion. No Congress has ever refused to approve such an increase and, if such a refusal were to occur, the consequences for the global financial system would be apocalyptic.

Many of the new senators and House members have pledged to vote against an increase in the debt. Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity — one of the more active national tea party groups — told Politico this week that the Republicans' new House majority "cannot fold on the debt."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten-column-election-20101103,0,193190.column

Also, MikeC, take a look at this:

QuoteJohn Boehner didn't claim a mandate, he claimed a repudiation. "We are witnessing a repudiation of Washington ... a repudiation of Big Government ... and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people." It's a good thing he didn't claim a mandate, because the message from the electorate wasn't clear. In exit polls, 37 percent said the highest priority of Congress should be "spending to create jobs." The nearly equal priority was reducing the budget deficit, which 37 percent said was their No. 1 goal.

http://www.slate.com/id/2273349/pagenum/2

There are some big tests with spending coming up.  Will the GOP House attempt to cut it?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  Fuck, I'd settle for an end to farm subsidies as a beginning of fiscal moderation, or a repudiation of Medicare Part D.  But it won't happen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 03, 2010, 05:31:33 PM
1980- Reagan wins presidency. Yay Conservatism!
1982- Dems score big at Midterms. Yay Left-wingism!
1984- Reagan wins every state, unless someone convinced you Minnesota really wasn't just a province south of Manitoba. Yay Reaganomics!
1986 - Dems take control of Senate again. Yay liberalism! Reagan, with Iran Contra, is on the ropes!
1988 - Bush beats Dukakis! Yay GOP!
1990 - Dems score in Midterms! Yay Dems
1992 - Dems score big with Clinton! Yay Dems! Conservatism is dead!
1994 - GOP takes House and Senate! Contract with America! Yay right-wingers!
1996 - Clinton beats Bob Dole! Yay center-left coalition!
1998 - GOP makes more gains in House and Senate; Clinton on ropes with Lewinsky scandal. Yay GOP!
2000 - Bush ekes out win and GOP maintains control of Congress! It's morning again!
2002 - GOP regains Senate, builds up House majority! It's Good to Be Red!
2004 - Bush wins re-election! Yay GOP!
2006 - Dems regain control of House and Senate! Beginning of the end of Compassionate Conservatism!
2008 - Obama sweeps in a huge Congressional majority. Conservatism is dead.  Republicans to look forward to future as a third or fourth party.
2010 - GOP dominates again.

That's 16 elections, 9 "won" by the GOP, 7 by the Dems.

Gloating/depression won't do anyone any good.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 05:36:47 PM
Man, I love Justice Scalia: http://volokh.com/2010/11/02/that-would-be-very-nice/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 03, 2010, 05:39:00 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 03, 2010, 05:31:33 PM
1980- Reagan wins presidency. Yay Conservatism!
1982- Dems score big at Midterms. Yay Left-wingism!
1984- Reagan wins every state, unless someone convinced you Minnesota really wasn't just a province south of Manitoba. Yay Reaganomics!
1986 - Dems take control of Senate again. Yay liberalism! Reagan, with Iran Contra, is on the ropes!
1988 - Bush beats Dukakis! Yay GOP!
1990 - Dems score in Midterms! Yay Dems
1992 - Dems score big with Clinton! Yay Dems! Conservatism is dead!
1994 - GOP takes House and Senate! Contract with America! Yay right-wingers!
1996 - Clinton beats Bob Dole! Yay center-left coalition!
1998 - GOP makes more gains in House and Senate; Clinton on ropes with Lewinsky scandal. Yay GOP!
2000 - Bush ekes out win and GOP maintains control of Congress! It's morning again!
2002 - GOP regains Senate, builds up House majority! It's Good to Be Red!
2004 - Bush wins re-election! Yay GOP!
2006 - Dems regain control of House and Senate! Beginning of the end of Compassionate Conservatism!
2008 - Obama sweeps in a huge Congressional majority. Conservatism is dead.  Republicans to look forward to future as a third or fourth party.
2010 - GOP dominates again.

That's 16 elections, 9 "won" by the GOP, 7 by the Dems.

Gloating/depression won't do anyone any good.

Your sane rationality sickens me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 03, 2010, 07:30:05 PM
In other election news from yesterday, Tanzania has elected its first albino (http://www.gympietimes.com.au/story/2010/11/04/albino-elected-in-tanzania/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BC on November 03, 2010, 08:00:26 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 11:16:56 AM
Bottom line: There are lots of young players on the roster who could improve enough to make the Cubs competitive in their shortbus division. So let's just wait and see how it all plays out. 

Damn it Pex, how did you steal my password?!?!?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 08:05:37 PM
Quote from: BC on November 03, 2010, 08:00:26 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 03, 2010, 11:16:56 AM
Bottom line: There are lots of young players on the roster who could improve enough to make the Cubs competitive in their shortbus division. So let's just wait and see how it all plays out. 

Damn it Pex, how did you steal my password?!?!?

I snuck in your room while you were sleeping. You were still logged-in. Those were some pretty lame porn sites too. You know they are allowed to show actual penetration nowadays right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BC on November 03, 2010, 08:21:55 PM
Who needs porn when there's Fox News? Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCullum, Juliet Huddy, Ainsley Earhardt, Jenna Lee... Unfortunately Jane Skinner left a few months ago... But, still... Good looking women AND the news, of course fair and balanced!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 03, 2010, 08:43:09 PM
Quote from: BC on November 03, 2010, 08:21:55 PM
Who needs porn when there's Fox News? Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCullum, Juliet Huddy, Ainsley Earhardt, Jenna Lee... Unfortunately Jane Skinner left a few months ago... But, still... Good looking women AND the news, of course fair and balanced!

<shakes head>
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 03, 2010, 08:43:09 PM
Quote from: BC on November 03, 2010, 08:21:55 PM
Who needs porn when there's Fox News? Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCullum, Juliet Huddy, Ainsley Earhardt, Jenna Lee... Unfortunately Jane Skinner left a few months ago... But, still... Good looking women AND the news, of course fair and balanced!

<shakes head>

You know, I hear they get Fox News out in Wyoming.

Internet porn, too!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:56:02 PM
There are some big tests with spending coming up.  Will the GOP House attempt to cut it?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  Fuck, I'd settle for an end to farm subsidies as a beginning of fiscal moderation, or a repudiation of Medicare Part D.  But it won't happen.

If the GOP tries to repeal the recent health care law, which actually cut Medicare spending, but doesn't repeal Medicare D, which was added without any revenue increases or spending offsets, then they are not just fiscal frauds, they are fiscal frauds who have only their self-interest guiding them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on November 03, 2010, 09:35:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:56:02 PM
There are some big tests with spending coming up.  Will the GOP House attempt to cut it?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  Fuck, I'd settle for an end to farm subsidies as a beginning of fiscal moderation, or a repudiation of Medicare Part D.  But it won't happen.

If the GOP tries to repeal the recent health care law, which actually cut Medicare spending, but doesn't repeal Medicare D, which was added without any revenue increases or spending offsets, then they are not just fiscal frauds, they are fiscal frauds who have only their self-interest guiding them.

Chuck, you didn't already know this?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 03, 2010, 09:43:19 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 03, 2010, 08:43:09 PM
Quote from: BC on November 03, 2010, 08:21:55 PM
Who needs porn when there's Fox News? Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCullum, Juliet Huddy, Ainsley Earhardt, Jenna Lee... Unfortunately Jane Skinner left a few months ago... But, still... Good looking women AND the news, of course fair and balanced!

<shakes head>

You know, I hear they get Fox News out in Wyoming.

And WWVB just might be able to electrify your fence.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:56:02 PM
There are some big tests with spending coming up.  Will the GOP House attempt to cut it?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  Fuck, I'd settle for an end to farm subsidies as a beginning of fiscal moderation, or a repudiation of Medicare Part D.  But it won't happen.

If the GOP tries to repeal the recent health care law, which actually cut Medicare spending, but doesn't repeal Medicare D, which was added without any revenue increases or spending offsets, then they are not just fiscal frauds, they are fiscal frauds who have only their self-interest guiding them.

You say this with a straight face.  I am impressed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 04, 2010, 09:21:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:56:02 PM
There are some big tests with spending coming up.  Will the GOP House attempt to cut it?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  Fuck, I'd settle for an end to farm subsidies as a beginning of fiscal moderation, or a repudiation of Medicare Part D.  But it won't happen.

If the GOP tries to repeal the recent health care law, which actually cut Medicare spending, but doesn't repeal Medicare D, which was added without any revenue increases or spending offsets, then they are not just fiscal frauds, they are fiscal frauds who have only their self-interest guiding them.

You say this with a straight face.  I am impressed.

I think Morph thinks I mean "cuts the deficit."  I didn't say that.

Then again, the guy we both voted for for governor said he could cut spending and lower taxes.  He also offered calorie free chocolate cake.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 04, 2010, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:56:02 PM
There are some big tests with spending coming up.  Will the GOP House attempt to cut it?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  Fuck, I'd settle for an end to farm subsidies as a beginning of fiscal moderation, or a repudiation of Medicare Part D.  But it won't happen.

If the GOP tries to repeal the recent health care law, which actually cut Medicare spending, but doesn't repeal Medicare D, which was added without any revenue increases or spending offsets, then they are not just fiscal frauds, they are fiscal frauds who have only their self-interest guiding them.

You say this with a straight face.  I am impressed.

Chuck with a straight face? Have you seen his profile?

/he's Jewish
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 04, 2010, 09:32:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 04, 2010, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 03, 2010, 09:28:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:56:02 PM
There are some big tests with spending coming up.  Will the GOP House attempt to cut it?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  Fuck, I'd settle for an end to farm subsidies as a beginning of fiscal moderation, or a repudiation of Medicare Part D.  But it won't happen.

If the GOP tries to repeal the recent health care law, which actually cut Medicare spending, but doesn't repeal Medicare D, which was added without any revenue increases or spending offsets, then they are not just fiscal frauds, they are fiscal frauds who have only their self-interest guiding them.

You say this with a straight face.  I am impressed.

Chuck with a straight face? Have you seen his profile?

/he's Jewish

I'm pretty sure he actually typed that post with a gimp mask on. So if Morph can see through leather and the Internet, color me impressed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 03, 2010, 05:31:33 PM
1980- Reagan wins presidency. Yay Conservatism!
1982- Dems score big at Midterms. Yay Left-wingism!
1984- Reagan wins every state, unless someone convinced you Minnesota really wasn't just a province south of Manitoba. Yay Reaganomics!
1986 - Dems take control of Senate again. Yay liberalism! Reagan, with Iran Contra, is on the ropes!
1988 - Bush beats Dukakis! Yay GOP!
1990 - Dems score in Midterms! Yay Dems
1992 - Dems score big with Clinton! Yay Dems! Conservatism is dead!
1994 - GOP takes House and Senate! Contract with America! Yay right-wingers!
1996 - Clinton beats Bob Dole! Yay center-left coalition!
1998 - GOP makes more gains in House and Senate; Clinton on ropes with Lewinsky scandal. Yay GOP!
2000 - Bush ekes out win and GOP maintains control of Congress! It's morning again!
2002 - GOP regains Senate, builds up House majority! It's Good to Be Red!
2004 - Bush wins re-election! Yay GOP!
2006 - Dems regain control of House and Senate! Beginning of the end of Compassionate Conservatism!
2008 - Obama sweeps in a huge Congressional majority. Conservatism is dead.  Republicans to look forward to future as a third or fourth party.
2010 - GOP dominates again.

That's 16 elections, 9 "won" by the GOP, 7 by the Dems.

Gloating/depression won't do anyone any good.

I hate it when you use history and logic together.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 04, 2010, 09:50:33 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 03, 2010, 05:31:33 PM

I hate it when you use history and logic together.

If only more people would do that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 04, 2010, 11:40:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 04, 2010, 09:50:33 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 09:45:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 03, 2010, 05:31:33 PM

I hate it when you use history and logic together.

If only more people would do that.

Did you type that with a straight face?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 04, 2010, 12:26:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

I'm going to bookmark this for times when I can't sleep. This will do the job better than Ambien.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 04, 2010, 12:37:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

QuoteTo make a bad situation worse, the housing bust has badly reduced the free flow of labor across state lines, which is now at the lowest percentage ever recorded. Labor mobility is particularly necessary when unemployment is as high as it is now.

Blame it on BC?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 01:01:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!


If they abandon the Pound and start using the Dollar that is when it gets humiliating.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 01:01:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!


If they abandon the Pound and start using the Dollar that is when it gets humiliating.

What if we abandon the Dollar for the Pound?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 01:41:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 01:01:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!


If they abandon the Pound and start using the Dollar that is when it gets humiliating.

What if we abandon the Dollar for the Pound?

George Washington tried that one day while standing on the Bank of the Potomac.  Look where that got him.  (I'm going to be sorry for that)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 04, 2010, 02:09:18 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 01:41:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 04, 2010, 01:01:20 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!


If they abandon the Pound and start using the Dollar that is when it gets humiliating.

What if we abandon the Dollar for the Pound?

George Washington tried that one day while standing on the Bank of the Potomac.  Look where that got him.  (I'm going to be sorry for that)
Especially since it was clearly the Rappahannock.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on November 06, 2010, 09:27:42 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 03, 2010, 04:43:22 PM
Quote from: MikeC on November 03, 2010, 04:15:20 PM
Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 03, 2010, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: SKO on November 03, 2010, 08:31:52 AM
Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.

Also, how are the tea baggers going to respond to the fact that 1/4th of the electorate that voted them into power deeply depend on the social services the new majority intends to cut?

Watching this new House majority is going to be fun.

They'll blame the Democrats, obviously.  The Republicans have gotten really good at screwing their base and then convincing them that it's somebody else's fault.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on November 06, 2010, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!

Speaking of ... anybody think this is he (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1580455901)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on November 06, 2010, 02:04:23 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 06, 2010, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!

Speaking of ... anybody think this is he (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1580455901)?

Check the comments: http://www.sporcle.com/games/espngurus/2010jewishbaseballplayers
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 06, 2010, 02:08:13 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 06, 2010, 02:04:23 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 06, 2010, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!

Speaking of ... anybody think this is he (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1580455901)?

Check the comments: http://www.sporcle.com/games/espngurus/2010jewishbaseballplayers

Now, that's some fine sophistry right there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on November 06, 2010, 02:13:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 06, 2010, 02:08:13 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 06, 2010, 02:04:23 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 06, 2010, 09:30:30 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 04, 2010, 12:50:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 04, 2010, 12:05:18 PM
DOOM http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_NightofLivingFed_3Q10.pdf

Paul, is that you?

QuoteThe U.K. stock market has been more responsive to the U.S.'s Year
3 stimulus than the U.S. market has itself. It shows Britain in its true colors: half a hedge fund and half the 51st state.
[Oh,] How humiliating!

Speaking of ... anybody think this is he (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1580455901)?

Check the comments: http://www.sporcle.com/games/espngurus/2010jewishbaseballplayers

Now, that's some fine sophistry right there.

Mas http://www.sporcle.com/games/triviahappy/Allusions_for_People_and_Characters
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 06, 2010, 03:34:28 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 06, 2010, 02:13:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 06, 2010, 02:08:13 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 06, 2010, 02:04:23 PM
Check the comments: http://www.sporcle.com/games/espngurus/2010jewishbaseballplayers

Now, that's some fine sophistry right there.

Mas http://www.sporcle.com/games/triviahappy/Allusions_for_People_and_Characters

Dead to rights.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/PlanetBoyPhil/tv_abbreviations

Quote from: PWT3I like the Uncle Tom negro above trying to dismiss me with his MLK crap. Malcolm X was the one who knew what was what.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 08, 2010, 06:56:32 PM
Way to go, Google.  This is worse than the Soccer War.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/google-maps-error-blamed-for-nicaraguan-invasion/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 08, 2010, 11:56:00 PM
And the Labor Board makes the front page...of the Huffington Post, so take that for what it's worth.

Nevertheless, a huge decision, with tremendous applications.  I'll spare everyone the pain of having to go to HuffPo, though for the conservatives, I'm sure the NYT isn't that much better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?hp
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 09, 2010, 07:08:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 08, 2010, 11:56:00 PM
And the Labor Board makes the front page...of the Huffington Post,

Joining illustrious company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Planet_and_the_Planeteers).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 09, 2010, 09:47:31 PM
2012 GAMECHANGER, Ogdens. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44895.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 09, 2010, 10:53:46 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 09, 2010, 09:47:31 PM
2012 GAMECHANGER, Ogdens. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44895.html)

I didn't know anything about that guy. He seemed like a good man. Then I got to the end of the article. My suspicions were CORRECT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 01:41:40 PM
The mystical magical debt commission and its preliminary recommendations: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php?ref=fpa
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 01:41:40 PM
The mystical magical debt commission and its preliminary recommendations: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php?ref=fpa

Generally I like what they've come up with, although I'd like to see them go further on nondefense discretionary spending.  They propose to freeze this at 2010 levels.  I'd prefer more like 1998 levels.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 10, 2010, 03:00:28 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 01:41:40 PM
The mystical magical debt commission and its preliminary recommendations: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php?ref=fpa

Generally I like what they've come up with, although I'd like to see them go further on nondefense discretionary spending.  They propose to freeze this at 2010 levels.  I'd prefer more like 1998 levels.

Well of course you would.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 01:41:40 PM
The mystical magical debt commission and its preliminary recommendations: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php?ref=fpa

Generally I like what they've come up with, although I'd like to see them go further on nondefense discretionary spending.  They propose to freeze this at 2010 levels.  I'd prefer more like 1998 levels.

I mean there's so many savings we can get from something that is like 1/4th of the overall budget picture.

We should shut down the whole government, sans military, and then we'd really save money (while still running a deficit).

I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:25:37 PM
Are you serious, W?

QuoteThe venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 01:41:40 PM
The mystical magical debt commission and its preliminary recommendations: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php?ref=fpa

Generally I like what they've come up with, although I'd like to see them go further on nondefense discretionary spending.  They propose to freeze this at 2010 levels.  I'd prefer more like 1998 levels.

[color=green]I mean there's so many savings we can get from something that is like 1/4th of the overall budget picture.

We should shut down the whole government, sans military, and then we'd really save money[/color] (while still running a deficit).

I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.

Therefore, it shouldn't be done.  Got it.

On the other hand, I will agree with you about Medicare.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 01:41:40 PM
The mystical magical debt commission and its preliminary recommendations: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php?ref=fpa

Generally I like what they've come up with, although I'd like to see them go further on nondefense discretionary spending.  They propose to freeze this at 2010 levels.  I'd prefer more like 1998 levels.

[color=green]I mean there's so many savings we can get from something that is like 1/4th of the overall budget picture.

We should shut down the whole government, sans military, and then we'd really save money[/color] (while still running a deficit).

I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.

Therefore, it shouldn't be done.  Got it.

On the other hand, I will agree with you about Medicare.

No, something should be done about it, but the debate doesn't begin and end with nondefense discretionary spending.

Also, did you catch how the bill advocates for a public option for the health care bill?  They threw a ton of red meat to conservatives, but included that.  Fascinating.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 10, 2010, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:25:37 PM
Are you serious, W?

QuoteThe venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2010, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 10, 2010, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:25:37 PM
Are you serious, W?

QuoteThe venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 10, 2010, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2010, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 10, 2010, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:25:37 PM
Are you serious, W?

QuoteThe venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Considering the hatchet job that Bush and Rove applied to McCain then, I can see why McCain would feel that way about Bush, but unless we're missing something, I don't know why Bush would feel that way toward McCain.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 10, 2010, 06:12:41 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 10, 2010, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2010, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 10, 2010, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:25:37 PM
Are you serious, W?

QuoteThe venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Considering the hatchet job that Bush and Rove applied to McCain then, I can see why McCain would feel that way about Bush, but unless we're missing something, I don't know why Bush would feel that way toward McCain.

It's on a British politics gossip blog.  It must be true.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on November 10, 2010, 06:29:44 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 10, 2010, 06:12:41 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 10, 2010, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2010, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 10, 2010, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:25:37 PM
Are you serious, W?

QuoteThe venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Considering the hatchet job that Bush and Rove applied to McCain then, I can see why McCain would feel that way about Bush, but unless we're missing something, I don't know why Bush would feel that way toward McCain.

It's on a British politics gossip blog.  It must be true.

TEC's just asshurt that some "conservative" broke omerta.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on November 10, 2010, 06:35:41 PM


What killed communism?

Jackson Pollock

http://gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 10, 2010, 07:22:53 PM
Quote from: thehawk on November 10, 2010, 06:35:41 PM
What killed communism?

Jackson Pollock

http://gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal

Try telling that to Rep. George A. Dondero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Anthony_Dondero)...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,854994,00.html
http://www.augustana.ualberta.ca/files/group/612/18-Congressman%20Dondero-16Aug1949.pdf

QuoteLegér and Duchamp are now in the United States to aid in the destruction of our standards and traditions.  The former has been a contributor to the Communist cause in America; the latter is now fancied by the neurotics as a surrealist.

A regular sleeper cell right there.

QuoteThe question is, what have we, the plain American people, done to deserve this sore affliction that has been visited upon us so direly; who has brought down this curse upon us; who has let into our homeland this horde of germ-carrying art vermin?

Beware the brainstorms.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 11, 2010, 08:45:28 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:43:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 10, 2010, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 01:41:40 PM
The mystical magical debt commission and its preliminary recommendations: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/deficit-commission-co-chairs-simpson-and-bowles-release-eye-popping-recommendations.php?ref=fpa

Generally I like what they've come up with, although I'd like to see them go further on nondefense discretionary spending.  They propose to freeze this at 2010 levels.  I'd prefer more like 1998 levels.

[color=green]I mean there's so many savings we can get from something that is like 1/4th of the overall budget picture.

We should shut down the whole government, sans military, and then we'd really save money[/color] (while still running a deficit).

I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.

Therefore, it shouldn't be done.  Got it.

On the other hand, I will agree with you about Medicare.

No, something should be done about it, but the debate doesn't begin and end with nondefense discretionary spending.

Also, did you catch how the bill advocates for a public option for the health care bill?  They threw a ton of red meat to conservatives, but included that.  Fascinating.

(http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll52/hardluck_01/Various/strawman-motivational.jpg)

As for the public option... that makes me queasy.  Ugh.  Talk about a way to increase government spending.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 11, 2010, 08:56:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2010, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 10, 2010, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:25:37 PM
Are you serious, W?

QuoteThe venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Heh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 11, 2010, 09:11:47 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 11, 2010, 08:56:12 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 10, 2010, 06:01:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 10, 2010, 05:30:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 04:25:37 PM
Are you serious, W?

QuoteThe venue was the Oval Office. A group of British dignitaries, including Gordon Brown, were paying a visit. It was at the height of the 2008 presidential election campaign, not long after Bush publicly endorsed John McCain as his successor.

Naturally the election came up in conversation. Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate.

Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present."I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me."

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/11/bush-i-probably-wont-even-vote-for-mccain/

I'm sorry but that rules.

Bush knows that the hatred between He and McCain goes back a long way.  Like to South Carolina in 2000.

Heh.

Right.  It is a misspelling.  However, it is well known that there was great antipathy between Bush and Hee Sop Choi.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 11, 2010, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 03:10:11 PM
I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.

Medicare, Medicare, Medicare...

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious

Quote(http://i.imgur.com/n69n6.jpg)

Here's what the chart means:

   * Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What's more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that's fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That's why it's called "discretionary."

   * Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.

   * Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem.

To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 11, 2010, 11:29:22 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 11, 2010, 11:21:22 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 10, 2010, 03:10:11 PM
I like the proposals they made, but they focused too much on SS and not enough on Medicare.  Medicare is the real driving force behind future deficits.

Medicare, Medicare, Medicare...

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious

Quote(http://i.imgur.com/n69n6.jpg)

Here's what the chart means:

   * Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What's more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that's fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That's why it's called "discretionary."

   * Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.

   * Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem.

To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.

Heritage agrees, although they put a little more weight on SS than Drum... from http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/unfunded-liabilities-entitlements

(http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/Images/unfunded-liabilities-entitlements-600.jpg)

QuoteThe nation cannot afford the Medicare and Social Security  benefits that have been promised to future retirees. These long-term unfunded obligations dwarf spending on other expensive government programs, including the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the 2009 economic stimulus bill, and vastly outweigh the entire national debt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 11, 2010, 12:36:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 11, 2010, 11:29:22 AM
QuoteThe nation cannot afford the Medicare and Social Security  benefits that have been promised to future retirees. These long-term unfunded obligations dwarf spending on other expensive government programs, including the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the 2009 economic stimulus bill, and vastly outweigh the entire national debt.

Tarp doesn't even belong in this equation as the real cost will be far less that $700 billion.  Last numbers I saw were on the order of $10bn to $12bn.  And it's even possible (tho, don't ask me to attach a probability) that the result will be a profit for the taxpayers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 11, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
Interesting take on the debt report here: http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/253058/real-deficit-reduction-vs-theoretical-deficit-reduction#
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 12, 2010, 08:53:58 AM
Regarding the tax changes proposed (http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2010/11/11/4677693.html) by Gil's beloved deficit commission:

QuoteMany on the left are focusing on the across-the-board rate reductions, and they are furious that they'd benefit high-earners as well as everyone else. But they are ignoring both the provisions that would tax capital gains and dividends at ordinary income rates and, most importantly, the proposal's overall impact: $750 billion in income tax hikes and additional increases and in the Social Security payroll tax for high-earners and ni the gas tax.

I'd like to see an analysis of how effective rates would change for different income levels. I have a feeling the po' folks don't make out as well as the rich folks in this proposal, but let's see how it plays out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 12, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
Looks like poor Paul Krugman hates the Deficit Commission more than he hates the troops and America, which is saying something something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1
QuoteWe've known for a long time, then, that nothing good would come from the commission. But on Wednesday, when the co-chairmen released a PowerPoint outlining their proposal, it was even worse than the cynics expected.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on November 12, 2010, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 12, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
Looks like poor Paul Krugman hates the Deficit Commission more than he hates the troops and America, which is saying something something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1
QuoteWe've known for a long time, then, that nothing good would come from the commission. But on Wednesday, when the co-chairmen released a PowerPoint outlining their proposal, it was even worse than the cynics expected.

I don't like that he's underestimating us cynics.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 12, 2010, 04:22:19 PM
This is a website I hadn't heard of before today.  They've posted a fascinating set of interviews... http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-ulsterman-report-white-house-insider-review/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 12, 2010, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 12, 2010, 04:22:19 PM
This is a website I hadn't heard of before today.  They've posted a fascinating set of interviews... http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-ulsterman-report-white-house-insider-review/

Seems legit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 12, 2010, 06:41:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 12, 2010, 04:22:19 PM
This is a website I hadn't heard of before today.  They've posted a fascinating set of interviews... http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/the-ulsterman-report-white-house-insider-review/

Meaning you read through them? You must have been really bored.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2010, 06:40:40 PM
In a spirit of bipartisanship:

Go, GOP!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-airport-anger_-GOP-takes-aim-at-screening-1576602-108259869.html

QuoteDid you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, has recently written to the heads of more than 150 airports nationwide suggesting they opt out of TSA screening. "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," Mica writes. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."

In addition to being large, impersonal, and top-heavy, what really worries critics is that the TSA has become dangerously ineffective. Its specialty is what those critics call "security theater" -- that is, a show of what appear to be stringent security measures designed to make passengers feel more secure without providing real security. "That's exactly what it is," says Mica. "It's a big Kabuki dance."

Now, the dance has gotten completely out of hand. And like lots of fliers -- I spoke to him as he waited for a flight at the Orlando airport -- Mica sees TSA's new "naked scanner" machines and groping, grossly invasive passenger pat-downs as just part of a larger problem. TSA, he says, is relying more on passenger humiliation than on practices that are proven staples of airport security.

...

Only adding that, as York notes at the end, simply shifting the reins of unaccountable power from Federal hands to private-but-still-state-sanctioned hands doesn't alone solve anything unless the underlying problems actually get addressed.

And that, as nothing can ever be made 100% safe, if the mere thought of the potential of something bad maybe possibly happening at some point somewhere causes you to piss your pants in fear and to beg someone somewhere to start strip-searching anyone and everyone, maybe you'd be better off staying home with the door dead-bolted. (Just beware of fan death.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2010, 10:46:30 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

The health insurance market/companies is/are efficient?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:49:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2010, 10:46:30 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

The health insurance market/companies is/are efficient?

More efficient than the government?  Yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on November 17, 2010, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

3 months on my current employer. Immediately on the future one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:52:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

Frankly, anyone able to get elected to Congress should be able to afford their own damn insurance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:55:46 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2010, 10:46:30 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

The health insurance market/companies is/are efficient?

They would be if the end user had more control over choosing to which company his or her money goes.

Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:52:24 AM

Frankly, anyone able to get elected to Congress a job should be able to afford their own damn insurance.

Didn't the Congressman-elect offer to pay for any gaps in the length of time it took for the bureaucrats to put him on the rolls? But I see your point. Why not drop the health insurance perk for Congressmen, but give individuals the same tax advantage as their employer to buy their own damn insurance?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 17, 2010, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:55:46 AM
Didn't the Congressman-elect offer to pay for any gaps in the length of time it took for the bureaucrats to put him on the rolls? But I see your point. Why not drop the health insurance perk for Congressmen, but give individuals the same tax advantage as their employer to buy their own damn insurance?

I'm in for this.  Let's also drop their pensions, Franking privileged, and a bunch of other perks that volunteers shouldn't need.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 17, 2010, 11:02:36 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?
I'm just impressed that he's not even sworn in and he's already trying to spend more government money.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on November 17, 2010, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:14:38 AM
Quote from: Yeti on November 17, 2010, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno

None of this would be an issue if we just started electing politicians who were in it to serve.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 11:17:14 AM
Quote from: Yeti on November 17, 2010, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno

The whole time?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 11:18:09 AM
Quote from: Yeti on November 17, 2010, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno

Again, didn't the politician ask to BUY the month of health care from the government, and they said they had no way to do this? And if the government can't even serve a Congressman, how do you think they'll serve you?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:46:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

I think I have like 10 different options for the state of Illinois, and settled with Humana.  In California, I had 12 or so.

No government run anything.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 17, 2010, 11:51:25 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

I don't think RV would argue against either of those...

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg229422#msg229422
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on November 17, 2010, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 11:18:09 AM
Quote from: Yeti on November 17, 2010, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 17, 2010, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:48:46 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

OK, for temp jobs or admins or even entry-level analysts there may be a probationary period.  This is the United States Congress we are talking about here.

The guy doesn't get sworn in until January.  So he's not on the payroll until then, right?

Yes. He's sworn in 1/3 and the health insurance doesn't kick in until Groundhog Day. That's his beef.

I have a hard time a politician doesn't have enough money to pay for his healthcare for a month. I may be obtuse (or is that obese) but I dunno

Again, didn't the politician ask to BUY the month of health care from the government, and they said they had no way to do this? And if the government can't even serve a Congressman, how do you think they'll serve you?

Because, Teej, you are a big fan of allowing individuals the option of buying insurance from a public body instead of an insurer?


And its not like he or his family is going bare.  The government told him what many employers tell their employees, go purchase COBRA coverage from your prior employer for the period.  Of course COBRA is only an option because its a guvermint requirement as well.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

So, what would be a more efficient way of comparing the costs and benefits of each plan?  Going to each company, individually, and finding out what they had to offer, or having a one-stop location to access all of this information?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

So, what would be a more efficient way of comparing the costs and benefits of each plan?  Going to each company, individually, and finding out what they had to offer, or having a one-stop location to access all of this information?

morph preferred the old days before Amazon came along - much easier for the consumer to go to separate websites to buy books, DVDs, and dick cream.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 17, 2010, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

So, what would be a more efficient way of comparing the costs and benefits of each plan?  Going to each company, individually, and finding out what they had to offer, or having a one-stop location to access all of this information?

morph preferred the old days before Amazon came along - much easier for the consumer to go to separate websites to buy books, DVDs, and dick cream.

To be fair, Amazon isn't exactly a government site.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 17, 2010, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

So, what would be a more efficient way of comparing the costs and benefits of each plan?  Going to each company, individually, and finding out what they had to offer, or having a one-stop location to access all of this information?

morph preferred the old days before Amazon came along - much easier for the consumer to go to separate websites to buy books, DVDs, and dick cream.

To be fair, Amazon isn't exactly a government site.

That's what they want you to think, sucker.

Seriously though - the concept of the exchange is the same basic idea as Amazon. A one-stop place where you can compare similar products from different companies, read consumer reviews/ratings, and make decisions based on that information.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 17, 2010, 12:11:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

So, what would be a more efficient way of comparing the costs and benefits of each plan?  Going to each company, individually, and finding out what they had to offer, or having a one-stop location to access all of this information?

morph preferred the old days before Amazon came along - much easier for the consumer to go to separate websites to buy books, DVDs, and dick cream.

To be fair, Amazon isn't exactly a government site.

That's what they want you to think, sucker.

Seriously though - the concept of the exchange is the same basic idea as Amazon. A one-stop place where you can compare similar products from different companies, read consumer reviews/ratings, and make decisions based on that information.

Listen... If the market (and all of the oligopolistic market incumbents thereof) wanted us to be able to easily find and compare deals on insurance, the market would have provided a way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

So, what would be a more efficient way of comparing the costs and benefits of each plan?  Going to each company, individually, and finding out what they had to offer, or having a one-stop location to access all of this information?

morph preferred the old days before Amazon came along - much easier for the consumer to go to separate websites to buy books, DVDs, and dick cream.

To be fair, Amazon isn't exactly a government site.

That's what they want you to think, sucker.

Seriously though - the concept of the exchange is the same basic idea as Amazon. A one-stop place where you can compare similar products from different companies, read consumer reviews/ratings, and make decisions based on that information.

Yes, if the stooges in the private sector could have thought of something like that. (http://www.esurance.com/welcome/home/home/health-insurance.aspx)

Seriously, didn't know this about the g-men and health insurance. Good on them for handing it off to the private sector and giving their employees choice.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:27:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

So, what would be a more efficient way of comparing the costs and benefits of each plan?  Going to each company, individually, and finding out what they had to offer, or having a one-stop location to access all of this information?

morph preferred the old days before Amazon came along - much easier for the consumer to go to separate websites to buy books, DVDs, and dick cream.

To be fair, Amazon isn't exactly a government site.

That's what they want you to think, sucker.

Seriously though - the concept of the exchange is the same basic idea as Amazon. A one-stop place where you can compare similar products from different companies, read consumer reviews/ratings, and make decisions based on that information.

Yes, if the stooges in the private sector could have thought of something like that. (http://www.esurance.com/welcome/home/home/health-insurance.aspx)

Seriously, didn't know this about the g-men and health insurance. Good on them for handing it off to the private sector and giving their employees choice.

Do most people assume federal employees have some kind of government-run health insurance system?  I'm being completely serious.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:28:22 PM
DPD, but this fucking douchebag can go to hell: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/bryan_fischer_weve_feminized_the_medal_of_honor_by.php
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 03:48:00 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:28:22 PM
DPD, but this fucking douchebag can go to hell: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/bryan_fischer_weve_feminized_the_medal_of_honor_by.php

Not to worry. I think he punched his own ticket.

And to your previous question, yes I was under that impression, and the Politico article helped reinforce it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:52:12 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 03:48:00 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:28:22 PM
DPD, but this fucking douchebag can go to hell: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/bryan_fischer_weve_feminized_the_medal_of_honor_by.php

Not to worry. I think he punched his own ticket.

And to your previous question, yes I was under that impression, and the Politico article helped reinforce it.

The only groups of people to whom the federal government provides its own type of health insurance and/or direct health care: Native Americans, poor people, old people, children under 26, and veterans.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on November 17, 2010, 03:55:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:52:12 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 03:48:00 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:28:22 PM
DPD, but this fucking douchebag can go to hell: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/bryan_fischer_weve_feminized_the_medal_of_honor_by.php

Not to worry. I think he punched his own ticket.

And to your previous question, yes I was under that impression, and the Politico article helped reinforce it.

The only groups of people to whom the federal government provides its own type of health insurance and/or direct health care: Native Americans, poor people, old people, children under 26, and veterans.

Guh. We give health care to the savages? There was a time when you conquered somebody and they stayed conquered.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 03:57:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:27:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 12:04:13 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:59:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:55:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:50:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 11:46:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 17, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 17, 2010, 10:41:27 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 10:39:13 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Wonderful: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html

Que Morph with...something.

Meh... it's just a non sequitir, really.  A nonstory. The guy was surprised that his employer didn't cover him from day 1; pretty much every employer in the private sector covers from day 1.

I'm just surprised that Gil linked a story not involving the Palins.  THAT is noteworthy.

I have not noticed that to be the case.

Was it a case where you ahd a 60 or 90-day probationary period? Because as soon as the employer tells the private insurance company to cover an employee, said employee is covered.

That all said, why should a government agency be doing health insurance for employees when there are businesses that could do a more efficient job of it?

Backing up for a second. The government isn't "doing" health insurance for Congressmen. This isn't Medicare - the government is not the insurance provider. Government employees actually have more choice through the FEHB (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/2011/states/il.asp) than I do through my employer. My employer chooses one insurance provider and I'm stuck with them. Government shlubs like Gil get to choose among several different providers. More choice = a better deal for the employees. If that's not efficient I don't know what is.

All you did there was make an argument for 1) delinking employment and health insurance and 2) getting rid of the stupid state insurance monopolies.

You mean like some sort of health insurance exchange?  Where people can buy whatever insurance they want?

Why does it have to be an "exchange"?  Is there some sort of life insurance exchange?  A Property & Casualty exchange?  Why can't it just be, say, insurance companies offering a line of products, and customers buying the ones they want?

So, what would be a more efficient way of comparing the costs and benefits of each plan?  Going to each company, individually, and finding out what they had to offer, or having a one-stop location to access all of this information?

morph preferred the old days before Amazon came along - much easier for the consumer to go to separate websites to buy books, DVDs, and dick cream.

To be fair, Amazon isn't exactly a government site.

That's what they want you to think, sucker.

Seriously though - the concept of the exchange is the same basic idea as Amazon. A one-stop place where you can compare similar products from different companies, read consumer reviews/ratings, and make decisions based on that information.

Yes, if the stooges in the private sector could have thought of something like that. (http://www.esurance.com/welcome/home/home/health-insurance.aspx)

Seriously, didn't know this about the g-men and health insurance. Good on them for handing it off to the private sector and giving their employees choice.

Do most people assume federal employees have some kind of government-run health insurance system?  I'm being completely serious.

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:57:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on November 17, 2010, 03:55:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:52:12 PM
Quote from: Brownie on November 17, 2010, 03:48:00 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 17, 2010, 03:28:22 PM
DPD, but this fucking douchebag can go to hell: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/bryan_fischer_weve_feminized_the_medal_of_honor_by.php

Not to worry. I think he punched his own ticket.

And to your previous question, yes I was under that impression, and the Politico article helped reinforce it.

The only groups of people to whom the federal government provides its own type of health insurance and/or direct health care: Native Americans, poor people, old people, children under 26, and veterans.

Guh. We give health care to the savages? There was a time when you conquered somebody and they stayed conquered.

The IHS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Health_Service), just another garden variety form of socialism, I guess.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 03:57:18 PM

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on November 17, 2010, 05:20:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 03:57:18 PM

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

Morph's army of orphans, however have to wait 3 years before getting coverage.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 05:57:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 03:57:18 PM

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

My comment was that this was the case with "most" employers who provide coverage, not "all" employers.  You are apparently one of a fortunate few.  My comment is based upon literally thousands of contracts that I have seen over five decades.  And, by the way, is a characteristic of every public sector contract that I have ever seen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 17, 2010, 06:11:06 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 05:57:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 03:57:18 PM

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

My comment was that this was the case with "most" employers who provide coverage, not "all" employers.  You are apparently one of a fortunate few.  My comment is based upon literally thousands of contracts that I have seen over five decades.  And, by the way, is a characteristic of every public sector contract that I have ever seen.

What can we say, morph?  You're just exceptional.

*pats morpheus on the head*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on November 17, 2010, 06:11:49 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 05:57:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 03:57:18 PM

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

My comment was that this was the case with "most" employers who provide coverage, not "all" employers.  You are apparently one of a fortunate few.  My comment is based upon literally thousands of contracts that I have seen over five decades.  And, by the way, is a characteristic of every public sector contract that I have ever seen.

Although to be fair, Morph's experience provides a pretty good sample size.

Hell, his last 10 months do.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 17, 2010, 06:40:47 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 17, 2010, 06:11:06 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 05:57:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 17, 2010, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 17, 2010, 03:57:18 PM

This guy is an ignorant clown.  Most employers pay their employees after they have worked, not in advance.   The first paycheck comes at the end of the first month of employment, when it is determined whether the new employee has worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify.   Then the check is sent to the carrier to provide coverage.  

No.  Every job I've had since 1996 (before then I didn't have insurance), I've been covered since my first day of employment.

My comment was that this was the case with "most" employers who provide coverage, not "all" employers.  You are apparently one of a fortunate few.  My comment is based upon literally thousands of contracts that I have seen over five decades.  And, by the way, is a characteristic of every public sector contract that I have ever seen.

What can we say, morph?  You're just exceptional.

*pats morpheus on the head tassles tousle's morpheus' hair*

Oleg'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 08:42:27 AM
Switching gears... Government Motors (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/11/17/what-rattner-isnt-saying-about-gms-turnaround/?boxes=Homepagelighttop) and the dangers of only considering what is seen (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html) when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 18, 2010, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 08:42:27 AM
Switching gears... Government Motors (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/11/17/what-rattner-isnt-saying-about-gms-turnaround/?boxes=Homepagelighttop) and the dangers of only considering what is seen (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html) when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Let's look at the first link:

Quote"I've been saying for a while that I thought the government's exposure [euphemism for taxpayer losses] in the auto bailout was in the $10-billion to $20-billion range."

The bold is Forbes' editorializing.  "Exposure" is NOT a euphemism for loss.  It is a measure of risk.  My exposure on the house I financed in Highland Park is $2.6 million which equals the loan used to back the project.  My loss is unknown because I haven't sold the house yet.  If "exposure" equaled "loss" then I would sell that house for $0.

QuoteI won't argue with Rattner's numbers.  After all, they affirm one of my many criticisms of the bailout: that taxpayers would never recoup the value of their "investment."

They only affirm that Dan Ikenson is writing with an angle, not analysis.

QuoteRattner admirably admits of a cost.  And that cost is not insignificant.  It is anywhere from $65 billion to $82 billion (the range of the cost of the bailout) minus what is being paid back and what investors are willing to pay for GM shares—in the "single-digit billion range," as Rattner says.

Here's where "cost" does equal "exposure."

The bottom line on the GM bailout appears to be this: The government invested just under $50 billion in GM.  After today, $23 billion should be repaid with the government still owning 33% of the company.  If the stock hits $53, the government comes out whole.  The "exposure" is $-0- at that point.  If it goes above $53, the taxpayer of the US make a profit.

Ikenson does go on and list a bunch of unseen costs in the transaction, and some of them are reasonable.  What about the unseen savings?  What about the CNC shop in Wheeling that sells to a guy that sells to a guy that sells to GM?  Might he have folded and put 25 people out of work while the process of the transition of "the sales and market share that should have gone to Ford or Honda or VW as part of the evolutionary market process" evolved?

Yes.  There are unseen costs.  There are also unseen benefits.  When a kid breaks a glass in his dad's shop and gets dressed down, maybe the kid learns something. Maybe the father stats doing business with the guy who replaces the glass.

That's the problem with unseen.  We can't see it all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 18, 2010, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 08:42:27 AM
Switching gears... Government Motors (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/11/17/what-rattner-isnt-saying-about-gms-turnaround/?boxes=Homepagelighttop) and the dangers of only considering what is seen (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html) when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Let's look at the first link:

Quote"I've been saying for a while that I thought the government's exposure [euphemism for taxpayer losses] in the auto bailout was in the $10-billion to $20-billion range."

The bold is Forbes' editorializing.  "Exposure" is NOT a euphemism for loss.  It is a measure of risk.  My exposure on the house I financed in Highland Park is $2.6 million which equals the loan used to back the project.  My loss is unknown because I haven't sold the house yet.  If "exposure" equaled "loss" then I would sell that house for $0.

QuoteI won't argue with Rattner's numbers.  After all, they affirm one of my many criticisms of the bailout: that taxpayers would never recoup the value of their "investment."

They only affirm that Dan Ikenson is writing with an angle, not analysis.

QuoteRattner admirably admits of a cost.  And that cost is not insignificant.  It is anywhere from $65 billion to $82 billion (the range of the cost of the bailout) minus what is being paid back and what investors are willing to pay for GM shares—in the "single-digit billion range," as Rattner says.

Here's where "cost" does equal "exposure."

The bottom line on the GM bailout appears to be this: The government invested just under $50 billion in GM.  After today, $23 billion should be repaid with the government still owning 33% of the company.  If the stock hits $53, the government comes out whole.  The "exposure" is $-0- at that point.  If it goes above $53, the taxpayer of the US make a profit.

Ikenson does go on and list a bunch of unseen costs in the transaction, and some of them are reasonable.  What about the unseen savings?  What about the CNC shop in Wheeling that sells to a guy that sells to a guy that sells to GM?  Might he have folded and put 25 people out of work while the process of the transition of "the sales and market share that should have gone to Ford or Honda or VW as part of the evolutionary market process" evolved?

Yes.  There are unseen costs.  There are also unseen benefits.  When a kid breaks a glass in his dad's shop and gets dressed down, maybe the kid learns something. Maybe the father stats doing business with the guy who replaces the glass.

That's the problem with unseen.  We can't see it all.

You've illustrated the fallacy perfectly in your argument, Chuck.  What is seen is "oh noes that CNC guy had to fold up, how will they feed their children!!!???"  What is not seen is "GM's crappy product employed resources inefficiently, and their bankruptcy led to people doing better things with their lives than supplying GM with parts to make crappy products."  Or, "Ford/Honda/VW, after taking over GM's resources, needs the good or service that the CNC guy provided, so the CNC guy's competitors hire 20 of the 25 workers, and the other 5 go on to more economically useful/productive jobs, so everyone ends up ahead."

You are focusing on what is seen (the guy with 25 employees) versus what is not seen (better use of resources leads to benefits for many consumers).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 18, 2010, 10:17:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
What is not seen is "GM's crappy product employed resources inefficiently, and their bankruptcy led to people doing better things with their lives than supplying GM with parts to make crappy products."

In the middle of a once-in-a-half-century worldwide economic contraction. You know... in the abstract.

Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 11:50:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 18, 2010, 10:17:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 09:56:11 AM
What is not seen is "GM's crappy product employed resources inefficiently, and their bankruptcy led to people doing better things with their lives than supplying GM with parts to make crappy products."

In the middle of a once-in-a-half-century worldwide economic contraction. You know... in the abstract.

Related: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html

I think http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18clemens.html is more relevant to GM.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 18, 2010, 12:31:36 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 08:42:27 AM
Switching gears... Government Motors (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/11/17/what-rattner-isnt-saying-about-gms-turnaround/?boxes=Homepagelighttop) and the dangers of only considering what is seen (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html) when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Do you guys have meetings where you come up with cute nicknames for stuff?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 18, 2010, 12:41:37 PM
For Pen...

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/16/5477568-are-airport-x-ray-scanners-harmful

QuotePeter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, did his own calculations and found the exposure to be about one-fiftieth to one-hundredth the amount of a standard chest X-ray. He calculated the risk of getting cancer from a single scan at about 1 in 30 million, "which puts it somewhat less than being killed by being struck by lightning in any one year," he told me.

While the risk of getting a fatal cancer from the screening is minuscule, it's about equal to the probability that an airplane will get blown up by a terrorist, he added. "So my view is there is not a case to be made for deploying them to prevent such a low probability event."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 18, 2010, 01:00:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 18, 2010, 12:31:36 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 08:42:27 AM
Switching gears... Government Motors (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/11/17/what-rattner-isnt-saying-about-gms-turnaround/?boxes=Homepagelighttop) and the dangers of only considering what is seen (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html) when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Do you guys have meetings where you come up with cute nicknames for stuff?

Like the Death Tax?  Or Democrat [sic] Party?  Or the transformation of the word "liberal" into an epithet?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 18, 2010, 01:01:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 18, 2010, 12:31:36 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 18, 2010, 08:42:27 AM
Switching gears... Government Motors (http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2010/11/17/what-rattner-isnt-saying-about-gms-turnaround/?boxes=Homepagelighttop) and the dangers of only considering what is seen (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html) when analyzing the BAILOUT.  That second link should be required reading for anyone purporting to perform economic analysis.

Do you guys have meetings where you come up with cute nicknames for stuff?

He's on the Roger Ailes conference call every morning.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 18, 2010, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 18, 2010, 01:00:28 PM
Or the transformation of the word "liberal" into an epithet?

Frankly, the current crop of liberals has done a good enough job on their own discrediting the term over the past 20 years.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 18, 2010, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 18, 2010, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 18, 2010, 01:00:28 PM
Or the transformation of the word "liberal" into an epithet?

Frankly, the current crop of liberals has done a good enough job on their own discrediting the term over the past 20 years.

Except they're not liberals at all.

Gil, don't forget Obamacare.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 18, 2010, 02:20:12 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 18, 2010, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 18, 2010, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 18, 2010, 01:00:28 PM
Or the transformation of the word "liberal" into an epithet?

Frankly, the current crop of liberals has done a good enough job on their own discrediting the term over the past 20 years.

Except they're not liberals at all.

Gil, don't forget Obamacare.

I think you mean NObamacare.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 18, 2010, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 18, 2010, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 18, 2010, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 18, 2010, 01:00:28 PM
Or the transformation of the word "liberal" into an epithet?

Frankly, the current crop of liberals has done a good enough job on their own discrediting the term over the past 20 years.

Except they're not liberals at all.

Gil, don't forget Obamacare.




Sorry, I meant to put "liberal" in scare quotes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 22, 2010, 08:51:48 AM
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/whose-getting-rich-selling-those-see.html

QuoteIt was revealed that Rapiscan Systems, the manufacturer of the naked body scanner Chertoff was recommending, was a client of Chertoff's security consulting agency.

Really?  That's the name of the company that manufactures nekkid body scanners?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 22, 2010, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 22, 2010, 08:51:48 AM
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/whose-getting-rich-selling-those-see.html

QuoteIt was revealed that Rapiscan Systems, the manufacturer of the naked body scanner Chertoff was recommending, was a client of Chertoff's security consulting agency.

Really?  That's the name of the company that manufactures nekkid body scanners?

Least something something?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 22, 2010, 11:47:46 AM
I'm glad we keep our nukes in such capable hands. Yikes. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-drunk-nuke-drivers,0,5914872.story)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2010, 05:20:25 PM
No matter our political differences, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this guy can burn in hell: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/man-charged-with-animal-cruelty-a-repeat-offender.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 23, 2010, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2010, 05:20:25 PM
No matter our political differences, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this guy can burn in hell: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/man-charged-with-animal-cruelty-a-repeat-offender.html

(http://gatorstud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Michael-Vick-Playgirl.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2010, 05:52:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 23, 2010, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2010, 05:20:25 PM
No matter our political differences, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this guy can burn in hell: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/man-charged-with-animal-cruelty-a-repeat-offender.html

(http://gatorstud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Michael-Vick-Playgirl.jpg)

So, did you actually go to Playgirl to find that photo?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 23, 2010, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2010, 05:52:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 23, 2010, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2010, 05:20:25 PM
No matter our political differences, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this guy can burn in hell: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/man-charged-with-animal-cruelty-a-repeat-offender.html

(http://gatorstud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Michael-Vick-Playgirl.jpg)

So, did you actually go to Playgirl to find that photo?

He already had his browser open to it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 23, 2010, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 23, 2010, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2010, 05:52:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 23, 2010, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2010, 05:20:25 PM
No matter our political differences, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that this guy can burn in hell: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/man-charged-with-animal-cruelty-a-repeat-offender.html

(http://gatorstud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Michael-Vick-Playgirl.jpg)

So, did you actually go to Playgirl to find that photo?

He already had his browser open to it.

He was visiting Playgirl to get directions away from it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:04:32 AM
Motor Trend magazine scolds El Rushbo: http://www.mediaite.com/online/motor-trend-editor-to-rush-limbaugh-driving-and-oxycontin-dont-mix/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 24, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 24, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
   The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
   Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

Hey, I read that book.

But you're referencing the poem.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 24, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
   The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
   Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

Hey, I read that book.

But you're referencing the poem.

How about "fins to the left, fins to the right"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 01:00:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 24, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
   The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
   Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

Hey, I read that book.

But you're referencing the poem.

How about "fins to the left, fins to the right"?

Die slow.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 01:00:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 24, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
   The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
   Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

Hey, I read that book.

But you're referencing the poem.

How about "fins to the left, fins to the right"?

Die slow.

I'm not going to lie, I felt dirty writing that post.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 01:00:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 24, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
   The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
   Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

Hey, I read that book.

But you're referencing the poem.

How about "fins to the left, fins to the right"?

Die slow.

I'm not going to lie, I felt dirty writing that post.

Why would we think you would lie about that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 24, 2010, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 02:22:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 01:01:06 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 01:00:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 24, 2010, 12:08:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 24, 2010, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
   The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
   Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

Hey, I read that book.

But you're referencing the poem.

How about "fins to the left, fins to the right"?

Die slow.

I'm not going to lie, I felt dirty writing that post.

Why would we think you would lie about that?

Because he's nothing if not Nixonian.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 24, 2010, 08:30:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 24, 2010, 10:02:37 AM
Newsflash: 41% of Democrats want to lose the White House in 2012. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-dems-want-primary-opponent-for-obama.php

QuoteBut of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who favor a challenge for the party's nomination, 39% say they'd like the primary challenge to come from the left, while 40% want the challenge to come from the right.

Too crazy for Boys Town, too much of a boy for Crazy Town. The child was an outcast.

Come my lady, come, come my lady...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 26, 2010, 08:13:17 AM

The NORKS are the good guys now? (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023899-503544.html?tag=pop)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 26, 2010, 11:19:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 26, 2010, 08:13:17 AM

The NORKS are the good guys now? (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023899-503544.html?tag=pop)

OBSESSED!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on November 26, 2010, 03:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 26, 2010, 11:19:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 26, 2010, 08:13:17 AM

The NORKS are the good guys now? (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023899-503544.html?tag=pop)

OBSESSED!

GOTCHA MEDIA!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on December 01, 2010, 01:20:24 PM
Greg Hintz with some very accurate words (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=greg-hinz&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a23b77c32-f9e1-45f2-ba1b-0c0564dbc350&sid=sitelife.chicagobusiness.com):

(D)iscretionary spending — both defense and non-defense — will amount to about $1.3 trillion this year. That's dwarfed by non-discretionary spending: $701 billion for Social Security; $720 billion for Medicare/Medicaid; $435 billion for items like food stamps and Supplemental Security Income for kids and the disabled, and a stunning $1.2 trillion in tax breaks.

   That last item includes all sorts of sacred cows, things like the home-mortgage deduction, hiring tax credits, investment tax credits and housing subsidies.

   Put a different way, most of the federal budget now is on auto pilot. The money goes out the door automatically. Much in the form of transfer payments (Social Security and Medicare, for instance) and much in the form of tax breaks that, once law, are almost impossible to remove.

   Each item has strong defenders. Almost none of them represent low-hanging fruit — like arts funding is for Republicans, or more money for Army tanks is for Democrats (unless, of course, the tanks are built in my state).

   That's the backdrop of the great debate that now has begun.

   Given the times and results of the recent election, I can't blame fiscal conservatives for trying to seize the moment. In many ways, they're right. Ultimately, a nation can't spend what it doesn't have.

  But once the current recession hangover wears off — and it will — I doubt whether the American public really is committed to cutting spending, when it's their programs that will go.  Like I said above, shared sacrifice is for someone else.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 07, 2010, 08:56:50 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

I give up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 07, 2010, 09:12:11 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on December 07, 2010, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

The only time either party gives a shit about the deficit is during election season when they need votes. The deficit doesn't matter after that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 07, 2010, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Waco Kid on December 07, 2010, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

The only time either party gives a shit about the deficit is during election season when they need votes. The deficit doesn't matter after that.

Dick Cheney taught me that deficits don't matter anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on December 07, 2010, 10:20:12 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 07, 2010, 10:20:12 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

Those don't correlate very well with tax rates though, which was my point.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on December 07, 2010, 10:36:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

You're absolutely right. There's no way hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue from expiring tax cuts could possibly have any affect on a budget deficit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 10:36:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

You're absolutely right. There's no way hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue from expiring tax cuts could possibly have any affect on a budget deficit.

You're absolutely right.  No one will do anything differently when faced with higher tax rates.  I have a feeling that despite your quoting my post, you didn't actually read it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on December 07, 2010, 10:50:17 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 10:36:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

You're absolutely right. There's no way hundreds of billions of dollars in added revenue from expiring tax cuts could possibly have any affect on a budget deficit.

You're absolutely right.  No one will do anything differently when faced with higher tax rates.  I have a feeling that despite your quoting my post, you didn't actually read it.

I read it. Here's a novel thought...since profits (and not revenues) are taxed, wouldn't a higher bracket INCENTIVIZE hiring in order to avoid moving into a higher bracket?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on December 07, 2010, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 07, 2010, 10:20:12 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

Those don't correlate very well with tax rates though, which was my point.

So - if the argument is that individuals adjust their behavior based on tax rates (increase productivity when rates are high, decrease productivity when rates are low) - revenue is basically dependent on general economic conditions - right? So why do we see periods when receipts outpace GDP (late 90s) and GDP outpaces receipts (early 90s)?

(http://www.econdataus.com/recgro09.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on December 07, 2010, 11:14:42 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 07, 2010, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 07, 2010, 10:20:12 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

Those don't correlate very well with tax rates though, which was my point.

So - if the argument is that individuals adjust their behavior based on tax rates (increase productivity when rates are high, decrease productivity when rates are low) - revenue is basically dependent on general economic conditions - right? So why do we see periods when receipts outpace GDP (late 90s) and GDP outpaces receipts (early 90s)?

(http://www.econdataus.com/recgro09.jpg)

Also:

(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i149/RNRJim/854182719_a907c5f9c8.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 07, 2010, 11:27:14 AM
I think this tax cut deal is pretty good for all parties.  A 13 month extension of UI is incredibly generous, considering that Pelosi's legislation would have only done 3 months.  Coupled with the other tax deals in there, this thing could amount to another (wait for it...) stimulus.

Both parties got something and both parties gave up something.  I now have a sliver of hope in this country's ability to get some things accomplished.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 11:59:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 07, 2010, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 07, 2010, 10:20:12 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 07, 2010, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 07, 2010, 08:20:54 AM
I don't want to hear shit about debt or deficits for the next 2 years (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2).

Everyone knows that it's the spending that drives deficits, not the income tax rates.  Or, that is, they *should* know that.  The problem is that people, shockingly, respond to incentives and change their behavior when tax rates rise.  To support this assertion, here's a chart using data from the Deficit Commission's work as well as the CBO (I am just using it for the historical data, not the projections).  You'll notice that whatever the tax rates were, the government really hasn't been able to collect more than 21% of GDP in taxes.  In fact, the historical average is more like 17.5% of GDP.  That's whether we had the 90% top marginal tax rates of the 1950s or the 28% top rate of the late 1980s.

(http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Commission%20RevenuesJPG_0.jpg)

So, your comment about the extension materially affecting the deficit is misguided.

I'd argue that the difference between 20% or so (where revenue was at around 1970, 1980, and 2000) and 15% or so (1950 and 2010) seams pretty significant to me. 5% of 15 trillion-ish GDP is $750 billion.

Assuming a federal budget of around $3.5 trillion, that's about a fifth of the budget.

Those don't correlate very well with tax rates though, which was my point.

So - if the argument is that individuals adjust their behavior based on tax rates (increase productivity when rates are high, decrease productivity when rates are low) - revenue is basically dependent on general economic conditions - right? So why do we see periods when receipts outpace GDP (late 90s) and GDP outpaces receipts (early 90s)?

(http://www.econdataus.com/recgro09.jpg)

Eli's right... nice chart, RV.  But seriously, 10-year growth rates?  Talk about noise...

GDP and receipts will *never* grow at the same rate, because GDP is dependent on several factors including government spending, which we all know grew at a relatively slower rate in the late 1990s (hence the "Clinton Surpluses.")  That chart would be more relevant if you got rid of some of the lines and put in the top marginal tax rate so we could more directly see the interaction between tax rate, actual receipts, and GDP.

But what I showed above still remains the same.  No matter how hard the government tries the level of receipts as a percentage of GDP is remarkably consistent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 08:08:56 AM
Luke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON. (http://yhoo.it/exXjdD)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on December 08, 2010, 08:50:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 08:08:56 AMLuke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON. (http://yhoo.it/exXjdD)

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

QuoteDB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 08, 2010, 08:50:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 08:08:56 AMLuke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON. (http://yhoo.it/exXjdD)

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

QuoteDB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.

I'm shocked that rich, white, southern men feel this way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on December 08, 2010, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 08, 2010, 08:50:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 08:08:56 AMLuke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON. (http://yhoo.it/exXjdD)

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

QuoteDB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.

I'm shocked that rich, white, southern men feel this way.

American = White
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on December 08, 2010, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 08, 2010, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 08, 2010, 08:50:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 08:08:56 AMLuke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON. (http://yhoo.it/exXjdD)

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

QuoteDB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.

I'm shocked that rich, white, southern men feel this way.

American = White

I always have my birth certificate within easy reach to prove that I am a REAL AMERICAN.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 08, 2010, 10:11:41 AM
Quote from: powen01 on December 08, 2010, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 08, 2010, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 08, 2010, 08:50:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 08:08:56 AMLuke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON. (http://yhoo.it/exXjdD)

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

QuoteDB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.

I'm shocked that rich, white, southern men feel this way.

American = White

I always have my birth certificate within easy reach to prove that I am a REAL AMERICAN.

Traveling to Arizona anytime soon?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on December 08, 2010, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 08, 2010, 10:11:41 AM
Quote from: powen01 on December 08, 2010, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 08, 2010, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 09:02:49 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 08, 2010, 08:50:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 08:08:56 AMLuke Scott and and MikeC? SAME PERSON. (http://yhoo.it/exXjdD)

Now we know why the Tards want Berkman. La Russa needs a buddy to go with him to Tea Party rallies.

QuoteDB: You must miss talking to Berkman.
LS: Lance? Lance is awesome. He's what I call "A fellow American." He's a good man.

I'm shocked that rich, white, southern men feel this way.

American = White

I always have my birth certificate within easy reach to prove that I am a REAL AMERICAN.

Traveling to Arizona anytime soon?

Maybe...  I am headed to Decatur, IL next week.  Is Arizona close to there?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on December 08, 2010, 01:33:17 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.

When I finally saw mine, I realized that my Mom didn't actual know my correct birth date.  It seems that she just celebrated it at the end of January on whatever day was most convenient for her schedule.  I was also born in St. Louis...  Oh how...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 01:39:28 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.

I've had to use my birth certificate a few times. My registered birth number is 666.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 01:39:28 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.

I've had to use my birth certificate a few times. My registered birth number is 666.



I KNEW IT!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 01:49:00 PM
The University of San Francisco, a Jesuit institution, successfully petitioned the telephone company to change the prefix of its phone numbers for administration and staff.  Before it was changed that prefix was 666.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JakeD on December 08, 2010, 01:54:21 PM
Quote from: Slaky on December 08, 2010, 01:39:28 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.

I've had to use my birth certificate a few times. My registered birth number is 666.



Hi Ronald Reagan
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 01:49:00 PM
The University of San Francisco, a Jesuit institution, successfully petitioned the telephone company to change the prefix of its phone numbers for administration and staff.  Before it was changed that prefix was 666.

That reminds me of the June Jones incident at U of Hawaii...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.

John McCain wasn't born in 'merica, was he?

edit: DPD
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:59:43 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.

John McCain wasn't born in 'merica, was he?

edit: DPD

He was a secret Panamanian.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 08, 2010, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.

John McCain wasn't born in 'merica, was he?

edit: DPD

Panama Canal Zone, to be exact, I believe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 02:09:21 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 08, 2010, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.

John McCain wasn't born in 'merica, was he?

edit: DPD

Panama Canal Zone, to be exact, I believe.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg232368#msg232368 (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg232368#msg232368)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL-IaFKsIw4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL-IaFKsIw4)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on December 08, 2010, 02:12:21 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 02:09:21 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 08, 2010, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:57:37 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 08, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 08, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: CBStew on December 08, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
How many of us have even looked at our birth certificates?  How does that piece of paper prove that I was born in Chicago on the date shown?  How do I know that the person named on that paper is me?  In my case there is a footprint on the paper.  Is there a national footprint registry somewhere?  My foot has changed considerably over the decades.  No one is going to look at that print and say, "Yep, that is you alright."  Ron Santo would have had one hell of a time proving that the footprint on his alleged birth certificate belonged  to him.  Sorry, Ron.  No feet-no proof that you were ever born.

Here's a better one.  My  orginal birth certificate may or may not exist anymore.  I may not be real.
Oh, yeah?  Here's one that will completely blow ya'll's minds.

I've seen Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, but not Bob Dole's, George W. Bush's, or John McCain's.  So I actually have more evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen than any of the three men I've voted for for President.

John McCain wasn't born in 'merica, was he?

edit: DPD

Panama Canal Zone, to be exact, I believe.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg232368#msg232368 (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg232368#msg232368)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL-IaFKsIw4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL-IaFKsIw4)

Today is TEC's special day.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 10, 2010, 04:10:06 PM
Bernie Sanders in hour seven of a filibuster on CSPAN2. Reading letters from his constituents.

This is pretty cool.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on December 10, 2010, 04:47:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on December 10, 2010, 04:10:06 PM
Bernie Sanders in hour seven of a filibuster on CSPAN2. Reading letters from his constituents.

This is pretty cool.


I have no life.

CSPAN'd?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 10, 2010, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: PenPho on December 10, 2010, 04:47:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on December 10, 2010, 04:10:06 PM
Bernie Sanders in hour seven of a filibuster on CSPAN2. Reading letters from his constituents.

This is pretty cool.


I have no life.

CSPAN'd?

Home sick'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on December 11, 2010, 02:17:41 PM
What will the New World Order stoop to next? (http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/bizarre/12002346324877/fla-strip-club-offers-free-flu-shots-for-elderly/) Coopting strip-club lunches is beyond the pale.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 11, 2010, 03:14:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on December 11, 2010, 02:17:41 PM
What will the New World Order stoop to next? (http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/bizarre/12002346324877/fla-strip-club-offers-free-flu-shots-for-elderly/) Coopting strip-club lunches is beyond the pale.

Indeed. Is nothing sacred anymore?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on December 11, 2010, 08:27:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 11, 2010, 03:14:34 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on December 11, 2010, 02:17:41 PM
What will the New World Order stoop to next? (http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/bizarre/12002346324877/fla-strip-club-offers-free-flu-shots-for-elderly/) Coopting strip-club lunches is beyond the pale.

Indeed. Is nothing sacred anymore?

QuoteThe club offered free shots and an open buffet lunch all Casselberry residents, veterans and city employees on Tuesday.

At least they still support the troops.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on December 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM

Sorry, Oleg (http://www.wbez.org/story/pot-train-arrives-chicago-11-tons-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cprmetro+(Chicago+Public+Media+-+Metro+Desk+)).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 17, 2010, 08:41:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM

Sorry, Oleg (http://www.wbez.org/story/pot-train-arrives-chicago-11-tons-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cprmetro+(Chicago+Public+Media+-+Metro+Desk+)).

Quote"The way I look at it is this is 11 tons that won't be on the street. So it's a win-win for everybody," said Hartwig.

Everybody?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on December 17, 2010, 08:53:50 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 17, 2010, 08:41:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM

Sorry, Oleg (http://www.wbez.org/story/pot-train-arrives-chicago-11-tons-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cprmetro+(Chicago+Public+Media+-+Metro+Desk+)).

Quote"The way I look at it is this is 11 tons that won't be on the street. So it's a win-win for everybody," said Hartwig.

Everybody?

Are they "destroying" the marijuana like the customs office is destroying the 30,000 Cuban cigars seized at O'Hare last week? Do they outsource the destruction of these goods? The O.K. Contraband Incineration Company would put together a competitive bid, no?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 17, 2010, 09:21:02 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 17, 2010, 08:53:50 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 17, 2010, 08:41:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM

Sorry, Oleg (http://www.wbez.org/story/pot-train-arrives-chicago-11-tons-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cprmetro+(Chicago+Public+Media+-+Metro+Desk+)).

Quote"The way I look at it is this is 11 tons that won't be on the street. So it's a win-win for everybody," said Hartwig.

Everybody?

Are they "destroying" the marijuana like the customs office is destroying the 30,000 Cuban cigars seized at O'Hare last week? Do they outsource the destruction of these goods? The O.K. Contraband Incineration Company would put together a competitive bid, no?

I've "destroyed" quite a few cigars as well as ounces of marijuana in my day. Probably in the same fashion these guys did/will.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on December 17, 2010, 09:42:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 17, 2010, 09:21:02 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 17, 2010, 08:53:50 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 17, 2010, 08:41:24 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM

Sorry, Oleg (http://www.wbez.org/story/pot-train-arrives-chicago-11-tons-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cprmetro+(Chicago+Public+Media+-+Metro+Desk+)).

Quote"The way I look at it is this is 11 tons that won't be on the street. So it's a win-win for everybody," said Hartwig.

Everybody?

Are they "destroying" the marijuana like the customs office is destroying the 30,000 Cuban cigars seized at O'Hare last week? Do they outsource the destruction of these goods? The O.K. Contraband Incineration Company would put together a competitive bid, no?

I've "destroyed" quite a few cigars as well as ounces of marijuana in my day. Probably in the same fashion these guys did/will.

We all have to do our jobs as responsible citizens.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on December 17, 2010, 10:59:15 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM

Sorry, Oleg (http://www.wbez.org/story/pot-train-arrives-chicago-11-tons-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cprmetro+(Chicago+Public+Media+-+Metro+Desk+)).

Well, that's disappointing.  Luckily, it was probably crap weed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on December 17, 2010, 11:05:23 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 17, 2010, 10:59:15 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM

Sorry, Oleg (http://www.wbez.org/story/pot-train-arrives-chicago-11-tons-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cprmetro+(Chicago+Public+Media+-+Metro+Desk+)).

Well, that's disappointing.  Luckily, it was probably crap weed.

This is just like the Aesop fable of the fox and the schwag.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on December 17, 2010, 11:10:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on December 17, 2010, 11:05:23 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 17, 2010, 10:59:15 AM
Quote from: Fork on December 17, 2010, 08:28:03 AM

Sorry, Oleg (http://www.wbez.org/story/pot-train-arrives-chicago-11-tons-marijuana?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cprmetro+(Chicago+Public+Media+-+Metro+Desk+)).

Well, that's disappointing.  Luckily, it was probably crap weed.

This is just like the Aesop fable of the fox and the schwag.

QuoteAccording to Hartwig the largest marijuana seizure in the last eight years in Chicago was 8 thousand pounds.  This 11 ton shipment works out to about 22 thousand pounds, with an estimated value of $22 million.

At $62.50 an ounce, I'd be upset if there weren't a rusty nail in every bag.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on December 17, 2010, 12:07:42 PM
DPD. A far more grievous bust. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/tinley-park-pot-bust-fami_n_798170.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 18, 2010, 02:27:45 PM
(http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/files/2010/12/mike12172010.jpg)

Don't ask, don't tell.

1993-2010
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on December 18, 2010, 05:53:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 18, 2010, 02:27:45 PM
(http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/files/2010/12/mike12172010.jpg)

Don't ask, don't tell.

1993-2010

Ahoy, sailor.

(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a69/joanovarc/sailor-gay.jpg)

I want to plant a big fat sloppy ghey kiss on every Senator who voted for the repeal. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on December 20, 2010, 07:27:04 AM

Does this mean TEC goes back in?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on December 20, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Well, he did an awesome job attacking the strawman that those who believe endorse medieval practices, deny science, and don't believe in things like evolution. I get it, dogma is a bad thing. It's possible to have faith without it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Well, he did an awesome job attacking the strawman that those who believe endorse medieval practices, deny science, and don't believe in things like evolution. I get it, dogma is a bad thing. It's possible to have faith without it.

You mean that article didn't change your mind? I assumed it would have.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on December 20, 2010, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Well, he did an awesome job attacking the strawman that those who believe endorse medieval practices, deny science, and don't believe in things like evolution. I get it, dogma is a bad thing. It's possible to have faith without it.

You mean that article didn't change your mind? I assumed it would have.

I'm shocked as well. Oh well. This collective outside of Yeti is generally non-antagonisitic on the religion front, so I'm not going to get all asshurt. I just find it amusing that when I tell people I'm a Christian it more or less follows that I:

A) Am a Biblical literalist or subscribe completely to the doctrines of a specific church, therefore invalidating my faith because those are easily, easily refuted or
B) If I do not subscribe to all of those things, I am conceding that my religion does not make sense and thus it is pointless and I'm merely practicing a religion of convenience
C) I must apparently oppose science or progress despite the large number of religiously affiliated hospitals and schools and outside of Galileo the long and mixed history of the church often supporting those causes.
D) I really give a shit why you don't hold my beliefs. I don't. I want my religion out of the government the same as you, because my government is only bound to fuck up my religion.

I hate dogma just as much as the next guy. I don't subscribe to all of the beliefs of any particular church. Hell, I spent last Friday night at a mosque talking to an Imam whom I consider a friend of mine. I realize I'm in the minority, but nothing about what that guy wrote really holds water. Having faith, assuming you aren't a closed-minded fanatic (which applies to any group, religious or secular), is about finding truth. He talks about how humble science is, and how it knows what it knows and doesn't pretend to know more, well, my entire faith is based on the fact that I realize I know very, very little and am thus not closed off to the possibility of the transcendent. I'm sorry he's obviously met a lot of annoying dogmatic religious people. I'm sorry I've met them too. It doesn't really refute the very concept of religion, however, simply because the SKO Theory that Assholes will be Assholes Regardless of Creed or Color will always hold true.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:44:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Well, he did an awesome job attacking the strawman that those who believe endorse medieval practices, deny science, and don't believe in things like evolution. I get it, dogma is a bad thing. It's possible to have faith without it.

You mean that article didn't change your mind? I assumed it would have.

I'm shocked as well. Oh well. This collective outside of Yeti is generally non-antagonisitic on the religion front, so I'm not going to get all asshurt. I just find it amusing that when I tell people I'm a Christian it more or less follows that I:

A) Am a Biblical literalist or subscribe completely to the doctrines of a specific church, therefore invalidating my faith because those are easily, easily refuted or
B) If I do not subscribe to all of those things, I am conceding that my religion does not make sense and thus it is pointless and I'm merely practicing a religion of convenience
C) I must apparently oppose science or progress despite the large number of religiously affiliated hospitals and schools and outside of Galileo the long and mixed history of the church often supporting those causes.
D) I really give a shit why you don't hold my beliefs. I don't. I want my religion out of the government the same as you, because my government is only bound to fuck up my religion.

I hate dogma just as much as the next guy. I don't subscribe to all of the beliefs of any particular church. Hell, I spent last Friday night at a mosque talking to an Imam whom I consider a friend of mine. I realize I'm in the minority, but nothing about what that guy wrote really holds water. Having faith, assuming you aren't a closed-minded fanatic (which applies to any group, religious or secular), is about finding truth. He talks about how humble science is, and how it knows what it knows and doesn't pretend to know more, well, my entire faith is based on the fact that I realize I know very, very little and am thus not closed off to the possibility of the transcendent. I'm sorry he's obviously met a lot of annoying dogmatic religious people. I'm sorry I've met them too. It doesn't really refute the very concept of religion, however, simply because the SKO Theory that Assholes will be Assholes Regardless of Creed or Color will always hold true.

I really hope no one takes the bait on this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on December 20, 2010, 09:54:22 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:44:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Well, he did an awesome job attacking the strawman that those who believe endorse medieval practices, deny science, and don't believe in things like evolution. I get it, dogma is a bad thing. It's possible to have faith without it.

You mean that article didn't change your mind? I assumed it would have.

I'm shocked as well. Oh well. This collective outside of Yeti is generally non-antagonisitic on the religion front, so I'm not going to get all asshurt. I just find it amusing that when I tell people I'm a Christian it more or less follows that I:

A) Am a Biblical literalist or subscribe completely to the doctrines of a specific church, therefore invalidating my faith because those are easily, easily refuted or
B) If I do not subscribe to all of those things, I am conceding that my religion does not make sense and thus it is pointless and I'm merely practicing a religion of convenience
C) I must apparently oppose science or progress despite the large number of religiously affiliated hospitals and schools and outside of Galileo the long and mixed history of the church often supporting those causes.
D) I really give a shit why you don't hold my beliefs. I don't. I want my religion out of the government the same as you, because my government is only bound to fuck up my religion.

I hate dogma just as much as the next guy. I don't subscribe to all of the beliefs of any particular church. Hell, I spent last Friday night at a mosque talking to an Imam whom I consider a friend of mine. I realize I'm in the minority, but nothing about what that guy wrote really holds water. Having faith, assuming you aren't a closed-minded fanatic (which applies to any group, religious or secular), is about finding truth. He talks about how humble science is, and how it knows what it knows and doesn't pretend to know more, well, my entire faith is based on the fact that I realize I know very, very little and am thus not closed off to the possibility of the transcendent. I'm sorry he's obviously met a lot of annoying dogmatic religious people. I'm sorry I've met them too. It doesn't really refute the very concept of religion, however, simply because the SKO Theory that Assholes will be Assholes Regardless of Creed or Color will always hold true.

I really hope no one takes the bait on this.

It's not meant to be bait. If so, that's the exact opposite of my intention. Strike it from the records.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on December 20, 2010, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:44:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Well, he did an awesome job attacking the strawman that those who believe endorse medieval practices, deny science, and don't believe in things like evolution. I get it, dogma is a bad thing. It's possible to have faith without it.

You mean that article didn't change your mind? I assumed it would have.

I'm shocked as well. Oh well. This collective outside of Yeti is generally non-antagonisitic on the religion front, so I'm not going to get all asshurt. I just find it amusing that when I tell people I'm a Christian it more or less follows that I:

A) Am a Biblical literalist or subscribe completely to the doctrines of a specific church, therefore invalidating my faith because those are easily, easily refuted or
B) If I do not subscribe to all of those things, I am conceding that my religion does not make sense and thus it is pointless and I'm merely practicing a religion of convenience
C) I must apparently oppose science or progress despite the large number of religiously affiliated hospitals and schools and outside of Galileo the long and mixed history of the church often supporting those causes.
D) I really give a shit why you don't hold my beliefs. I don't. I want my religion out of the government the same as you, because my government is only bound to fuck up my religion.

I hate dogma just as much as the next guy. I don't subscribe to all of the beliefs of any particular church. Hell, I spent last Friday night at a mosque talking to an Imam whom I consider a friend of mine. I realize I'm in the minority, but nothing about what that guy wrote really holds water. Having faith, assuming you aren't a closed-minded fanatic (which applies to any group, religious or secular), is about finding truth. He talks about how humble science is, and how it knows what it knows and doesn't pretend to know more, well, my entire faith is based on the fact that I realize I know very, very little and am thus not closed off to the possibility of the transcendent. I'm sorry he's obviously met a lot of annoying dogmatic religious people. I'm sorry I've met them too. It doesn't really refute the very concept of religion, however, simply because the SKO Theory that Assholes will be Assholes Regardless of Creed or Color will always hold true.

I really hope no one takes the bait on this.

It might be possible to turn it toward nuclear proliferation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on December 21, 2010, 07:33:19 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on December 20, 2010, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:44:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Well, he did an awesome job attacking the strawman that those who believe endorse medieval practices, deny science, and don't believe in things like evolution. I get it, dogma is a bad thing. It's possible to have faith without it.

You mean that article didn't change your mind? I assumed it would have.

I'm shocked as well. Oh well. This collective outside of Yeti is generally non-antagonisitic on the religion front, so I'm not going to get all asshurt. I just find it amusing that when I tell people I'm a Christian it more or less follows that I:

A) Am a Biblical literalist or subscribe completely to the doctrines of a specific church, therefore invalidating my faith because those are easily, easily refuted or
B) If I do not subscribe to all of those things, I am conceding that my religion does not make sense and thus it is pointless and I'm merely practicing a religion of convenience
C) I must apparently oppose science or progress despite the large number of religiously affiliated hospitals and schools and outside of Galileo the long and mixed history of the church often supporting those causes.
D) I really give a shit why you don't hold my beliefs. I don't. I want my religion out of the government the same as you, because my government is only bound to fuck up my religion.

I hate dogma just as much as the next guy. I don't subscribe to all of the beliefs of any particular church. Hell, I spent last Friday night at a mosque talking to an Imam whom I consider a friend of mine. I realize I'm in the minority, but nothing about what that guy wrote really holds water. Having faith, assuming you aren't a closed-minded fanatic (which applies to any group, religious or secular), is about finding truth. He talks about how humble science is, and how it knows what it knows and doesn't pretend to know more, well, my entire faith is based on the fact that I realize I know very, very little and am thus not closed off to the possibility of the transcendent. I'm sorry he's obviously met a lot of annoying dogmatic religious people. I'm sorry I've met them too. It doesn't really refute the very concept of religion, however, simply because the SKO Theory that Assholes will be Assholes Regardless of Creed or Color will always hold true.

I really hope no one takes the bait on this.

It might be possible to turn it toward nuclear proliferation.

I'm all about nuclear proliferation. That shit would be like SKO's Favorite Things. You get a nuke, you get a nuke, YOU GET A NUKE. YOU ALL GET NUKES. Except you, North Korea.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 21, 2010, 08:28:26 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 21, 2010, 07:33:19 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on December 20, 2010, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:44:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 09:26:21 AM
Quote from: Slaky on December 20, 2010, 09:10:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 20, 2010, 07:47:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2010, 10:43:15 PM
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Well, he did an awesome job attacking the strawman that those who believe endorse medieval practices, deny science, and don't believe in things like evolution. I get it, dogma is a bad thing. It's possible to have faith without it.

You mean that article didn't change your mind? I assumed it would have.

I'm shocked as well. Oh well. This collective outside of Yeti is generally non-antagonisitic on the religion front, so I'm not going to get all asshurt. I just find it amusing that when I tell people I'm a Christian it more or less follows that I:

A) Am a Biblical literalist or subscribe completely to the doctrines of a specific church, therefore invalidating my faith because those are easily, easily refuted or
B) If I do not subscribe to all of those things, I am conceding that my religion does not make sense and thus it is pointless and I'm merely practicing a religion of convenience
C) I must apparently oppose science or progress despite the large number of religiously affiliated hospitals and schools and outside of Galileo the long and mixed history of the church often supporting those causes.
D) I really give a shit why you don't hold my beliefs. I don't. I want my religion out of the government the same as you, because my government is only bound to fuck up my religion.

I hate dogma just as much as the next guy. I don't subscribe to all of the beliefs of any particular church. Hell, I spent last Friday night at a mosque talking to an Imam whom I consider a friend of mine. I realize I'm in the minority, but nothing about what that guy wrote really holds water. Having faith, assuming you aren't a closed-minded fanatic (which applies to any group, religious or secular), is about finding truth. He talks about how humble science is, and how it knows what it knows and doesn't pretend to know more, well, my entire faith is based on the fact that I realize I know very, very little and am thus not closed off to the possibility of the transcendent. I'm sorry he's obviously met a lot of annoying dogmatic religious people. I'm sorry I've met them too. It doesn't really refute the very concept of religion, however, simply because the SKO Theory that Assholes will be Assholes Regardless of Creed or Color will always hold true.

I really hope no one takes the bait on this.

It might be possible to turn it toward nuclear proliferation.

I'm all about nuclear proliferation. That shit would be like SKO's Favorite Things. You get a nuke, you get a nuke, YOU GET A NUKE. YOU ALL GET NUKES. Except you, North Korea.

The guys get NUKES. That's just the fuckin' way it is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on December 21, 2010, 08:40:32 AM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/29ok8t3.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on December 21, 2010, 09:45:19 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 21, 2010, 07:33:19 AM
I'm all about nuclear proliferation. That shit would be like SKO's Favorite Things. You get a nuke, you get a nuke, YOU GET A NUKE. YOU ALL GET NUKES. Except you, North Korea.

Gonna nuke all over God's Heaven! Heaven! Everybody's talkin' 'bout Heaven!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 22, 2010, 04:26:40 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122104599.html

QuoteThe CIA has launched a task force to assess the impact of the exposure of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables and military files by WikiLeaks.

Officially, the panel is called the WikiLeaks Task Force. But at CIA headquarters, it's mainly known by its all-too-apt acronym: W.T.F.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 22, 2010, 07:53:17 PM
http://wewontfly.com/homeland-security-trolling-we-wont-fly-blog

QuoteI was about to delete an offensive comment on this blog – one of the very few we get – and thought, hmm, I wonder where this guy is posting from? Because, really, it is quite unusual for us to get nasty comments. Lo and behold, the troll posted to our website from an IP address controlled by the federal government's Department of Homeland Security (http://whois.domaintools.com/216.81.80.134)! Here is the taxpayer-funded troll's gem of a comment, for your entertainment:

QuoteFuck you, Fuck all you cocksuckers, you wont change anything. ride the bus, TSA is here to stay there doing a great job keeping americia safe.

...

Some questions come to mind:

    * Is this an official statement?
    * If not, is it an accurate representation of the DHS position?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on December 22, 2010, 08:49:00 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'd hate to be renting space anywhere in 216.0.0.0/8.

[Edit.--It just strikes me as an inauspicious prefix. The ASN seems to have come up before (http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/01/dhs-comments-on-yon-post-.html).]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 23, 2010, 12:14:29 AM
More freedoms being taken away (not really): http://www.nlrb.gov/About_Us/news_room/Notice_for_Rulemaking/2010-32019_PI.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/business/22labor.html?src=busln

::acknowledges that this is boring; walks away slowly::
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on December 26, 2010, 09:39:17 PM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I, for one, am officially flabbergasted.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on December 27, 2010, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on December 27, 2010, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 27, 2010, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on December 27, 2010, 09:17:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2010, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 27, 2010, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

He did take the John Birch Society behind the woodshed in the early days.  Must've been glorious to see.

Also, if there one group that needs to get it's ass kicked by zombie Buckley, it ain't the Tea Party.  It's the goddam birthers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on December 27, 2010, 09:34:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2010, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 27, 2010, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on December 27, 2010, 09:36:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2010, 09:34:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2010, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 27, 2010, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

You need to more specific when both Buckley and Vidal are mentioned in the same post.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 27, 2010, 09:38:16 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 27, 2010, 09:36:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2010, 09:34:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2010, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 27, 2010, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

You need to more specific when both Buckley and Vidal are mentioned in the same post.

"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on December 27, 2010, 09:39:03 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 27, 2010, 09:38:16 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 27, 2010, 09:36:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2010, 09:34:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2010, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 27, 2010, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

You need to more specific when both Buckley and Vidal are mentioned in the same post.

"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered."

Good.  Now please recite his fightin' words with Oleg's hero--Noam Chomsky.  

Thrilledit:  Apparently, Vidal was the only one Buckley seriously threatened to punch, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8&feature=related) referring to that event  while interviewing Chomsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEIrZO069Kg) as a joke.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on December 27, 2010, 12:07:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 27, 2010, 09:38:16 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 27, 2010, 09:36:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2010, 09:34:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2010, 08:46:14 AM
Quote from: Brownie on December 27, 2010, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 26, 2010, 11:39:07 PM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on December 23, 2010, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 23, 2010, 08:39:32 AM
Quote from: Oleg on December 23, 2010, 08:02:01 AM
I...ummm (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/shock-christian-leader-pat-robertson-favors-marijuana-legalization/#)...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.
The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

You need to more specific when both Buckley and Vidal are mentioned in the same post.

"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered."

That ain't the way I remember it.   Even though I just watched the tape, I remembered  Buckley threatening to scratch  Vidal's eyes out and then Vidal hit him with his purse.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on December 29, 2010, 08:40:53 AM
Fun with foreclosures (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/impossible-foreclosure-never-late-on-a-payment/). Fuck Bank of America in the eye with an icicle from Die Hard 2.

QuoteIn one of the more bizarre foreclosure cases, Bank of America is threatening to throw a West Hartford family out of their home even though the couple never missed a mortgage payment.

The largest bank in the United States earlier this month notified Shock Baitch and his wife Lisa (Friedman) Baitch that foreclosure action will start today – Christmas eve – unless the couple agrees to put their home up for a forced sale.

Why? Because another unit of Bank of America erroneously reported to credit agencies that the family was seeking a loan modification, ruining their credit rating and as the result putting their mortgage into default.

All this is happening even though the bank – after admitting it erred and sent a letter of apology in September – handed this case to a special unit at Bank of America that is charged with dealing with severe customer issues. It promised to notify the credit reporting agencies that the couple were not deadbeats, but were good credit risks.

QuotePost bailout, the giant banks have become too large to manage themselves. It is not just housing sh%$ holes like South Florida where the banks are paperwork disasters, but apparently states such as Connecticut, also.

How else can BoA threaten foreclosure proceeding with on a house that never missed a mortgage payment; indeed, the owners were NEVER late on any mortgage payments! There was never a risk of default, or delinquency. And yet, BoA is automatically generating foreclosure notices (which no one at BOA can figure out how or why).

The obvious answer is the illegal processing of foreclosures. When lawyers, bank executives and there outside contractors are paid to violate the law, the local State Attorney General needs to prosecute these felons. Where Lawyers perjure themselves, swearing they have verified, reviewed and confirmed foreclosure files they never so much have looked at, they need to be disbarred.

Its called the rule of law, and its long past time we actually enforced it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on December 29, 2010, 08:48:39 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 29, 2010, 08:40:53 AM
Fun with foreclosures (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/impossible-foreclosure-never-late-on-a-payment/). Fuck Bank of America in the eye with an icicle from Die Hard 2.

QuoteIn one of the more bizarre foreclosure cases, Bank of America is threatening to throw a West Hartford family out of their home even though the couple never missed a mortgage payment.

The largest bank in the United States earlier this month notified Shock Baitch and his wife Lisa (Friedman) Baitch that foreclosure action will start today – Christmas eve – unless the couple agrees to put their home up for a forced sale.

Why? Because another unit of Bank of America erroneously reported to credit agencies that the family was seeking a loan modification, ruining their credit rating and as the result putting their mortgage into default.

All this is happening even though the bank – after admitting it erred and sent a letter of apology in September – handed this case to a special unit at Bank of America that is charged with dealing with severe customer issues. It promised to notify the credit reporting agencies that the couple were not deadbeats, but were good credit risks.

QuotePost bailout, the giant banks have become too large to manage themselves. It is not just housing sh%$ holes like South Florida where the banks are paperwork disasters, but apparently states such as Connecticut, also.

How else can BoA threaten foreclosure proceeding with on a house that never missed a mortgage payment; indeed, the owners were NEVER late on any mortgage payments! There was never a risk of default, or delinquency. And yet, BoA is automatically generating foreclosure notices (which no one at BOA can figure out how or why).

The obvious answer is the illegal processing of foreclosures. When lawyers, bank executives and there outside contractors are paid to violate the law, the local State Attorney General needs to prosecute these felons. Where Lawyers perjure themselves, swearing they have verified, reviewed and confirmed foreclosure files they never so much have looked at, they need to be disbarred.

Its called the rule of law, and its long past time we actually enforced it.

And he thought he was in shock before.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on December 29, 2010, 09:53:11 AM
Quote from: PenPho on December 29, 2010, 08:48:39 AM
Quote from: R-V on December 29, 2010, 08:40:53 AM
Fun with foreclosures (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/impossible-foreclosure-never-late-on-a-payment/). Fuck Bank of America in the eye with an icicle from Die Hard 2.

QuoteIn one of the more bizarre foreclosure cases, Bank of America is threatening to throw a West Hartford family out of their home even though the couple never missed a mortgage payment.

The largest bank in the United States earlier this month notified Shock Baitch and his wife Lisa (Friedman) Baitch that foreclosure action will start today – Christmas eve – unless the couple agrees to put their home up for a forced sale.

Why? Because another unit of Bank of America erroneously reported to credit agencies that the family was seeking a loan modification, ruining their credit rating and as the result putting their mortgage into default.

All this is happening even though the bank – after admitting it erred and sent a letter of apology in September – handed this case to a special unit at Bank of America that is charged with dealing with severe customer issues. It promised to notify the credit reporting agencies that the couple were not deadbeats, but were good credit risks.

QuotePost bailout, the giant banks have become too large to manage themselves. It is not just housing sh%$ holes like South Florida where the banks are paperwork disasters, but apparently states such as Connecticut, also.

How else can BoA threaten foreclosure proceeding with on a house that never missed a mortgage payment; indeed, the owners were NEVER late on any mortgage payments! There was never a risk of default, or delinquency. And yet, BoA is automatically generating foreclosure notices (which no one at BOA can figure out how or why).

The obvious answer is the illegal processing of foreclosures. When lawyers, bank executives and there outside contractors are paid to violate the law, the local State Attorney General needs to prosecute these felons. Where Lawyers perjure themselves, swearing they have verified, reviewed and confirmed foreclosure files they never so much have looked at, they need to be disbarred.

Its called the rule of law, and its long past time we actually enforced it.

And he thought he was in shock before.

Intrepid Reader: Chuck-to-Chuck

Consider that stolen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 03, 2011, 08:20:10 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re/us_rel_apocalypse_soon Thank God. I accomplished my goal of not being a virgin when the world ended.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2011, 09:12:30 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 03, 2011, 08:20:10 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re/us_rel_apocalypse_soon Thank God. I accomplished my goal of not being a virgin when the world ended.

I'd be happy to expedite these people's departures, if they'd like.

Also, when they're proven wrong (which they are), they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are; it would save precious air (and helium).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2011, 02:44:26 PM
I thought only unionized, Taxolib Homocrat states like Illinois, New York, and California were deep in debt.

Guess I was wrong: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 03, 2011, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2011, 02:44:26 PM
I thought only unionized, Taxolib Homocrat states like Illinois, New York, and California were deep in debt.

Guess I was wrong: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1

No, you weren't wrong.

http://www.brb.state.tx.us/bfo/summaries/10/state2010sum.aspx

There's a difference between the words "debt" and "deficit."  For perspective, California has $78B in GO bonds outstanding.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/ca-debt-triples-under-sch_n_754189.html

That's why Texas retains a AAA rating, while California is, I believe, A-.  While it's never good to run deficits for long periods, because that is of course how debt is built up, there's no "crisis" imminent there like there is in CA, IL, and NY, where there are deficits *and* high levels of outstanding debt.  These states also have shrinking tax bases due to their higher overall tax rates (esp. CA), making it harder to raise revenues.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2011, 03:30:28 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 03, 2011, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2011, 02:44:26 PM
I thought only unionized, Taxolib Homocrat states like Illinois, New York, and California were deep in debt.

Guess I was wrong: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1

No, you weren't wrong.

http://www.brb.state.tx.us/bfo/summaries/10/state2010sum.aspx

There's a difference between the words "debt" and "deficit."  For perspective, California has $78B in GO bonds outstanding.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/ca-debt-triples-under-sch_n_754189.html

That's why Texas retains a AAA rating, while California is, I believe, A-.  While it's never good to run deficits for long periods, because that is of course how debt is built up, there's no "crisis" imminent there like there is in CA, IL, and NY, where there are deficits *and* high levels of outstanding debt.  These states also have shrinking tax bases due to their higher overall tax rates (esp. CA), making it harder to raise revenues.



Stand corrected on the diction.  Also, HuffPo, seriously?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 03, 2011, 03:32:25 PM
On the other hand, there is no law in California requiring us to carry a loaded weapon at all times.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2011, 05:39:37 PM
One of the first acts of this new, fiscally-conservative GOP House is to make deficit spending easier: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-05/house-republicans-to-weaken-anti-deficit-rules-to-ease-tax-cut-approvals.html

Way to go, Team Red!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 05, 2011, 06:42:41 PM
Those Winnetka douchebags are making us all look bad. Overseas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8242008/Armed-police-storm-school-after-man-accidentally-calls-wife-from-his-pocket.html

QuoteOfficers in America wearing riot gear and carrying automatic weapons searched Carlton Washburne School, Winnetka, for almost three hours after the woman, who has not been identified, called 911.

Joseph De Lopez, the local police chief, said the woman reported receiving a call from her husband in which she could hear muffled voices and believed he was being held captive by a man with a gun.

Within minutes a security perimeter was established around the school, whose pupils had left for the day, and officers poured into the building. Three TV news helicopters were circling above.

But while they were still searching the school, and the man's distressed wife remained connected to his mobile phone and to 911, he returned home.

It became clear that while driving back from work, he had called his wife by sitting on his mobile phone, which was in his back pocket, while he listened to hip-hop and talked to himself.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-04/news/ct-met-butt-dialing-20110104_1_swat-team-winnetka-school-police-officers

QuoteIn the popular vernacular, it was a butt dial, the bane of many a chagrined cell phone user. This time, it led to a frantic 911 call from a wife. Soon, more than 30 gun-toting officers converged on Carleton Washburne School, which also houses the District 36 offices where the man works.

"He was listening to music and he had, I don't know, hip-hop ... or music like that, where there were lyrics that were gangster-like," explained Mark Friedman, interim co-superintendent of District 36. "So there were lyrics on the radio as he was driving home, and she listened to it and became concerned."

...

Putting a price tag on the resources spent on the night's excitement would be too difficult to estimate, De Lopez said, adding that no one would be charged since there was no intent to deceive police.

The bright side: The SWAT team got a little real-time training, he said.

"It was good practice," he said. "It's not the way we want to practice. We want to know when a situation isn't real."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on January 06, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.


What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 06, 2011, 09:59:58 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 06, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.


What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

You're giving Mike Crazy waaaaayyy too much credit here,  mate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 11:53:55 AM
CBO preliminary scoring on HR 2: the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (actually called that)

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1750

Granted, this is from the CBO and not an august and unbiased source like CATO or something, but take it for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 06, 2011, 01:10:14 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

But they read the 10th Amendment, which was the deal brokered by Madison between the Southern states and the Pennsylviania Quakers to kick the slavery can down the road 20 years.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:56:56 PM
DPD, but reading the Constitution, whilst omitting its blemishes, is as big a sin as ignoring it in the first place.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 06, 2011, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

All of this.  Mostly the last one, though.

Also, having things read out loud to you as an adult is insulting.  I mean, just assign the damn thing as homework.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 06, 2011, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
That's crap. I didn't vote for staffers.

Quote
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
What TJ said.

Quote
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.
Exactly.  Plus, it hearkens back to the Newt days when every session started with reading the Contract with America into the Congroid Record.

Stop gimmicking and start legislating or your majority will be gone in about 23.99 months.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 06, 2011, 02:27:46 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 06, 2011, 02:27:01 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
That's crap. I didn't vote for staffers.

Quote
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
What TJ said.

Quote
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.
Exactly.  Plus, it hearkens back to the Newt days when every session started with reading the Contract with America into the Congroid Record.

Stop gimmicking and start legislating or your majority will be gone in about 23.99 months.

In other words, we need politicians who are there to SERVE?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 02:30:14 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

No, what I'm saying is that this is a solution in search of a problem.  On average, one federal law is struck down per year.  And in fact, the constitution's equal protection and first amendment provisions are used more often to strike down STATE law, rather than federal law. 

Making a congressional researcher and legislative drafter sit down and cite the precise constitutional authority of legislation can also have a disastrous effect on defending federal legislation in court.  For the past 75 years or more, courts have routinely examined the congressional record when considering the constitutionality of legislation.  The United States Government has broad discretion in citing varying provisions of the document justify a particular law's existence before a court.  This would dramatically change it. 

While your response doesn't address the other elements of my critique, I'll just point out why this is becoming a thing with this new Congress (along with circumventing their own deficit rules to write laws that conveniently don't flow with their putative governing philosophy): they are just using this as an excuse to challenge laws they don't like.  It's as simple as that.

For the record, here's the douchecock chomping at the bit to implement the rule, as well as his douchetastic way circumventing some inconvenient constitutional provisions he doesn't like: http://garrett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217020

QuoteGarrett's House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution.  Invoking the "general welfare clause" or the "necessary and proper clause" would not be adequate constitutional citations.

Thanks, cockhead.  Why even have those in the document at all, then?  I'm sure the great Congressman Garrett from the Fifth Congressional District of New Jersey is certainly smarter than the fucking authors of the document itself.

It's a waste of time at best and political grandstanding at worst, which is precisely what I expect from this new House majority.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on January 06, 2011, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 02:30:14 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

No, what I'm saying is that this is a solution in search of a problem.  On average, one federal law is struck down per year.  And in fact, the constitution's equal protection and first amendment provisions are used more often to strike down STATE law, rather than federal law. 

Making a congressional researcher and legislative drafter sit down and cite the precise constitutional authority of legislation can also have a disastrous effect on defending federal legislation in court.  For the past 75 years or more, courts have routinely examined the congressional record when considering the constitutionality of legislation.  The United States Government has broad discretion in citing varying provisions of the document justify a particular law's existence before a court.  This would dramatically change it. 

While your response doesn't address the other elements of my critique, I'll just point out why this is becoming a thing with this new Congress (along with circumventing their own deficit rules to write laws that conveniently don't flow with their putative governing philosophy): they are just using this as an excuse to challenge laws they don't like.  It's as simple as that.

For the record, here's the douchecock chomping at the bit to implement the rule, as well as his douchetastic way circumventing some inconvenient constitutional provisions he doesn't like: http://garrett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217020

QuoteGarrett's House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution.  Invoking the "general welfare clause" or the "necessary and proper clause" would not be adequate constitutional citations.

Thanks, cockhead.  Why even have those in the document at all, then?  I'm sure the great Congressman Garrett from the Fifth Congressional District of New Jersey is certainly smarter than the fucking authors of the document itself.

It's a waste of time at best and political grandstanding at worst, which is precisely what I expect from this new House majority.

What about the gheys can't git married clause?  They can still use that, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

Also, historically speaking, that is what both branches have done.

Truman and the nationalization of the steel industry.  Jackson and his battles with Chief Justice Marshall.  Congress and every law it has ever passed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 03:02:53 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 02:30:14 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 06, 2011, 01:31:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 06, 2011, 12:06:33 PM
DPD, but isn't that convenient (/Church Lady voice): http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php?ref=fpa#

So right off the bat we are focusing on the original intent of the Constitution versus the Constitution as a "living document".   I am relieved that the new Congress at least understands that the Constitution is not holy as it was originally written, and is subject to modification.

But who should be allowed change the document? Congress and the state legislatures? The President, by Executive Order? The Supreme Court? The Ninth Court of Appeals?

Why good liberals are mocking the reading of the U.S. Constitution (in its current state) or the rule demanding that any law the House passes also cites where the Constitution authorizes such Congressional action, I'm not sure.

Because it's a gimmick.

First, congressmen don't write their own legislation(or read them); that's what their staffers are for.
Second, one of the principal authors of said gimmick has already announced what constitutional provisions will not be allowed to justify legislation: the general welfare or the necessary and proper clause.
Third, Congress' job is to legislate, not to judge the constitutionality of legislation; that's what the courts are there for, see generally, separation of powers.
Fourth, it's a pander-job to the tea party-types.

C'mon, Gil. So, you're saying that Congress and the President should just go ahead and act Unconstitutionally and wait for the courts to intervene?

No, what I'm saying is that this is a solution in search of a problem.  On average, one federal law is struck down per year.  And in fact, the constitution's equal protection and first amendment provisions are used more often to strike down STATE law, rather than federal law. 

Making a congressional researcher and legislative drafter sit down and cite the precise constitutional authority of legislation can also have a disastrous effect on defending federal legislation in court.  For the past 75 years or more, courts have routinely examined the congressional record when considering the constitutionality of legislation.  The United States Government has broad discretion in citing varying provisions of the document justify a particular law's existence before a court.  This would dramatically change it. 

While your response doesn't address the other elements of my critique, I'll just point out why this is becoming a thing with this new Congress (along with circumventing their own deficit rules to write laws that conveniently don't flow with their putative governing philosophy): they are just using this as an excuse to challenge laws they don't like.  It's as simple as that.

For the record, here's the douchecock chomping at the bit to implement the rule, as well as his douchetastic way circumventing some inconvenient constitutional provisions he doesn't like: http://garrett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217020

QuoteGarrett's House rule resolution would require all bills and amendments to contain a statement appropriately citing a specific power granted to Congress in the Constitution.  Invoking the "general welfare clause" or the "necessary and proper clause" would not be adequate constitutional citations.

Thanks, cockhead.  Why even have those in the document at all, then?  I'm sure the great Congressman Garrett from the Fifth Congressional District of New Jersey is certainly smarter than the fucking authors of the document itself.

It's a waste of time at best and political grandstanding at worst, which is precisely what I expect from this new House majority.

Unless, of course, it's an attempt to limit Congressional and federal power.

Point 1: What Chuck said.
Point 2: Is this the only thing he said on the subject?
Point 4: Political granstanding in Washington? If you swore to never vote for a political granstander, you'd never vote.

As for changing the way the courts look at the Constitutionality of a law, I fail to see the harm. Just because the bill cited one provision in the Constitution does not mean another provision (or legal precedence)  does not also support it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 06, 2011, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 06, 2011, 03:02:53 PM
Just because the bill cited one provision in the Constitution does not mean another provision (or legal precedence)  does not also support it.

In other words, adding such a statement would be meaningless.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 07, 2011, 07:48:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 06, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.


What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 07, 2011, 07:57:01 AM
MikeC is absolutely right, Obama hasn't been about "change" at all.

Which is why the health care is so heavily debated - Obama's clinging to the status quo.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 07, 2011, 08:11:29 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 07, 2011, 07:48:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 06, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.


What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

You realize that the notion that republicans are big savers and democrats are big spenders hasn't been accurate in a long time right? 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 07, 2011, 08:17:09 AM
Quote from: BH on January 07, 2011, 08:11:29 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 07, 2011, 07:48:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 06, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.


What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

You realize that the notion that republicans are big savers and democrats are big spenders hasn't been accurate in a long time right? 

You realize that MikeC no more cares about facts or logic than I do whether PenFoe lives or dies?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 07, 2011, 08:21:00 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 07, 2011, 08:17:09 AM
Quote from: BH on January 07, 2011, 08:11:29 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 07, 2011, 07:48:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 06, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.


What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

You realize that the notion that republicans are big savers and democrats are big spenders hasn't been accurate in a long time right? 

You realize that MikeC no more cares about facts or logic than I do whether PenFoe lives or dies?

MikeC is just another uncircumcised belgian twat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 07, 2011, 08:26:35 AM
Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

Quote from: uncircumcised belgian twatIf it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 07, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 07, 2011, 08:26:35 AM
Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

Quote from: uncircumcised belgian twatIf it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

It sounds like something originally written in another language translated through software about 4 times.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 07, 2011, 08:50:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 07, 2011, 08:26:35 AM
Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

Quote from: uncircumcised belgian twatIf it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I'll take a crack at it.  From http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027412-503544.html :

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 07, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 07, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 07, 2011, 08:26:35 AM
Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

Quote from: uncircumcised belgian twatIf it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

It sounds like something originally written in another language translated through software about 4 times.

Here's a translation, in the language of Fascism. 

Quote from: uncircumcised belgian twatWenn es war ein Scheitern der Führung in 2006 zu Obama, dann ist er einer gescheiterten leader. Das ist in seinen eigenen Worten und keinen Körper mehr.

Make sense?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 07, 2011, 09:19:51 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 07, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
It sounds like something originally written in another language translated through software about 4 times.

I ran it through Google translate from English to Afrikaans, then Afrikaans to Chinese, then Chinese to Hebrew, then Hebrew back to English to see if it helped, and I think it did:

QuoteIf this failure of leadership in 2006, Obama, and then hy'n failed as a leader. His words, and other body
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 07, 2011, 09:22:31 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 07, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 07, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 07, 2011, 08:26:35 AM
Dear Desipio, I've read the following passage 4 or 5 times and can't decipher it. Can you help me?

Quote from: uncircumcised belgian twatIf it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

It sounds like something originally written in another language translated through software about 4 times.

Here's a translation, in the language of Fascism. 

Quote from: uncircumcised belgian twatWenn es war ein Scheitern der Führung in 2006 zu Obama, dann ist er einer gescheiterten leader. Das ist in seinen eigenen Worten und keinen Körper mehr.

Make sense?

Sir, Italian is the language of fascism. That is the language of national socialism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 07, 2011, 09:38:38 AM
Jerbs? (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/07/the-jobless-recovery.aspx)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 07, 2011, 09:42:53 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 07, 2011, 09:38:38 AM
Jerbs? (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/07/the-jobless-recovery.aspx)

Is MikeC copyediting for Slate now?

Quote... the Republican response is to pas repeal bills as ask businesses what deregulations they need to start creating jobs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 07, 2011, 09:48:21 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 07, 2011, 09:42:53 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 07, 2011, 09:38:38 AM
Jerbs? (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/07/the-jobless-recovery.aspx)

Is MikeC copyediting for Slate now?

Quote... the Republican response is to pas repeal bills as ask businesses what deregulations they need to start creating jobs.

It's French dude. You wouldn't understand.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 07, 2011, 10:18:48 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 07, 2011, 09:42:53 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 07, 2011, 09:38:38 AM
Jerbs? (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/07/the-jobless-recovery.aspx)

Is MikeC copyediting for Slate now?

Quote... the Republican response is to pas repeal bills as ask businesses what deregulations they need to start creating jobs.

He took the job from Seth Stevenson?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on January 07, 2011, 10:34:17 AM
Quote from: BH on January 07, 2011, 08:21:00 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 07, 2011, 08:17:09 AM
Quote from: BH on January 07, 2011, 08:11:29 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 07, 2011, 07:48:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 06, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.


What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

You realize that the notion that republicans are big savers and democrats are big spenders hasn't been accurate in a long time right? 

You realize that MikeC no more cares about facts or logic than I do whether PenFoe lives or dies?

MikeC is just another uncircumcised belgian twat.

Hey!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 07, 2011, 10:58:00 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 07, 2011, 10:18:48 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 07, 2011, 09:42:53 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 07, 2011, 09:38:38 AM
Jerbs? (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/07/the-jobless-recovery.aspx)

Is MikeC copyediting for Slate now?

Quote... the Republican response is to pas repeal bills as ask businesses what deregulations they need to start creating jobs.

He took the job from Seth Stevenson?

[*shakes fist at the heavens*]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 07, 2011, 03:18:50 PM
"MikeC is just another uncircumcised belgian twat."

I don't blame Tonk for objecting.  "Belgian" should have been capitalized.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 07, 2011, 04:35:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 07, 2011, 03:18:50 PM
"MikeC is just another uncircumcised belgian twat."

I don't blame Tonk for objecting.  "Belgian" should have been capitalized.

I don't know if that's a shoutbox creation or what but it's the best thing I've read today.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on January 07, 2011, 05:53:25 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 07, 2011, 04:35:38 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 07, 2011, 03:18:50 PM
"MikeC is just another uncircumcised belgian twat."

I don't blame Tonk for objecting.  "Belgian" should have been capitalized.

I don't know if that's a shoutbox creation or what but it's the best thing I've read today.

Stew is on a roll today.  Did you skip a dose?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 08, 2011, 05:45:12 AM
Quote from: BH on January 07, 2011, 08:11:29 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 07, 2011, 07:48:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 06, 2011, 06:13:47 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 06, 2011, 05:50:09 AM
I love the Democrat strategy 5 hours into House Republicans term. Attack them for being to focused on health care and not jobs. The same strategy Republicans used 2 years ago. Nice flip flop.

Kinda like Obamas flip flop on this issue.....

QuoteUpon casting a vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, Mr. Obama said, in part: "America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

I see when Bush was in power, it was a failure of leadership, when your in power its no big deal. In fact that happens with a shit load of Bush policies that Obama railed against but adopted as his own when he became President.

QuotePAs a reporter pointed out, the Senate in 2006 only passed the debt ceiling measure 52 to 48, a relatively close outcome. "Well, we've had closer," Gibbs quipped.
Insisting that "the full faith and credit of our government and our economy was not in doubt" in 2006, Gibbs said Mr. Obama had used to vote "to make a point about needing to get serious about fiscal discipline" and was "sending a message."

Boy Obama sure did get serious about fiscal discipline didn't he? And people wonder why the Democrats got slaughtered last Nov.


What the fuck is wrong with you?  I neither know nor care about the truth of these issues, but nonetheless you drive me up the fucking wall.  You do know that politics and sports are different, right?  You can pick a sports team and root for them through thick and thin, but if you do that with politicians your going to make you're self look ridiculous.  Obama and the Democrats do some stupid things  - some deliberately, some because they have to; and they do some good things - some deliberately, and some because they have to.  Guess what?  George W. Bush and the Republicans did some stupid things (and surely even you can see where this is going now, Mike), and they, too, did some good things.  EVERY FUCKING POLITICIAN THAT HAS EVER LIVED HAS DONE MANY, MANY GOOD THINGS AND MANY, MANY BAD THINGS - which is which depends purely on your point of view ON AN ISSUE BY ISSUE BASIS, REGARDLESS OF WHICH TEAM YOU ROOT FOR.

You're not the only person in here that does this, but you're far and away the worst.  For fuck's sake, man.  Grow up.

It just goes back to what i have always said about Obama since day one. The man will say anything, promise you anything, play politics with issues to get your support and then not follow through. He wasn't some new politician he was the same old piece of shit politician like everyone else.

It's really fun to point out his hypocritical stances, because he as we all know he was supposed to be about "change" and not being like every other politician. For the people who actually looked at his background we already knew he was a bullshit artist, but his supporters lapped up all of his gimmicks.

If it was a failure of leadership in 2006 to Obama, then he is a failed leader. Thats in his own words and no body else.

I am under no illusion the Republicans can be held to their promises, but they need to damn well try. And its a hell of alot better than the Dem option of spending the shit our of every dollar they can find in the White House seat cushions. If they just want to follow old dem policies then its going to be doom on both parties come 2012.

You realize that the notion that republicans are big savers and democrats are big spenders hasn't been accurate in a long time right? 

Hmmmm i don't know....do you realize the shit ton of money the Democrats have spent in the last 2 years? I mean its not like they just spent a little more than Bush years. They spent more money than god in the last 2 years.

It isn't accurate? I mean if the Democrats aren't the big spenders then we wouldn't have gotten we got over the last 2 years. They were the sole people in charge right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 08, 2011, 05:48:43 AM
Also some nice examples of White House corruption.....

Quote• Ex Google lobbyist Andrew McLaughlin working as the No. 2 tech policy guy in the White House discussing net neutrality with Google lobbyists (registered and unregistered) while Google stood to profit from the administration's Net Neutrality rules.

• Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson taking a job as Treasury Department chief of staff within 9 months of his work for Goldman.

• Former H&R Block CEO Mark Ernst being hired by Obama's IRS and then writing new regulations on tax prep -- regulations that H&R Block has endorsed, and that will help H&R Block.

• Obama officials meeting off campus for official business for the sake of avoiding the Presidential Records Act.

• And this nugget from the same NYTimes piece: "Two lobbyists also cited instances in which the White House had suggested that a job candidate be "deregistered" as a lobbyist in Senate records to avoid violating the administration's hiring restrictions."

• The firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. As my colleague Byron York has explained: "The method of Walpin's firing could be a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the president to give Congress 30 days' notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general."

• Giving a car company (Chrysler) to a political entity that spent millions to get you elected. This deal involved alleged threats by a since-indicted car czar to knee-cap investors who didn't want to agree to the White House's deal.

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2011/01/07/newsweeks-jonathan-alter-demands-evidence-wh-corruption-gets-it#ixzz1ARZX8BTl

What ever happened to Obama not hiring lobbyists? Another lie.

And that short list leaves off the DOJ corruption regarding New Black Panther Party. A few others can be added as well.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 08:08:24 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 08, 2011, 05:48:43 AM
And that short list leaves off the DOJ corruption regarding New Black Panther Party.

Oh, sweet Jesus.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 08, 2011, 12:03:40 PM
Instead of reading MikeC's post, read this:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/village-like-real-americans-but-worth.html

The "relatively modest" comment from Obama just infuriates me, and this post ties together a couple things that piss me off.

- The revolving door that sends Beltway assholes to cushy media jobs and lobbying jobs and back again. They never leave this bubble and have no idea what's going on with the proles. Which is why they think 172k is "relatively modest."
- The idea that 10% unemployment is "structural" or that the problem could be solved if the proles would stop being so lazy or picky. Just watch that video. Do you think that guy is lazy?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 01:34:56 PM
Second amendment remedies, I guess: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Way to go, Arizona!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 08, 2011, 01:40:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 01:34:56 PM
Second amendment remedies, I guess: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Way to go, Arizona!


You're right. every single Republican in the country is a deranged, psychotic murderer. We're just waiting until Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck says whatever code word will activate our hate programming to go assassinate a politician that we disagree with.

You've got us all figured out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 01:46:46 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 08, 2011, 01:40:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 01:34:56 PM
Second amendment remedies, I guess: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Way to go, Arizona!


You're right. every single Republican in the country is a deranged, psychotic murderer. We're just waiting until Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck says whatever code word will activate our hate programming to go assassinate a politician that we disagree with.

You've got us all figured out.

Good then. Moving along.

First question: When did I actually say any of that?  I was using this as my one last chance to reference Sharron Angle. And to mock Arizona. Both good things.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 02:05:21 PM
Quote
Sources tell MSNBC that a semiautomatic weapon was used in the shooting.

Not that the "15 to 20 shots" part could have led one to this conclusion. Thanks, HuffPo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.

Agreed, but is there an argument to be made for causality?  Would this person not have done this act but for taking something out of context?  Serious question.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.

Agreed, but is there an argument to be made for causality?  Would this person not have done this act but for taking something out of context?  Serious question.

No. Probably. Stop it.

Can't we all just agree to agree that Arizona and everything in it sucks (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg224708#msg224708)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.

Agreed, but is there an argument to be made for causality?  Would this person not have done this act but for taking something out of context?  Serious question.

No. Probably. Stop it.

Can't we all just agree to agree that Arizona and everything in it sucks (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg224708#msg224708)?

Agreed.  Also, apparently all the news sources are reporting that this Congresswoman is not dead, at the present time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 08, 2011, 02:45:00 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.

Agreed, but is there an argument to be made for causality?  Would this person not have done this act but for taking something out of context?  Serious question.

No. Probably. Stop it.

Can't we all just agree to agree that Arizona and everything in it sucks (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg224708#msg224708)?

Agreed.  Also, apparently all the news sources are reporting that this Congresswoman is not dead, at the present time.

Arizona seemed pretty normal to me until Pen started posting here. Since then it's really turned to shit.

My thoughts on "does violent rhetoric cause violence":

1. No. Maybe in 0.00001% of cases.
2. It's amazing to me that some get more butthurt over the very SUGGESTION that rhetoric could maybe in very rare cases incite violence, than over the rhetoric itself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.

Agreed, but is there an argument to be made for causality?  Would this person not have done this act but for taking something out of context?  Serious question.

Dumb questions.  Who knows what set this person off.

Better question: When will politicians stop with the gun imagery in relation to their opponents?  While we all want our guy to win, can't we start to at least begin the process of winding down the hyperbole?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 08, 2011, 02:45:00 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.

Agreed, but is there an argument to be made for causality?  Would this person not have done this act but for taking something out of context?  Serious question.

No. Probably. Stop it.

Can't we all just agree to agree that Arizona and everything in it sucks (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg224708#msg224708)?

Agreed.  Also, apparently all the news sources are reporting that this Congresswoman is not dead, at the present time.

Arizona seemed pretty normal to me until Pen started posting here. Since then it's really turned to shit.

My thoughts on "does violent rhetoric cause violence":

1. No. Maybe in 0.00001% of cases.
2. It's amazing to me that some get more butthurt over the very SUGGESTION that rhetoric could maybe in very rare cases incite violence, than over the rhetoric itself.

Sometimes we need to be hit over the head by someone's motivation until it sinks in. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FCRIME%2F07%2F28%2Fchurch.shooting%2Findex.html&rct=j&q=Kentucky%20unitarian%20church%20shooting&ei=gc4oTZb4D5Ssngev54CwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFfTI9oHasWjTuMmM0LLFCdzGtUSA&sig2=dBzJQKM4ArgcvNzm51TGJw&cad=rja)

Again, for the record, I didn't say that Angle's douchetastic rhetoric or Palin's posting of crosshairs over this Congresswoman's district directly caused this; I just re-referenced Angle's quote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:52:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.

Agreed, but is there an argument to be made for causality?  Would this person not have done this act but for taking something out of context?  Serious question.

Dumb questions.  Who knows what set this person off.

Better question: When will politicians stop with the gun imagery in relation to their opponents?  While we all want our guy to win, can't we start to at least begin the process of winding down the hyperbole?

Yes, asking about motive is a dumb question.  Good thing the criminal justice system isn't predicated upon such a showing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 03:10:46 PM
Something tells me this is going to have more than 310 views in short order. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRjwPWaxiY)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 02:20:19 PM
Some asshole took something out of context and killed some decent people today. It's no one's fault but his. Blaming an entire political party is the same as blaming Beavis and Butthead for someone's trailer getting set on fire.

The person who did this is a piece of shit. It pretty much ends there.

Agreed, but is there an argument to be made for causality?  Would this person not have done this act but for taking something out of context?  Serious question.

There is - but I think we can make it after we find out if this woman is going to be alright or actually hear from the person that did this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 03:10:46 PM
Something tells me this is going to have more than 310 views in short order. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRjwPWaxiY)

QuoteThe majority of people, who reside in District-8, are illiterate—hilarious. I don't control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure.

What a dipshit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on January 08, 2011, 03:53:49 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 03:10:46 PM
Something tells me this is going to have more than 310 views in short order. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRjwPWaxiY)

QuoteThe majority of people, who reside in District-8, are illiterate—hilarious. I don't control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure.

What a dipshit.

What a Paul.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 03:59:05 PM
Quote from: powen01 on January 08, 2011, 03:53:49 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 03:10:46 PM
Something tells me this is going to have more than 310 views in short order. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRjwPWaxiY)

QuoteThe majority of people, who reside in District-8, are illiterate—hilarious. I don't control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure.

What a dipshit.

What a Paul.

No kidding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 03:59:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 03:10:46 PM
Something tells me this is going to have more than 310 views in short order. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRjwPWaxiY)

QuoteThe majority of people, who reside in District-8, are illiterate—hilarious. I don't control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure.

What a dipshit.

Fucking Chomskians.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 04:07:09 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 03:59:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 03:10:46 PM
Something tells me this is going to have more than 310 views in short order. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRjwPWaxiY)

QuoteThe majority of people, who reside in District-8, are illiterate—hilarious. I don't control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure.

What a dipshit.

Fucking Chomskians.

Colorless green ideas dream consciencely?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 08, 2011, 04:17:54 PM
I'm not sure you can watch this and then blame anything other than stupid and crazy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHoaZaLbqB4

Or maybe whoever it was that tried to teach this guy about syllogisms.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 08, 2011, 04:32:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
Better question: When will politicians stop with the gun imagery in relation to their opponents?  While we all want our guy to win, can't we start to at least begin the process of winding down the hyperbole?

Like this?

(http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sarahpac_0.jpg)

Or this (http://www.allyourtv.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2387:giffords-opponent-held-june-event-to-qget-on-target-to-remove-giffords&catid=78:featurescoveringmedia)?

QuoteRep Gabrielle Giffords' 2010 Congressional opponent held a June event that encouraged participants to "Get On Target For Victory In November. Help Remove Gabrielle For Office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

An account from The Arizona Daily Star notes that the guns vs Democrats theme was popular with Republicans during the primary:

...

Jesse Kelly, meanwhile, doesn't seem to be bothered in the least by the Sarah Palin controversy earlier this year, when she released a list of targeted races in crosshairs, urging followers to "reload" and "aim" for Democrats. Critics said she was inciting violence.

He seems to be embracing his fellow tea partier's idea. Kelly's campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

The page promoting the event has been removed from the Kelly campaign web site.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
Did someone mention mind control in Tucson? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6nxHEPGO3g)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Holy shit, that guy has problems. I feel horrible for all of those victims. I'm sure their families will be picked at by vultures of every kind - media, pols, local Pauls, everybody. To me this is all about mental illness. Hopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

Fuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 08, 2011, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Holy shit, that guy has problems. I feel horrible for all of those victims. I'm sure their families will be picked at by vultures of every kind - media, pols, local Pauls, everybody. To me this is all about mental illness. Hopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

Fuck.

I agree 100%. Especially with the bolded.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 08, 2011, 09:03:04 PM
I just got an email from the Agency's Security Division warning me about security risks in light of today.

In pertinent part:

QuoteLately there has been an increase in utilizing the mail to threaten government officials.  Indicators associated with this crime can be:

-          Oily wrapping of the package
-          Excessive postage
-          Unfamiliar return address
-          Poorly wrapped package
-          Odor emitting from the package

QuoteBelow are some items you may want to consider to increase your home protection.

-          Perimeter and doorway motion lighting
-          Alarm systems
-          Door Peepholes
-          Door Deadbolts
-          Patio doors locking mechanisms (adding a slide lock or broom stick on doorway track)
-          Window locks
-          Family Emergency Plan

All security is designed to detect, deter, and delay anyone from doing you harm.  An alarm and associated signage may not defeat a burglar but it may make him or her choose another location.  Minor security enhancements such as door peepholes and deadbolts, perimeter motion lighting, and regular pruning of shrubs to ensure they don't conceal trespassers will enhance your physical security.

I didn't see "Clean your firearms and make sure they are in proper working order."  Damn you!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 08, 2011, 09:52:31 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PMHopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

It's a nice thought (as was this effectively dead letter (http://law.justia.com/illinois/codes/2005/chapter34/55801.html)), but the structural obstacles are massive. If one does want assistance, an inclination that can be fleeting in serious mental illness, it's not readily available. If one doesn't, or realizes that asking nicely isn't going to work, it's only going to come after an ED psych eval. Or two. Or three. And success, as it were, in the latter regard has a good number of problems of its own.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 08, 2011, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 08, 2011, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Holy shit, that guy has problems. I feel horrible for all of those victims. I'm sure their families will be picked at by vultures of every kind - media, pols, local Pauls, everybody. To me this is all about mental illness. Hopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

Fuck.

I agree 100%. Especially with the bolded.

Yep - and now it's turned into a rallying cry for both sides. Pathetic.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 08, 2011, 10:25:17 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 08, 2011, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Holy shit, that guy has problems. I feel horrible for all of those victims. I'm sure their families will be picked at by vultures of every kind - media, pols, local Pauls, everybody. To me this is all about mental illness. Hopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

Fuck.

I agree 100%. Especially with the bolded.

Thirded. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 08, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2011, 10:25:17 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 08, 2011, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Holy shit, that guy has problems. I feel horrible for all of those victims. I'm sure their families will be picked at by vultures of every kind - media, pols, local Pauls, everybody. To me this is all about mental illness. Hopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

Fuck.

I agree 100%. Especially with the bolded.

Thirded. 

Count me in.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on January 09, 2011, 09:31:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2011, 10:25:17 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 08, 2011, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Holy shit, that guy has problems. I feel horrible for all of those victims. I'm sure their families will be picked at by vultures of every kind - media, pols, local Pauls, everybody. To me this is all about mental illness. Hopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

Fuck.

I agree 100%. Especially with the bolded.

Thirded. 

Count me in.

Is there still room left on the Crazymobile for me?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 09, 2011, 11:45:42 AM
The nine year old girl who was murdered was the granddaughter of Dallas Green.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Pre on January 09, 2011, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: powen01 on January 09, 2011, 09:31:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2011, 10:25:17 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 08, 2011, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Holy shit, that guy has problems. I feel horrible for all of those victims. I'm sure their families will be picked at by vultures of every kind - media, pols, local Pauls, everybody. To me this is all about mental illness. Hopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

Fuck.

I agree 100%. Especially with the bolded.

Thirded. 

Count me in.

Is there still room left on the Crazymobile for me?

Not sure, looks like there's already a whole hell of a lot of crazy on board. 

Going to need to upgrade to a van.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 09, 2011, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: powen01 on January 09, 2011, 09:31:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 08, 2011, 10:25:17 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 08, 2011, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 08, 2011, 08:56:09 PM
Holy shit, that guy has problems. I feel horrible for all of those victims. I'm sure their families will be picked at by vultures of every kind - media, pols, local Pauls, everybody. To me this is all about mental illness. Hopefully, once we find out what this dude's health issues are, we can learn to recognize and help people suffering similarly so that others don't get hurt.

Fuck.

I agree 100%. Especially with the bolded.

Thirded. 

Count me in.

Is there still room left on the Crazymobile for me?

Sorry - I already got in there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

QuoteTo be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 10, 2011, 05:59:57 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

QuoteTo be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

So you're saying that, politically, you think the guy is probably a liberal?

It seems to me that everybody here is inclined to believe that the dude did what he did because he's fucking insane. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 10, 2011, 08:13:39 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

QuoteTo be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?



You truly are a shameless idiot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 10, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 10, 2011, 05:59:57 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

QuoteTo be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

So you're saying that, politically, you think the guy is probably a liberal?

It seems to me that everybody here is inclined to believe that the dude did what he did because he's fucking insane. 

Was that what the last ten posts were about? Good of Mike to read them before posting. As always.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 10, 2011, 08:29:50 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 10, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 10, 2011, 05:59:57 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

QuoteTo be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

So you're saying that, politically, you think the guy is probably a liberal?

It seems to me that everybody here is inclined to believe that the dude did what he did because he's fucking insane. 

Was that what the last ten posts were about? Good of Mike to read them before posting. As always.

Do we know if he can read?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 10, 2011, 08:43:22 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM...how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

How fucking sad, indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 10, 2011, 08:44:05 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 10, 2011, 08:29:50 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 10, 2011, 08:24:25 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 10, 2011, 05:59:57 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

QuoteTo be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

So you're saying that, politically, you think the guy is probably a liberal?

It seems to me that everybody here is inclined to believe that the dude did what he did because he's fucking insane. 

Was that what the last ten posts were about? Good of Mike to read them before posting. As always.

Do we know if he can read?

I think the point is, you libs need to get your media lapdogs in line, stat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 10, 2011, 09:21:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 10, 2011, 08:43:22 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM...how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

How fucking sad, indeed.

THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 10, 2011, 09:26:18 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.

QuoteTo be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?



Choke on a cock.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 10, 2011, 09:31:51 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time.

Each and EVERY time?  Mike, I expect better of you than to speak in such absolutes.

Hehe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 10, 2011, 09:35:49 AM
Sounds like a really disturbed kid. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1)

QuoteTierney, who's also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period. He's unsure whether it was the same one mentioned in the charges—Loughner "might have gone to some other rallies," he says—but Tierney notes it was a significant moment for Loughner: "He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?'"

Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her."

QuoteIn college, Loughner became increasingly intrigued with "lucid dreaming," and he grew convinced that he could control his dreams, according to Tierney. In a series of rambling videos posted to his YouTube page, dreams are a frequent topic. In a video posted on December 15, Loughner writes, "My favorite activity is conscience dreaming: the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don't dream—sadly." In another video, he writes, "The population of dreamers in the United States of America is less than 5%!" Later in the same video he says,  "I'm a sleepwalker—who turns off the alarm clock."

Loughner believed that dreams could be a sort of alternative, Matrix-style reality, and "that when you realize you're dreaming, you can do anything, you can create anything," Tierney says. Loughner started his "dream journal" in an attempt to take more control of his dreams, his friend notes, and he kept this journal for over a year.

QuoteAfter Loughner apparently gave up drugs and booze, "his theories got worse," Tierney says. "After he quit, he was just off the wall." And Loughner started to drift away from his group of friends about a year ago. By early 2010, dreaming had become Loughner's "waking life, his reality," Tierney says. "He sort of drifted off, didn't really care about hanging out with friends. He'd be sleeping a lot." Loughner's alternate reality was attractive, Tierney says. "He figured out he could fly." Loughner, according to Tierney, told his friends, "I'm so into it because I can create things and fly. I'm everything I'm not in this world."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 10, 2011, 09:38:14 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 10, 2011, 09:31:51 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time.

Each and EVERY time?  Mike, I expect better of you than to speak in such absolutes.
Hehe.

Intrepid Reader: SKO: "Is he a Sith?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 10, 2011, 09:38:40 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 10, 2011, 09:35:49 AM
Sounds like a really disturbed kid. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1)

Sounds like a kid who watched Waking Life while he was high and never really snapped out of it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 10, 2011, 09:43:21 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 10, 2011, 09:38:14 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 10, 2011, 09:31:51 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time.

Each and EVERY time?  Mike, I expect better of you than to speak in such absolutes.
Hehe.

Intrepid Reader: SKO: "Is he a Sith?"

Yeah right. If I was really a Star Wars nerd I'd say that it's interesting that Obi-Wan said that to Anakin because really the Jedis are the ones who deal in absolutes because the Sith are all about shades of gray and using emotions and confusing and deceiving people. But I'm not a nerd, so I won't.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 10, 2011, 10:00:50 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.


No, I'm pretty sure if some lunatic had tried blowing the head off a Conservative member of Congress who had their district in crosshairs a surveyor's scope on a Democrat's website nobody would blame the Right Wing.

And who the hell blamed the Right Wing for Fort Hood? Everyone I saw was working overtime to paint this guy as an al Queida sleeper.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 10, 2011, 10:14:50 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 10, 2011, 10:00:50 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time. Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.

Hey look people get killed, its Talk Radio's fault! Or its Sarah Palin! Nice little pattern the media has. The Arizona shooting.....the media jumps right into blaming conservatives, how fucking sad to promote your propaganda on tragedies such as this.


No, I'm pretty sure if some lunatic had tried blowing the head off a Conservative member of Congress who had their district in crosshairs a surveyor's scope on a Democrat's website nobody would blame the Right Wing.

And who the hell blamed the Right Wing for Fort Hood? Everyone I saw was working overtime to paint this guy as an al Queida sleeper.


Forget it, Fork.  It's Comartown.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 10, 2011, 10:43:39 AM
BUMP?  (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg224726#msg224726)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
This event was a tragedy by some nut job and you go and watch CNN or MSNBC and they are talking about how its' Sarah Palin's fault or Rush Limbaugh hell even the Tea Party? Wolf Blitzer of all people after a reporter spent 3 minutes going over Sarah Palin's whole history asked the reporter, " Is their any evidence that he was a Palin supporter?" And the reporter was like zero, none. So why the fuck you even mentioning her name?

Now they want to introduce legislation to curb political speech. Conservative speech, because as we all know liberals are so damn sympathetic to all people and are not racist and violent. I don't care if she had a website with nuclear bombs on each district, normal sane people don't walk into a Safeway and kill 6 people because they saw a target symbol on a website.....if he even visited the site, or was a Sarah Palin supporter in the slightest bit. Normal sane people know the difference between right and wrong. He wasn't normal and he wasn't sane.....and it sure as hell wasn't Palins fault.

I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 11, 2011, 05:37:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
This event was a tragedy by some nut job and you go and watch CNN or MSNBC and they are talking about how its' Sarah Palin's fault or Rush Limbaugh hell even the Tea Party? Wolf Blitzer of all people after a reporter spent 3 minutes going over Sarah Palin's whole history asked the reporter, " Is their any evidence that he was a Palin supporter?" And the reporter was like zero, none. So why the fuck you even mentioning her name?

Now they want to introduce legislation to curb political speech. Conservative speech, because as we all know liberals are so damn sympathetic to all people and are not racist and violent. I don't care if she had a website with nuclear bombs on each district, normal sane people don't walk into a Safeway and kill 6 people because they saw a target symbol on a website.....if he even visited the site, or was a Sarah Palin supporter in the slightest bit. Normal sane people know the difference between right and wrong. He wasn't normal and he wasn't sane.....and it sure as hell wasn't Palins fault.

I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.



Who are you talking to? 

Besides the voices in your head, that is?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 11, 2011, 06:28:06 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 11, 2011, 05:37:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
This event was a tragedy by some nut job and you go and watch CNN or MSNBC and they are talking about how its' Sarah Palin's fault or Rush Limbaugh hell even the Tea Party? Wolf Blitzer of all people after a reporter spent 3 minutes going over Sarah Palin's whole history asked the reporter, " Is their any evidence that he was a Palin supporter?" And the reporter was like zero, none. So why the fuck you even mentioning her name?

Now they want to introduce legislation to curb political speech. Conservative speech, because as we all know liberals are so damn sympathetic to all people and are not racist and violent. I don't care if she had a website with nuclear bombs on each district, normal sane people don't walk into a Safeway and kill 6 people because they saw a target symbol on a website.....if he even visited the site, or was a Sarah Palin supporter in the slightest bit. Normal sane people know the difference between right and wrong. He wasn't normal and he wasn't sane.....and it sure as hell wasn't Palins fault.

I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.



Who are you talking to? 

Besides the voices in your head, that is?

Maybe MikeC should get a blog that none of us have to read.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 11, 2011, 06:33:40 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
This event was a tragedy by some nut job and you go and watch CNN or MSNBC and they are talking about how its' Sarah Palin's fault or Rush Limbaugh hell even the Tea Party? Wolf Blitzer of all people after a reporter spent 3 minutes going over Sarah Palin's whole history asked the reporter, " Is their any evidence that he was a Palin supporter?" And the reporter was like zero, none. So why the fuck you even mentioning her name?

Now they want to introduce legislation to curb political speech. Conservative speech, because as we all know liberals are so damn sympathetic to all people and are not racist and violent. I don't care if she had a website with nuclear bombs on each district, normal sane people don't walk into a Safeway and kill 6 people because they saw a target symbol on a website.....if he even visited the site, or was a Sarah Palin supporter in the slightest bit. Normal sane people know the difference between right and wrong. He wasn't normal and he wasn't sane.....and it sure as hell wasn't Palins fault.

I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.



I think you're right.  The conversation should be focuses on how we live in a country that allowed this guy to buy a gun legally.

I also think you are misstating some things...no one is going to pass any laws that restrict any conservative speech.  That's just dumb and makes the rest of your surprisingly rational point kind of moot.

As for anything as bad as the Palin targets, shoot.  Sorry, bad word choice.  Fire away.  Nope, not that either.  How about, I'll settle for two examples that weren't immediately denounced by others on the left.

As far as her family goes, I mean it's not like there's an example of a female on the Democrat side who has gotten her share of abuse.  Nope...none.

And, it certainly isn't like anyone on the right blamed a certain Marylin Manson after Columbine.

In conclusion, everyone sucks.  Except me.  I'm awesome.

edit: I forgot my real conclusion.  We can use this as a learning experience about rhetoric.  Both sides use whatever they need in order to fire up their bases.  It just so happens that the right tends to be more responsive to guns/military imagery.  It's not always a bad thing and rational people should be able to tell the difference.  Let's just all promise to tone it down and try to raise the level of discourse.  We can all argue quietly without shooting people, right?  Of course that won't get O'Reilly or Olbermann ratings, so we probably won't.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:43:42 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 11, 2011, 06:28:06 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 11, 2011, 05:37:28 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
This event was a tragedy by some nut job and you go and watch CNN or MSNBC and they are talking about how its' Sarah Palin's fault or Rush Limbaugh hell even the Tea Party? Wolf Blitzer of all people after a reporter spent 3 minutes going over Sarah Palin's whole history asked the reporter, " Is their any evidence that he was a Palin supporter?" And the reporter was like zero, none. So why the fuck you even mentioning her name?

Now they want to introduce legislation to curb political speech. Conservative speech, because as we all know liberals are so damn sympathetic to all people and are not racist and violent. I don't care if she had a website with nuclear bombs on each district, normal sane people don't walk into a Safeway and kill 6 people because they saw a target symbol on a website.....if he even visited the site, or was a Sarah Palin supporter in the slightest bit. Normal sane people know the difference between right and wrong. He wasn't normal and he wasn't sane.....and it sure as hell wasn't Palins fault.

I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.



Who are you talking to? 

Besides the voices in your head, that is?

Maybe MikeC should get a blog that none of us have to read.

http://cubspundit.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 11, 2011, 09:00:56 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

Except that he's not awesome at all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 09:02:01 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 09:00:56 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

Except that he's not awesome at all.

Well, I *did* only support the conclusion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 11, 2011, 09:04:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

You douche. Those targets are for archery practice. Bows and arrows? Probably with the little orange plunger on the tip like kids play with (||).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 09:05:59 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 11, 2011, 09:04:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

You douche. Those targets are for archery practice. Bows and arrows? Probably with the little orange plunger on the tip like kids play with (||).

Hey man, bows and arrows kill too.  Ain't you ever seen Rambo?

(http://needcoffee.cachefly.net/needcoffee/uploads/2008/01/rambo-first-blood-2-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 11, 2011, 09:09:36 AM
Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 11, 2011, 09:12:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 09:09:36 AM
Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 11, 2011, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 11, 2011, 09:12:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 09:09:36 AM
Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

Slaky beat me to the punch.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 11, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 11, 2011, 09:15:21 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 11, 2011, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 11, 2011, 09:12:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 09:09:36 AM
Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

Slaky beat me to the punch.

Punch? Punches kill too! Aint you seen Rocky IV?

(http://thereservoirblogs.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/apollo20dead.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 11, 2011, 09:18:55 AM
The term "violent rhetoric" has been tossed around a lot lately - this does a good job of identifying what is rhetoric and what isn't. (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/what-is-violent-rhetoric#more-18397)

QuoteKatrina Trinko's attempt to tu quoque Keith Olbermann is particularly enlightening, as it describes a number of angry statements by Olbermann that are neither violent nor rhetorical, e.g.

In 2007, Olbermann called rival network Fox News "worse than al-Qaeda ... for our society" and said the channel was "as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Neither of those statements are rhetorical because neither of them attempts to call its audience to action.  For them to be rhetorical, as per Aristotle in On Rhetoric, they would need to be intended to persuade.  Moreover, they would need to be intended to persuade a particular audience to undertake a particular action.

QuoteIt stands to reason that if we want to understand what "violent rhetoric" entails, we must focus on whose images and stories are stoking whose imaginations and to what effect.  Pointing out that Keith Olbermann associated Fox News with terrorist organizations foreign and domestic does nothing of the sort because the audience and intended effect of his statements is unclear.  How unclear?

If we posit his intended audience is liberals and leftists who believe President Obama is a centrist—which strikes me as a fairly accurate assessment—then we need to ask what the intended effect on that particular audience of associating Fox News with al-Qaeda would be.  Keeping in mind that we are currently at war with al-Qaeda, are we to believe that Olbermann is encouraging liberals and leftists to join a military-like organization and wage an Afghanistan-type offensive against Fox News?  Given that his audience is composed of people who are, generally speaking, opposed to war, does that make any sense?  Or is it more likely that he is simply attempting to create an association of like-with-like in which the likeness is supremely unflattering?  His rhetoric here is pathetic and inflammatory, but from the perspective of what it is intended to persuade its audience, it is also incoherent.

On the Palin map:

QuoteHere the intended audience is those who believe President Obama is a radical leftist and associates itself with the center-right.  Unlike the audience of liberals and leftists, who oppose war and favor a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment, this audience is more hawkish and more likely to support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.  I would contend that this is an example of "violent rhetoric" not because it contains crosshairs aimed at "the candidates" who represent "the problem" in need of "solution," and despite the fact that talking about "solving" human beings has a rather untoward history, but because its violence is a product of whose imaginations are being stoked and how it is being done.

The intended effect of this image is not to encourage the assassination of candidates; however, the pathetic appeal being made to this particular audience is certainly intended to stoke their imaginations in ways related to their ideological belief in an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.  This rhetoric is violent, then, because it was intended to appeal to an audience whose imaginations would be stoked by a reference to shooting things.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 11, 2011, 09:31:26 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 11, 2011, 09:12:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 09:09:36 AM
Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

Since the Republicans was so successful in attaching the economy to Obama, the credit he'll get for the recovery that's beginning will take care of that anyway.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 09:33:32 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

I agree with this point.

Also, I question what the intended effect was when Sharron Angle used the phrase "second Amendment remedies."  That's a pretty galling phrase.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 11, 2011, 09:35:00 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 09:33:32 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

I agree with this point.

Also, I question what the intended effect was when Sharron Angle used the phrase "second Amendment remedies."  That's a pretty galling phrase.


As near as I can tell, the intended effect was to drive moderates away from her and lose the election.  Worked like a charm.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 09:37:42 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 11, 2011, 09:35:00 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 09:33:32 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

I agree with this point.

Also, I question what the intended effect was when Sharron Angle used the phrase "second Amendment remedies."  That's a pretty galling phrase.


As near as I can tell, the intended effect was to drive moderates away from her and lose the election.  Worked like a charm.

Indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 11, 2011, 09:41:37 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 11, 2011, 09:15:21 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 11, 2011, 09:13:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 11, 2011, 09:12:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 09:09:36 AM
Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

Seems to me that if you, as a Democrat, wanted to make sure that Obama stays for another term, that the safest bet would be for Palin to somehow get the nomination.

Slaky beat me to the punch.

Punch? Punches kill too! Aint you seen Rocky IV?

(http://thereservoirblogs.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/apollo20dead.jpg)

If he dies, he dies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 11, 2011, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

Well, there's this from the DCCC

(http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/DCCC-target-map.jpg)

And each of those was linked to a "targeted Republican".

(http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-targeted-republican.jpg)

This map is intended to get partisan Democrats (like Gil) to engage in a very specific kind of behavior.  It's designed to get them to make donations to the DCCC.

The word "target" has two different meanings and people will use the other meaning.

A "climate of hate" did not shoot people in Tuscon.  One deranged nutcase did.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 11, 2011, 09:48:00 AM
Democrats target people like this. Repulbicans target people like this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 09:49:35 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 11, 2011, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

Well, there's this from the DCCC

(http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/DCCC-target-map.jpg)

And each of those was linked to a "targeted Republican".

(http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-targeted-republican.jpg)

This map is intended to get partisan Democrats (like Gil) to engage in a very specific kind of behavior.  It's designed to get them to make donations to the DCCC.

The word "target" has two different meanings and people will use the other meaning.

A "climate of hate" did not shoot people in Tuscon.  One deranged nutcase did.

Oh, come on!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 11, 2011, 10:25:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 11, 2011, 09:18:55 AM
The term "violent rhetoric" has been tossed around a lot lately - this does a good job of identifying what is rhetoric and what isn't. (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/what-is-violent-rhetoric#more-18397)

QuoteKatrina Trinko's attempt to tu quoque Keith Olbermann is particularly enlightening, as it describes a number of angry statements by Olbermann that are neither violent nor rhetorical, e.g.

In 2007, Olbermann called rival network Fox News "worse than al-Qaeda ... for our society" and said the channel was "as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Neither of those statements are rhetorical because neither of them attempts to call its audience to action.  For them to be rhetorical, as per Aristotle in On Rhetoric, they would need to be intended to persuade.  Moreover, they would need to be intended to persuade a particular audience to undertake a particular action.

QuoteIt stands to reason that if we want to understand what "violent rhetoric" entails, we must focus on whose images and stories are stoking whose imaginations and to what effect.  Pointing out that Keith Olbermann associated Fox News with terrorist organizations foreign and domestic does nothing of the sort because the audience and intended effect of his statements is unclear.  How unclear?

If we posit his intended audience is liberals and leftists who believe President Obama is a centrist—which strikes me as a fairly accurate assessment—then we need to ask what the intended effect on that particular audience of associating Fox News with al-Qaeda would be.  Keeping in mind that we are currently at war with al-Qaeda, are we to believe that Olbermann is encouraging liberals and leftists to join a military-like organization and wage an Afghanistan-type offensive against Fox News?  Given that his audience is composed of people who are, generally speaking, opposed to war, does that make any sense?  Or is it more likely that he is simply attempting to create an association of like-with-like in which the likeness is supremely unflattering?  His rhetoric here is pathetic and inflammatory, but from the perspective of what it is intended to persuade its audience, it is also incoherent.

On the Palin map:

QuoteHere the intended audience is those who believe President Obama is a radical leftist and associates itself with the center-right.  Unlike the audience of liberals and leftists, who oppose war and favor a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment, this audience is more hawkish and more likely to support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.  I would contend that this is an example of "violent rhetoric" not because it contains crosshairs aimed at "the candidates" who represent "the problem" in need of "solution," and despite the fact that talking about "solving" human beings has a rather untoward history, but because its violence is a product of whose imaginations are being stoked and how it is being done.

The intended effect of this image is not to encourage the assassination of candidates; however, the pathetic appeal being made to this particular audience is certainly intended to stoke their imaginations in ways related to their ideological belief in an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment.  This rhetoric is violent, then, because it was intended to appeal to an audience whose imaginations would be stoked by a reference to shooting things.

Here's something (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11district.html?_r=1&hp) that's a little more obvious.

QuoteLast summer, Ms. Giffords found herself challenged by Jesse Kelly, a Republican candidate with Tea Party backing, who assailed Ms. Giffords on health care and immigration. He held a "targeting victory" fund-raiser in which he invited contributors to shoot an M-16 with him. This was playing out against a backdrop of a souring national economy and rising unhappiness with Democrats everywhere.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 11, 2011, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 11, 2011, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

Well, there's this from the DCCC

(http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/DCCC-target-map.jpg)

And each of those was linked to a "targeted Republican".

(http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-targeted-republican.jpg)

This map is intended to get partisan Democrats (like Gil) to engage in a very specific kind of behavior.  It's designed to get them to make donations to the DCCC.

The word "target" has two different meanings and people will use the other meaning.

A "climate of hate" did not shoot people in Tuscon.  One deranged nutcase did.

I thought this was just a map showing where all the Target locations were.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 11, 2011, 10:44:39 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 11, 2011, 10:39:55 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 11, 2011, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 09:14:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

I don't disagree with your overall point, but that's a map with targets placed on entire states.  Palin's map had targets placed on specific names of people.  There's at least *some* level of distinction there.

But yes, either way, a normal person shouldn't go politic-shoot anyone ever for any reason, no matter what anyone else says, etc., etc.

Well, there's this from the DCCC

(http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/DCCC-target-map.jpg)

And each of those was linked to a "targeted Republican".

(http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-targeted-republican.jpg)

This map is intended to get partisan Democrats (like Gil) to engage in a very specific kind of behavior.  It's designed to get them to make donations to the DCCC.

The word "target" has two different meanings and people will use the other meaning.

A "climate of hate" did not shoot people in Tuscon.  One deranged nutcase did.

I thought this was just a map showing where all the Target locations were.

I do my shopping elsewhere (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9798), so I didn't make the connection.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 11, 2011, 10:46:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 11, 2011, 06:33:40 AM
The conversation should be focuses on how we live in a country that allowed this guy to buy a gun legally.

Or in a country that allows people -- crazy or not -- to buy guns that can fire 30 rounds in a few seconds.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 10:49:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 10:46:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 11, 2011, 06:33:40 AM
The conversation should be focuses on how we live in a country that allowed this guy to buy a gun legally.

Or in a country that allows people -- crazy or not -- to buy guns that can fire 30 rounds in a few seconds.

Whither our second amendment right to assassinate Congressmen?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 11, 2011, 10:51:28 AM
QuoteIf words have no meaning, then what is government?

The failure of Gabrielle Giffords to answer this non-sensical question appears to be what drove Jared Loughner to kill. Sarah Palin posting a map with crosshairs on it was unfortunate, just as a Chicago Tribune editorial on a proposed law regulating the volume of television ads that included a wish to "silence Billy Mays" was unfortunate as it ran the day before Mays died.

Back in 1996, it was fairly commonplace for Democrats to hold events for Congressional candidates running against Republicans to hold a "Contract on Phil Crane" or a "Contract on John Hostetler" or a "Contract on Newt Gingrich."  Contract as in mob contract. Very clever, eh?

Kos himself wrote that because Giffords supported some policy of Bush's in June 2008, she should consider herself wearing a "bullseye on her back" come the 2010 primary. Some other unhinged Kos writer wrote last week that Giffords was "dead to me" because she cast a symbolic vote for Heath Shuler for Minority Leader.

Want some other dandies over the years?

QuoteNot me, I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
-- National Public Radio and ABC News reporter Nina Totenberg reacting to Senator Jesse Helms' claim that the government spends too much on AIDS research, July 8, 1995 Inside Washington.

Quote"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
-- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

QuoteMany families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. ... If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California — these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush. -- Michael Moore

How about the movie Taxi Driver, which inspired John Hinckley to attempt assassinating Ronald Reagan (which hardly slowed down left wingers with mics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGyz16_MfMIl)

We can go on and on, but he fact remains we cannot understand what motivates crazy people.

R-V's link suggesting that left-wingers are completely non-violent unable to be incited to violence quite conveniently leaves out the Unabomber and the Discovery Channel Hostage Taker (motivated by stricter environmental control), the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Weather Underground.

Considering that many of us participate in a Dead Pool in which many picks are of people we aren't shy in expressing our distaste for, maybe those who haven't (and many have) should just chill out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 11, 2011, 10:58:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 11, 2011, 10:51:28 AM
QuoteIf words have no meaning, then what is government?

The failure of Gabrielle Giffords to answer this non-sensical question appears to be what drove Jared Loughner to kill. Sarah Palin posting a map with crosshairs on it was unfortunate, just as a Chicago Tribune editorial on a proposed law regulating the volume of television ads that included a wish to "silence Billy Mays" was unfortunate as it ran the day before Mays died.

Back in 1996, it was fairly commonplace for Democrats to hold events for Congressional candidates running against Republicans to hold a "Contract on Phil Crane" or a "Contract on John Hostetler" or a "Contract on Newt Gingrich."  Contract as in mob contract. Very clever, eh?

Kos himself wrote that because Giffords supported some policy of Bush's in June 2008, she should consider herself wearing a "bullseye on her back" come the 2010 primary. Some other unhinged Kos writer wrote last week that Giffords was "dead to me" because she cast a symbolic vote for Heath Shuler for Minority Leader.

Want some other dandies over the years?

QuoteNot me, I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
-- National Public Radio and ABC News reporter Nina Totenberg reacting to Senator Jesse Helms' claim that the government spends too much on AIDS research, July 8, 1995 Inside Washington.

Quote"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
-- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

QuoteMany families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. ... If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California — these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush. -- Michael Moore

How about the movie Taxi Driver, which inspired John Hinckley to attempt assassinating Ronald Reagan (which hardly slowed down left wingers with mics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGyz16_MfMIl)

We can go on and on, but he fact remains we cannot understand what motivates crazy people.

R-V's link suggesting that left-wingers are completely non-violent unable to be incited to violence quite conveniently leaves out the Unabomber and the Discovery Channel Hostage Taker (motivated by stricter environmental control), the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Weather Underground.

Considering that many of us participate in a Dead Pool in which many picks are of people we aren't shy in expressing our distaste for, maybe those who haven't (and many have) should just chill out.

You're not guilting me into taking Tdubbs off my board.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 11, 2011, 11:02:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 11, 2011, 10:58:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 11, 2011, 10:51:28 AM
QuoteIf words have no meaning, then what is government?

The failure of Gabrielle Giffords to answer this non-sensical question appears to be what drove Jared Loughner to kill. Sarah Palin posting a map with crosshairs on it was unfortunate, just as a Chicago Tribune editorial on a proposed law regulating the volume of television ads that included a wish to "silence Billy Mays" was unfortunate as it ran the day before Mays died.

Back in 1996, it was fairly commonplace for Democrats to hold events for Congressional candidates running against Republicans to hold a "Contract on Phil Crane" or a "Contract on John Hostetler" or a "Contract on Newt Gingrich."  Contract as in mob contract. Very clever, eh?

Kos himself wrote that because Giffords supported some policy of Bush's in June 2008, she should consider herself wearing a "bullseye on her back" come the 2010 primary. Some other unhinged Kos writer wrote last week that Giffords was "dead to me" because she cast a symbolic vote for Heath Shuler for Minority Leader.

Want some other dandies over the years?

QuoteNot me, I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
-- National Public Radio and ABC News reporter Nina Totenberg reacting to Senator Jesse Helms' claim that the government spends too much on AIDS research, July 8, 1995 Inside Washington.

Quote"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
-- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

QuoteMany families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. ... If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California — these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush. -- Michael Moore

How about the movie Taxi Driver, which inspired John Hinckley to attempt assassinating Ronald Reagan (which hardly slowed down left wingers with mics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGyz16_MfMIl)

We can go on and on, but he fact remains we cannot understand what motivates crazy people.

R-V's link suggesting that left-wingers are completely non-violent unable to be incited to violence quite conveniently leaves out the Unabomber and the Discovery Channel Hostage Taker (motivated by stricter environmental control), the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Weather Underground.

Considering that many of us participate in a Dead Pool in which many picks are of people we aren't shy in expressing our distaste for, maybe those who haven't (and many have) should just chill out.

You're not guilting me into taking Tdubbs off my board.

The SL and the SSL are never going away.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 11, 2011, 11:05:47 AM
Quote"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
-- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

I'm going to go ahead and concede this argument to TJ. Mostly because the above quote is one of the most hilariously racist quotes I've ever seen. Although I'm not sure what Malveaux was trying to persuade her listeners to do - force feed scrambled eggs to Clarence?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 11, 2011, 11:13:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 11, 2011, 11:05:47 AM
Quote"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
-- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

I'm going to go ahead and concede this argument to TJ. Mostly because the above quote is one of the most hilariously racist quotes I've ever seen. Although I'm not sure what Malveaux was trying to persuade her listeners to do - force feed scrambled eggs to Clarence?

Also not sure how someone hoping for divine retribution is the same as someone hoping for human retribution (the Tottenberg quote).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on January 11, 2011, 11:13:59 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 11, 2011, 11:13:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 11, 2011, 11:05:47 AM
Quote"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
-- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

I'm going to go ahead and concede this argument to TJ. Mostly because the above quote is one of the most hilariously racist quotes I've ever seen. Although I'm not sure what Malveaux was trying to persuade her listeners to do - force feed scrambled eggs to Clarence?

Also not sure how someone hoping for divine retribution is the same as someone hoping for human retribution (the Tottenberg quote).

based on the molested
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on January 11, 2011, 11:15:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 10:49:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2011, 10:46:03 AM
Quote from: Oleg on January 11, 2011, 06:33:40 AM
The conversation should be focuses on how we live in a country that allowed this guy to buy a gun legally.

Or in a country that allows people -- crazy or not -- to buy guns that can fire 30 rounds in a few seconds.

Whither our second amendment right to assassinate Congressmen?

Silly me. I always forget about that part.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 11:41:23 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 11, 2011, 10:51:28 AM
QuoteIf words have no meaning, then what is government?

The failure of Gabrielle Giffords to answer this non-sensical question appears to be what drove Jared Loughner to kill. Sarah Palin posting a map with crosshairs on it was unfortunate, just as a Chicago Tribune editorial on a proposed law regulating the volume of television ads that included a wish to "silence Billy Mays" was unfortunate as it ran the day before Mays died.

Back in 1996, it was fairly commonplace for Democrats to hold events for Congressional candidates running against Republicans to hold a "Contract on Phil Crane" or a "Contract on John Hostetler" or a "Contract on Newt Gingrich."  Contract as in mob contract. Very clever, eh?

Kos himself wrote that because Giffords supported some policy of Bush's in June 2008, she should consider herself wearing a "bullseye on her back" come the 2010 primary. Some other unhinged Kos writer wrote last week that Giffords was "dead to me" because she cast a symbolic vote for Heath Shuler for Minority Leader.

Want some other dandies over the years?

QuoteNot me, I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
-- National Public Radio and ABC News reporter Nina Totenberg reacting to Senator Jesse Helms' claim that the government spends too much on AIDS research, July 8, 1995 Inside Washington.

Quote"The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person."
-- USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

QuoteMany families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. ... If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California — these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush. -- Michael Moore

How about the movie Taxi Driver, which inspired John Hinckley to attempt assassinating Ronald Reagan (which hardly slowed down left wingers with mics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGyz16_MfMIl)

We can go on and on, but he fact remains we cannot understand what motivates crazy people.

R-V's link suggesting that left-wingers are completely non-violent unable to be incited to violence quite conveniently leaves out the Unabomber and the Discovery Channel Hostage Taker (motivated by stricter environmental control), the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Weather Underground.

Considering that many of us participate in a Dead Pool in which many picks are of people we aren't shy in expressing our distaste for, maybe those who haven't (and many have) should just chill out.

Well done.

THESE ARE THE SAYINGS AND DEMANDS OF LEE!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 11, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
So, we've established that all sides in this are pretty shitty.  All have people who say heinous things.  But, we've also got a Constitution that protects their right to do so. 
And it's certainly not something that should be fucked around with just because we don't like the rhetoric of the lowest common denominator.  Their speech is protected, just like yours and mine.

I think the thing to remember is, there's very little that's new about this.  Ever since politicians have appeared in public, crazy people have been trying to kill them.  And this guy was crazy.  Saying that taking a more civil tone in the political forum would have prevented this from happening is like saying that if the city of New York had just banned talking dogs, David Berkowitz never would have shot anyone.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 11, 2011, 12:27:00 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
So, we've established that all sides in this are pretty shitty.  All have people who say heinous things.  But, we've also got a Constitution that protects their right to do so. 
And it's certainly not something that should be fucked around with just because we don't like the rhetoric of the lowest common denominator.  Their speech is protected, just like yours and mine.

I think the thing to remember is, there's very little that's new about this.  Ever since politicians have appeared in public, crazy people have been trying to kill them.  And this guy was crazy.  Saying that taking a more civil tone in the political forum would have prevented this from happening is like saying that if the city of New York had just banned talking dogs, David Berkowitz never would have shot anyone.

A big old ball of THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 11, 2011, 12:35:18 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
So, we've established that all sides in this are pretty shitty.  All have people who say heinous things.  But, we've also got a Constitution that protects their right to do so. 
And it's certainly not something that should be fucked around with just because we don't like the rhetoric of the lowest common denominator.  Their speech is protected, just like yours and mine.

I think the thing to remember is, there's very little that's new about this.  Ever since politicians have appeared in public, crazy people have been trying to kill them.  And this guy was crazy.  Saying that taking a more civil tone in the political forum would have prevented this from happening is like saying that if the city of New York had just banned talking dogs, David Berkowitz never would have shot anyone.

First they came for my neighbor's talking dog...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 11, 2011, 01:07:03 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
So, we've established that all sides in this are pretty shitty.  All have people who say heinous things.  But, we've also got a Constitution that protects their right to do so. 
And it's certainly not something that should be fucked around with just because we don't like the rhetoric of the lowest common denominator.  Their speech is protected, just like yours and mine.

I think the thing to remember is, there's very little that's new about this.  Ever since politicians have appeared in public, crazy people have been trying to kill them.  And this guy was crazy.  Saying that taking a more civil tone in the political forum would have prevented this from happening is like saying that if the city of New York had just banned talking dogs, David Davey Berkowitz never would have shot anyone.

(http://i55.tinypic.com/2wr46l4.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 11, 2011, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
So, we've established that all sides in this are pretty shitty.  All have people who say heinous things.  But, we've also got a Constitution that protects their right to do so. 
And it's certainly not something that should be fucked around with just because we don't like the rhetoric of the lowest common denominator.  Their speech is protected, just like yours and mine.

I think the thing to remember is, there's very little that's new about this.  Ever since politicians have appeared in public, crazy people have been trying to kill them.  And this guy was crazy.  Saying that taking a more civil tone in the political forum would have prevented this from happening is like saying that if the city of New York had just banned talking dogs, David Berkowitz never would have shot anyone.

I hope Jon Bon Jovi sees this and writes a song in your memory.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 11, 2011, 01:21:04 PM
Quote from: BH on January 11, 2011, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
So, we've established that all sides in this are pretty shitty.  All have people who say heinous things.  But, we've also got a Constitution that protects their right to do so. 
And it's certainly not something that should be fucked around with just because we don't like the rhetoric of the lowest common denominator.  Their speech is protected, just like yours and mine.

I think the thing to remember is, there's very little that's new about this.  Ever since politicians have appeared in public, crazy people have been trying to kill them.  And this guy was crazy.  Saying that taking a more civil tone in the political forum would have prevented this from happening is like saying that if the city of New York had just banned talking dogs, David Berkowitz never would have shot anyone.

I hope Jon Bon Jovi sees this and writes a song in your memory.

And I hope his tour stops in Brolumbus so you can hear him sing it live.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 11, 2011, 02:14:04 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
So, we've established that all sides in this are pretty shitty.  All have people who say heinous things.  But, we've also got a Constitution that protects their right to do so. 
And it's certainly not something that should be fucked around with just because we don't like the rhetoric of the lowest common denominator.  Their speech is protected, just like yours and mine.

I think the thing to remember is, there's very little that's new about this.  Ever since politicians have appeared in public, crazy people have been trying to kill them.  And this guy was crazy.  Saying that taking a more civil tone in the political forum would have prevented this from happening is like saying that if the city of New York had just banned talking dogs, David Berkowitz never would have shot anyone.

Julius Caesar approves this comment.  He also advises to stay out of the forum if you know what is good for you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 09:09:36 AM
Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

You pretty much nail the entire purpose of the Democratic strategy to stop Sarah Palin or anyone else that dares to defy Democrats. Say as much crazy, made up up crap, that is never supported by facts in an attempt to make them toxic.

Your positive is to associate something that has nothing to do with Palin in the hopes it makes her more toxic.

Really it just prove my entire point about this non-sense about associating it with Palin. It doesn't really matter whether its true or not as long as the end goal is the destruction of Palin. Thats the positive you get out of it? Holy fuck that is a warped reality. I bet Dan Rather used that same logic loop when he ran his last story for CBS Nightly News.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 11, 2011, 02:37:50 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
I bet Dan Rather used that same logic loop when he ran his last story for CBS Nightly News.

This seems topical enough.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on January 11, 2011, 02:44:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 11, 2011, 02:37:50 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
I bet Dan Rather used that same logic loop when he ran his last story for CBS Nightly News.

This seems topical enough.

Seems like we're making progress though. MikeC actually read someone else's post.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 11, 2011, 02:57:30 PM
non-sense?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 11, 2011, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 09:09:36 AM
Of course, the Dems are guilty, in that phrases like "Targeting strategy" and the like are never used in, say, marketing or advertising.

And the Democratic candidates for office were full of "Second Amendment Solutions" and "Don't retreat-RELOAD".

Are they saints? Of course not. Politics is shitty business.

That being said, there may (hopefully) be 2 positives to come out of all this:

1) Sarah Palin becomes so politically toxic that she is no longer a factor on the National stage, and

2) People in both parties understand that, like it or not, you better make sure somebody is fully vetted before you put them on Camera 1.

You pretty much nail the entire purpose of the Democratic strategy to stop Sarah Palin or anyone else that dares to defy Democrats. Say as much crazy, made up up crap, that is never supported by facts in an attempt to make them toxic.

Your positive is to associate something that has nothing to do with Palin in the hopes it makes her more toxic.

Really it just prove my entire point about this non-sense about associating it with Palin. It doesn't really matter whether its true or not as long as the end goal is the destruction of Palin. Thats the positive you get out of it? Holy fuck that is a warped reality. I bet Dan Rather used that same logic loop when he ran his last story for CBS Nightly News.

Hoping Palin exits the political arena isn't my wish as a Democrat, it's my wish as an American. She benefits my party but harms the Nation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 11, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

Holy shit!  The democrats want to assassinate 8 states - and Florida!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 11, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 11, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

Holy shit!  The democrats want to assassinate 8 states - and Florida!

I thought it was a map of Who concerts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 11, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 11, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 11, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

Holy shit!  The democrats want to assassinate 8 states - and Florida!

I thought it was a map of Who concerts.

Nonsense, there'd be one on Cincinnati if that were the case.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 11, 2011, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 11, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 11, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

Holy shit!  The democrats want to assassinate 8 states - and Florida!

I thought it was a map of Who concerts.

Nonsense, there'd be one on Cincinnati if that were the case.

Now that was just inflammatory. I call for Dan Rather to outlaw your speech or something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 11, 2011, 06:32:41 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
Your positive is to associate something that has nothing to do with Palin in the hopes it makes her more toxic.


You nailed his positive.  Now what about his negative?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 11, 2011, 07:03:26 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 11, 2011, 03:30:21 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 03:28:59 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 11, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 11, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

Holy shit!  The democrats want to assassinate 8 states - and Florida!

I thought it was a map of Who concerts.

Nonsense, there'd be one on Cincinnati if that were the case.

Now that was just inflammatory. I call for Dan Rather to outlaw your speech or something.

What's the frequency, indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 11, 2011, 07:04:53 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 11, 2011, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 11, 2011, 08:54:32 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 11, 2011, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on January 11, 2011, 05:19:19 AM
I can point to things 10,000 times as bad as a Palin site with targets, there is about a decade of evidence of all the left wing hate speech, and violent imagery against Bush. Palin has had her fair share thrown at her and her family as well.


since you've paraphrased Michelle Malkin's latest screed here, allow me to rebut.

There are plenty of websites, imagery, etc. with all kinds of hate on them - Nobody is truly President of the United States until he's been caricatured as Hitler - but all Malkin's examples (and, by extention, anything you'd provide) are done by the left-wing version of Birthers.

Not by former Vice Presidential nominees, probably Presidential candidates, or groups funded by the DNC. You are comparing apples to basketballs.



DPD.  Damnit Fork, your insistence on acting like one of these parties is better than the other (hint - it's not) has forced me to post this.  I've tried to stay out of this, mainly because a nutjob's a nutjob and all this bullshit about the rhetoric causing anything is, well, bullshit.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

(http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP_0405_heartland1.gif)

Those look like bullseyes, a "targeting strategy," and "BEHIND ENEMY LINES."  From the DLC.  So stop acting like it's "The right does rhetoric like THIS, the left like THIS."

Also, Oleg's conclusion is perfect.  Well said, indeed.

Holy shit!  The democrats want to assassinate 8 states - and Florida!

NOT AMERICA'S WANG!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 11, 2011, 07:43:49 PM
Now...clearly the National sentiment bears a ton of responsibility, but the shit may work.

From teh DNC map, all but AR and MO went Dem in the 2008 election.
From Palin's map, only Giffords and and Rahal (WV-3) won.

Quote from: CT III on January 11, 2011, 12:26:14 PM
Saying that taking a more civil tone in the political forum would have prevented this from happening is like saying that if the city of New York had just banned talking dogs, David Berkowitz never would have shot anyone.

You might be right, CT.  But it couldn't hurt, could it?  Let's just try it.  If you don't like it, we can go back to accusing each other of having out-of-wedlock black babies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Armchair_QB on January 12, 2011, 07:55:00 PM
Does the memorial service start after the pep rally or did they hold it earlier?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 13, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.

What Fork said.

Also, I've seen this complaint in a few places and it's the same stuff we saw after Paul Wellstone's memorial. I don't understand it. Is there something particularly wrong with having something positive/celebratory rather than a somber rending of garments? Who are we to decide how people are allowed react to something awful?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.

I'm planning on having a table for my internet friends, can you guys all let me know if you're thinking of coming?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 13, 2011, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 13, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.

What Fork said.

Also, I've seen this complaint in a few places and it's the same stuff we saw after Paul Wellstone's memorial. I don't understand it. Is there something particularly wrong with having something positive/celebratory rather than a somber rending of garments? Who are we to decide how people are allowed react to something awful?

This.  I think Americans like to cheer sometimes.  As I said in the SBox, the whole thing felt very Irish wake-y, which isn't a problem.

That Indian fella at the beginning set the tone.  He was good.

I did not care for the university president's Obama dong chugging during the President's intro.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 13, 2011, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 13, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.

What Fork said.

Also, I've seen this complaint in a few places and it's the same stuff we saw after Paul Wellstone's memorial. I don't understand it. Is there something particularly wrong with having something positive/celebratory rather than a somber rending of garments? Who are we to decide how people are allowed react to something awful?

This.  I think Americans like to cheer sometimes.  As I said in the SBox, the whole thing felt very Irish wake-y, which isn't a problem.

That Indian fella at the beginning set the tone.  He was good.

I did not care for the university president's Obama dong chugging during the President's intro.

Can I complain about all the bible readings too?
Less from the President, but more from Napolitano and Holder.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 13, 2011, 11:03:22 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.

I'm planning on having a table for my internet friends, can you guys all let me know if you're thinking of coming?

(http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/middle-finger.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 13, 2011, 11:03:39 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 13, 2011, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 13, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.

What Fork said.

Also, I've seen this complaint in a few places and it's the same stuff we saw after Paul Wellstone's memorial. I don't understand it. Is there something particularly wrong with having something positive/celebratory rather than a somber rending of garments? Who are we to decide how people are allowed react to something awful?

This.  I think Americans like to cheer sometimes.  As I said in the SBox, the whole thing felt very Irish wake-y, which isn't a problem.

That Indian fella at the beginning set the tone.  He was good.

I did not care for the university president's Obama dong chugging during the President's intro.

Can I complain about all the bible readings too?
Less from the President, but more from Napolitano and Holder.

Not enough blood in your motzoh today?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 13, 2011, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:59:59 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 13, 2011, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 13, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.

What Fork said.

Also, I've seen this complaint in a few places and it's the same stuff we saw after Paul Wellstone's memorial. I don't understand it. Is there something particularly wrong with having something positive/celebratory rather than a somber rending of garments? Who are we to decide how people are allowed react to something awful?

This.  I think Americans like to cheer sometimes.  As I said in the SBox, the whole thing felt very Irish wake-y, which isn't a problem.

That Indian fella at the beginning set the tone.  He was good.

I did not care for the university president's Obama dong chugging during the President's intro.

Can I complain about all the bible readings too?
Less from the President, but more from Napolitano and Holder.

Pen would have preferred readings from the Pentateuch.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 13, 2011, 01:34:25 PM
Obama and Palin, together at last (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/01/10/obama-and-palin-archie-617-preview/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 13, 2011, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 01:34:25 PM
Obama and Palin, together at last (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/01/10/obama-and-palin-archie-617-preview/).

Stuck-up Riverdale punks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 13, 2011, 03:26:02 PM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 13, 2011, 10:19:40 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 13, 2011, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 12, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
That was a pretty good speech, but holding the service in a field house might not have been the best idea.

But on the whole, pretty moving.

I thought the actual words were great, but the entire setting seemed a bit too....celebratory?

You cheer like that at a campaign stop, not a memorial.

We all plan on cheering at yours.

I'm planning on having a table for my internet friends, can you guys all let me know if you're thinking of coming?

If it is going to be in Arizona we had better make sure that our passports are in order.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 13, 2011, 05:59:39 PM
I don't know where to put this exactly (that's what she said), however, first they let cats poop in human toilets and not they're letting them serve on juries?

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO133130/

Come on!!

QuoteA family is trying to figure out how their pet cat was summonsed for jury duty.

"I said, Sal, what's this? You know, I don't believe it I was shocked," said Guy Esposito, Sal's owner.

Sal's owners, Guy and Anna Esposito, think they may know the source of the mix up: Sal really is a member of the family, so on the last Census form, Anna Esposito listed him under "pets".

Here's the kicker, the owners stated that they informed the court that Sal "couldn't speak English" as a justification for Sal's disqualification.

However...

QuoteAnna filed for Sal's disqualification of service. However, the jury commissioner was unmoved and denied the request.

Sal's service date at Suffolk Superior Court is set for March 23. Anna said that if the issue isn't cleared up by then, she will simply have to bring the cat to court.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 13, 2011, 07:02:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 13, 2011, 05:59:39 PM
QuoteSal's owners, Guy and Anna Esposito, think they may know the source of the mix up: Sal really is a member of the family, so on the last Census form, Anna Esposito listed him under "pets".

There seems to be a rather serious problem with the copy desk here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 15, 2011, 03:46:12 PM
This is worth a read...

"What we can learn from a nuclear reactor"

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cea7b256-1def-11e0-badd-00144feab49a.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 16, 2011, 11:51:20 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 13, 2011, 05:59:39 PM
I don't know where to put this exactly (that's what she said), however, first they let cats poop in human toilets and not they're letting them serve on juries?

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO133130/

Come on!!

QuoteA family is trying to figure out how their pet cat was summonsed for jury duty.

"I said, Sal, what's this? You know, I don't believe it I was shocked," said Guy Esposito, Sal's owner.

Sal's owners, Guy and Anna Esposito, think they may know the source of the mix up: Sal really is a member of the family, so on the last Census form, Anna Esposito listed him under "pets".

Here's the kicker, the owners stated that they informed the court that Sal "couldn't speak English" as a justification for Sal's disqualification.

However...

QuoteAnna filed for Sal's disqualification of service. However, the jury commissioner was unmoved and denied the request.

Sal's service date at Suffolk Superior Court is set for March 23. Anna said that if the issue isn't cleared up by then, she will simply have to bring the cat to court.

And now cats with glasses? Come on!

http://daintysquid.blogspot.com/2011/01/cats-in-glasses.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM
The more complete story of the computer worm that attacked Iran's uranium facilities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html

Spoiler: The U.S. and Israel did it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 02:20:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM
The more complete story of the computer worm that attacked Iran's uranium facilities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html

Spoiler: The U.S. and Israel did it.

Via Wheezer:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffreycarr/2011/01/17/the-new-york-times-fails-to-deliver-stuxnets-creators/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 17, 2011, 04:23:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 02:20:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM
The more complete story of the computer worm that attacked Iran's uranium facilities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html

Spoiler: The U.S. and Israel did it.

Via Wheezer:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffreycarr/2011/01/17/the-new-york-times-fails-to-deliver-stuxnets-creators/

I haven't been following this since last fall, and I recall that Langner's writings often struck me as cocksure, but Carr's China hypothesis and concomitant indignation at being completely ignored aren't coming off as particularly compelling upon a quick review. His "five pieces of verifiable evidence" aren't, really, and the whole thing hinges on this speculation to motive:

QuoteOn April 13, 2010 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-04/13/c_13249560.htm), Beijing reiterated its opposition to Iran's goal to develop nuclear weapons capabilities while stating that sanctions against Iran would be counter-productive. In other words, the PRC wanted to support its third largest supplier of oil (after Saudi Arabia and Angola) while at the same time seeking ways to get Iran to stop its uranium fuel enrichment program. What better way to accomplish that goal than by covertly creating a virus that will sabotage Natanz' centrifuges in a way that simulates mechanical failure while overtly supporting the Iranian government by opposing sanctions pushed by the U.S. It's both simple and elegant. Even if the worm was discovered before it accomplished its mission, who would blame China, Iran's strongest ally, when the most obvious culprits would be Israel and the U.S.?

Sure thing, man. Don't miss the orgonite booth while you're here.

[Before I forget, Natanz in the Speculoverse (http://frank.geekheim.de/?p=1189).]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 04:56:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 17, 2011, 04:23:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 02:20:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM
The more complete story of the computer worm that attacked Iran's uranium facilities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html

Spoiler: The U.S. and Israel did it.

Via Wheezer:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffreycarr/2011/01/17/the-new-york-times-fails-to-deliver-stuxnets-creators/

I haven't been following this since last fall, and I recall that Langner's writings often struck me as cocksure, but Carr's China hypothesis and concomitant indignation at being completely ignored aren't coming off as particularly compelling upon a quick review. His "five pieces of verifiable evidence" aren't, really, and the whole thing hinges on this speculation to motive:

QuoteOn April 13, 2010 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-04/13/c_13249560.htm), Beijing reiterated its opposition to Iran's goal to develop nuclear weapons capabilities while stating that sanctions against Iran would be counter-productive. In other words, the PRC wanted to support its third largest supplier of oil (after Saudi Arabia and Angola) while at the same time seeking ways to get Iran to stop its uranium fuel enrichment program. What better way to accomplish that goal than by covertly creating a virus that will sabotage Natanz' centrifuges in a way that simulates mechanical failure while overtly supporting the Iranian government by opposing sanctions pushed by the U.S. It's both simple and elegant. Even if the worm was discovered before it accomplished its mission, who would blame China, Iran's strongest ally, when the most obvious culprits would be Israel and the U.S.?

Sure thing, man. Don't miss the orgonite booth while you're here.

Are you suggesting... cloudbusters (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/secret-scientists-claim-to-create-rain-in-arab-desert/)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 17, 2011, 05:31:07 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 04:56:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 17, 2011, 04:23:12 PM
Sure thing, man. Don't miss the orgonite booth while you're here.

Are you suggesting... cloudbusters (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/secret-scientists-claim-to-create-rain-in-arab-desert/)?

BROMINE MISSLE INJECTORS, Kumpel.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 18, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/food/newsletter-signup/Confessions+Greenpeace+founder/4073767/story.html?id=4073767

The list at the end is excellent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 18, 2011, 01:27:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 18, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/food/newsletter-signup/Confessions+Greenpeace+founder/4073767/story.html?id=4073767

The list at the end is excellent.

The article is fantastic.

This clown should be in Congress.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on January 18, 2011, 01:42:19 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 18, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/food/newsletter-signup/Confessions+Greenpeace+founder/4073767/story.html?id=4073767

The list at the end is excellent.

Great article Morph.
A well reasoned and rational approach to our environment.
How refreshing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 18, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Say it ain't so, JFK! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011306399.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 18, 2011, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 18, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Say it ain't so, JFK! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011306399.html)

Thank you for posting this, Morts.  Fucking JFK.  Everyone knows that Nixon actually won that election in his own right, but thought that the nastiness of a recall was beneathe him.

Fucking Kennedys.

I hope the Nixon Library puts on an exhibit concerning this travesty.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 18, 2011, 05:31:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 18, 2011, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 18, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Say it ain't so, JFK! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011306399.html)

Thank you for posting this, Morts.  Fucking JFK.  Everyone knows that Nixon actually won that election in his own right, but thought that the nastiness of a recall was beneathe him.

Fucking Kennedys.

I hope the Nixon Library puts on an exhibit concerning this travesty.

Where were those WaPo goons when Nixon needed them in 1973!?!?!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 18, 2011, 05:57:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 18, 2011, 05:31:29 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 18, 2011, 04:54:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 18, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Say it ain't so, JFK! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011306399.html)

Thank you for posting this, Morts.  Fucking JFK.  Everyone knows that Nixon actually won that election in his own right, but thought that the nastiness of a recall was beneathe him.

Fucking Kennedys.

I hope the Nixon Library puts on an exhibit concerning this travesty.

Where were those WaPo goons when Nixon needed them in 1973!?!?!

Screwing him over yet again!

DAMN YOU, WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 18, 2011, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: MikeC on January 10, 2011, 05:33:56 AM
I just find it sad that every time there is an act of violence the media has to jump in and blame Right Wing Extremists only to be proven wrong each and every time.

Que'd (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5io6mwyUU9cT9ZyMDY_OOIzdAqb_A)

Let's see how this one plays out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 19, 2011, 08:53:23 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Quote from: 23rd Psalm

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: For thou art with me*

*Not applicable in certain US states
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

It's gotten to the point where I carry a garbage can lid to protect me from the stonings on my way to work.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 19, 2011, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.

A Muslim governor? The very idea is absurd.

Next thing you'll be telling me that all of the laws about needing to believe in God to hold public office in several states have been repealed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 19, 2011, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 02:20:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM
The more complete story of the computer worm that attacked Iran's uranium facilities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html

Spoiler: The U.S. and Israel did it.

Via Wheezer:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffreycarr/2011/01/17/the-new-york-times-fails-to-deliver-stuxnets-creators/

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/stuxnet-authors-made-several-basic-errors-011811

QuoteRather than being proud of its stealth and targeting, the authors should be embarrassed at their amateur approach to hiding the payload. I really hope it wasn't written by the USA because I'd like to think our elite cyberweapon developers at least know what Bulgarian teenagers did back in the early 90′s.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 19, 2011, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 02:20:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM
The more complete story of the computer worm that attacked Iran's uranium facilities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html

Spoiler: The U.S. and Israel did it.

Via Wheezer:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffreycarr/2011/01/17/the-new-york-times-fails-to-deliver-stuxnets-creators/

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/stuxnet-authors-made-several-basic-errors-011811

QuoteRather than being proud of its stealth and targeting, the authors should be embarrassed at their amateur approach to hiding the payload. I really hope it wasn't written by the USA because I'd like to think our elite cyberweapon developers at least know what Bulgarian teenagers did back in the early 90′s.

And, as everyone knows, the government is incapable of writing shitty code.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 19, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.

A Muslim governor? The very idea is absurd.

Next thing you'll be telling me that all of the laws about needing to believe in God to hold public office in several states have been repealed.

Does this mean that I can't get a fishing license in Alabama?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 19, 2011, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.

A Muslim governor? The very idea is absurd.

Next thing you'll be telling me that all of the laws about needing to believe in God to hold public office in several states have been repealed.

Does this mean that I can't get a fishing license in Alabama?

No, but you can get a license to hunt the mentally ill.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 19, 2011, 03:57:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.

A Muslim governor? The very idea is absurd.

Next thing you'll be telling me that all of the laws about needing to believe in God to hold public office in several states have been repealed.

Does this mean that I can't get a fishing license in Alabama?

Wait, is there any state that allows a Jew to get a fishing license? What happened to my America?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 19, 2011, 04:03:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 03:57:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.

A Muslim governor? The very idea is absurd.

Next thing you'll be telling me that all of the laws about needing to believe in God to hold public office in several states have been repealed.

Does this mean that I can't get a fishing license in Alabama?

Wait, is there any state that allows a Jew to get a fishing license? What happened to my America?

It fell apart the day they started giving trophies to NFL conference winners. Bah, that's like a consolation prize.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 19, 2011, 04:43:54 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 04:03:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 03:57:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.

A Muslim governor? The very idea is absurd.

Next thing you'll be telling me that all of the laws about needing to believe in God to hold public office in several states have been repealed.

Does this mean that I can't get a fishing license in Alabama?

Wait, is there any state that allows a Jew to get a fishing license? What happened to my America?

It fell apart the day they started giving trophies to NFL conference winners. Bah, that's like a consolation prize.

Not just a trophy, a fucking ring. (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Judge-orders-former-NFL-player-to-surrender-cham?urn=nfl-309718)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 19, 2011, 05:40:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 03:57:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.

A Muslim governor? The very idea is absurd.

Next thing you'll be telling me that all of the laws about needing to believe in God to hold public office in several states have been repealed.

Does this mean that I can't get a fishing license in Alabama?

Wait, is there any state that allows a Jew to get a fishing license? What happened to my America?

Why would a Jew need a fishing license?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 19, 2011, 05:45:29 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 19, 2011, 05:40:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 03:57:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2011, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 09:10:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2011, 08:54:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 08:42:33 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2011, 08:28:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Alabama, folks.

Quote from: Freedom Is Not FreeWhy is it in this country that if a Christian expresses their views it is "shocking". But ANY other religion it is perfectly acceptable to say what they please? STAND UP CHRISTIANS! PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO PURGE YOU FROM THIS EARTH! I bet yahoo! censors this one too...

Those poor persecuted Christians.

DPD, but he's right you know. If a Muslim governor said only Muslims were his friends, NOBODY would have a problem with that. We'd probably never hear about it.

A Muslim governor? The very idea is absurd.

Next thing you'll be telling me that all of the laws about needing to believe in God to hold public office in several states have been repealed.

Does this mean that I can't get a fishing license in Alabama?

Wait, is there any state that allows a Jew to get a fishing license? What happened to my America?

Why would a Jew need a fishing license?

Stew prefers his Gefilte to be freshly caught.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 19, 2011, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: PenPho on January 19, 2011, 05:45:29 PM
Stew prefers his Gefilte to be freshly caught.

(http://andthoushaltread.com/images/medium/9780930494674.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 19, 2011, 06:04:21 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 19, 2011, 05:59:47 PM
Quote from: PenPho on January 19, 2011, 05:45:29 PM
Stew prefers his Gefilte to be freshly caught.

(http://andthoushaltread.com/images/medium/9780930494674.jpg)

A Haddock?  What do you take for a Haddock?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on January 20, 2011, 02:18:25 PM
Fuck it's silent in here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 20, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2011, 02:18:25 PM
Fuck it's silent in here.

Once HCR repeal is stillborn in the Senate, it should pick up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 20, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2011, 02:18:25 PM
Fuck it's silent in here.

Once HCR repeal is stillborn in the Senate, it should pick up.

You Obamadongchuggers carrying water for Journolist will rue that day. Mark. My. Words.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 20, 2011, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2011, 02:18:25 PM
Fuck it's silent in here.

Once HCR repeal is stillborn in the Senate, it should pick up.

You Obamadongchuggers carrying water for Journolist will rue that day. Mark. My. Words.

I already sent Barry Hussein a case of Banana Creme Muscle Milk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 20, 2011, 03:23:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2011, 03:01:21 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 20, 2011, 02:30:20 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2011, 02:18:25 PM
Fuck it's silent in here.

Once HCR repeal is stillborn in the Senate, it should pick up.

You Obamadongchuggers carrying water for Journolist will rue that day. Mark. My. Words.

I already sent Barry Hussein a case of Banana Creme Muscle Milk.

Intrepid Reader: Gil Gunderson

I should probably start doing some form of mouth-kegels to prepare for this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 22, 2011, 10:37:59 AM
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/#post_comments





"The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in a Florida District Court.

The pleadings, in part, read -

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.

State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on January 22, 2011, 11:08:15 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2011, 10:37:59 AM
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/#post_comments





"The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in a Florida District Court.

The pleadings, in part, read -

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.

State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen"


Sweet.  They're going to fix my baby batter!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 22, 2011, 03:55:35 PM
Quote from: powen01 on January 22, 2011, 11:08:15 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 22, 2011, 10:37:59 AM
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/#post_comments





"The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in a Florida District Court.

The pleadings, in part, read -

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.

State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen"


Sweet.  They're going to fix my baby batter!

Eh, that was probably just done to mask the odious Alien and Sedition Acts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2011, 04:50:59 PM
This could be a legit game-changer...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/a-brave-new-world-of-fossil-fuels-on-demand/article1871149/

QuoteIn September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for "a proprietary organism" – a genetically engineered cyanobacterium that produces liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline. This breakthrough technology, the company says, will deliver renewable supplies of liquid fossil fuel almost anywhere on Earth, in essentially unlimited quantity and at an energy-cost equivalent of $30 (U.S.) a barrel of crude oil. It will deliver, the company says, "fossil fuels on demand."

We're not talking "biofuels" – not, at any rate, in the usual sense of the word. The Joule technology requires no "feedstock," no corn, no wood, no garbage, no algae. Aside from hungry, gene-altered micro-organisms, it requires only carbon dioxide and sunshine to manufacture crude. And water: whether fresh, brackish or salt. With these "inputs," it mimics photosynthesis, the process by which green leaves use solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds. Indeed, the company describes its manufacture of fossil fuels as "artificial photosynthesis."

Joule says it now has "a library" of fossil-fuel organisms at work in its Massachusetts labs, each engineered to produce a different fuel. It has "proven the process," has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production, equivalent to roughly 800 barrels of crude an acre a year.

By way of comparison, Cornell University's David Pimentel, an authority on ethanol, says that one acre of corn produces less than half as much energy, equivalent to only 328 barrels. If a few hundred barrels of crude sounds modest, recall that millions of acres of prime U.S. farmland are now used to make corn ethanol.

Joule says its "solar converter" technology makes the manufacture of liquid fossil fuels 50 times as efficient as conventional biofuel production – and eliminates as much as 90 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. "Requiring only sunlight and waste C0{-2}," it says, "[this] technology can produce virtually unlimited quantities of fossil fuels with zero dependence on raw materials, agricultural land, crops or fresh water. It ends the hazards of oil exploration and oil production. It takes us to the unthinkable: liquid hydrocarbons on demand."

...

Joule began to generate buzz toward the end of 2010. When U.S. Senator John Kerry toured the company's labs in October, he called the technology "a potential game-changer."...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2011, 04:54:15 PM
Adding: http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/info/search.php?site=BFJ&q=joule&q-btn.x=0&q-btn.y=0
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 19, 2011, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 02:20:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM
The more complete story of the computer worm that attacked Iran's uranium facilities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html

Spoiler: The U.S. and Israel did it.

Via Wheezer:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffreycarr/2011/01/17/the-new-york-times-fails-to-deliver-stuxnets-creators/

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/stuxnet-authors-made-several-basic-errors-011811

QuoteRather than being proud of its stealth and targeting, the authors should be embarrassed at their amateur approach to hiding the payload. I really hope it wasn't written by the USA because I'd like to think our elite cyberweapon developers at least know what Bulgarian teenagers did back in the early 90′s.

And, as everyone knows, the government is incapable of writing shitty code.

To wit...

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/01/ready-for-cyberwar/

(TPD)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 24, 2011, 12:09:56 PM
The mayoral race just got wide open all over again. (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/24/breaking-court-tosses-emanuel-off-ballot/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 24, 2011, 12:11:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 24, 2011, 12:09:56 PM
The mayoral race just got wide open all over again. (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/24/breaking-court-tosses-emanuel-off-ballot/)

Oh, dip.

(http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/502469015/Fry_Futurama_dark_normal.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on January 24, 2011, 10:51:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2011, 04:50:59 PM
This could be a legit game-changer...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/a-brave-new-world-of-fossil-fuels-on-demand/article1871149/

QuoteIn September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for "a proprietary organism" – a genetically engineered cyanobacterium that produces liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline. This breakthrough technology, the company says, will deliver renewable supplies of liquid fossil fuel almost anywhere on Earth, in essentially unlimited quantity and at an energy-cost equivalent of $30 (U.S.) a barrel of crude oil. It will deliver, the company says, "fossil fuels on demand."

We're not talking "biofuels" – not, at any rate, in the usual sense of the word. The Joule technology requires no "feedstock," no corn, no wood, no garbage, no algae. Aside from hungry, gene-altered micro-organisms, it requires only carbon dioxide and sunshine to manufacture crude. And water: whether fresh, brackish or salt. With these "inputs," it mimics photosynthesis, the process by which green leaves use solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds. Indeed, the company describes its manufacture of fossil fuels as "artificial photosynthesis."

Joule says it now has "a library" of fossil-fuel organisms at work in its Massachusetts labs, each engineered to produce a different fuel. It has "proven the process," has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production, equivalent to roughly 800 barrels of crude an acre a year.

By way of comparison, Cornell University's David Pimentel, an authority on ethanol, says that one acre of corn produces less than half as much energy, equivalent to only 328 barrels. If a few hundred barrels of crude sounds modest, recall that millions of acres of prime U.S. farmland are now used to make corn ethanol.

Joule says its "solar converter" technology makes the manufacture of liquid fossil fuels 50 times as efficient as conventional biofuel production – and eliminates as much as 90 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. "Requiring only sunlight and waste C0{-2}," it says, "[this] technology can produce virtually unlimited quantities of fossil fuels with zero dependence on raw materials, agricultural land, crops or fresh water. It ends the hazards of oil exploration and oil production. It takes us to the unthinkable: liquid hydrocarbons on demand."

...

Joule began to generate buzz toward the end of 2010. When U.S. Senator John Kerry toured the company's labs in October, he called the technology "a potential game-changer."...

Bullshit.  You linked to a Canadian newspaper.  It cannot be legit. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 08:38:30 AM
Michael Bay Presents: TIM PAWLENTY!!!1!!one!!eleven! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 11:34:08 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 08:38:30 AM
Michael Bay Presents: TIM PAWLENTY!!!1!!one!!eleven! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE)

Courage to Stand. I bought this book for my paralyzed cousin. Pussy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 25, 2011, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 08:38:30 AM
Michael Bay Presents: TIM PAWLENTY!!!1!!one!!eleven! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE)

The fact that he has footage from Project Apollo means he favors huge Government projects requiring trillions of dollars?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:50:35 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Cutler.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Meh... Rahm's still probably going to win once the Supreme Court overturns the Appellate Court decision.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Meh... Rahm's still probably going to win once the Supreme Court overturns the Appellate Court decision.

*If
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 25, 2011, 01:17:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Meh... Rahm's still probably going to win once the Supreme Court overturns the Appellate Court decision.

*If

Clearly someone doesn't know how a fix works.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2011, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Meh... Rahm's still probably going to win once the Supreme Court overturns the Appellate Court decision.

*If

When.  Hell, he's got the Trib AND the WSJ editorial boards on his side.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:37:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Gery Chico.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 01:40:00 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:37:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Gery Chico.

I can't go there. I'm still pissed about that game with the Panthers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:42:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2011, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Meh... Rahm's still probably going to win once the Supreme Court overturns the Appellate Court decision.

*If

When.  Hell, he's got the Trib AND the WSJ editorial boards on his side.

For the record, I think he should be on the ballot... and if I were a Chicago resident I'd likely vote for him because he's the least bad candidate.  I'm just not sure that the appellate court's decision is so easily overturned.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:42:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2011, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Meh... Rahm's still probably going to win once the Supreme Court overturns the Appellate Court decision.

*If

When.  Hell, he's got the Trib AND the WSJ editorial boards on his side.

For the record, I think he should be on the ballot... and if I were a Chicago resident I'd likely vote for him because he's the least bad candidate.  I'm just not sure that the appellate court's decision is so easily overturned.

And if SCOIL upholds it, I don't see the Federal question that SCOTUS needs to come in to resolve.

I do find it curious his opponents aren't exploiting this a little more, as in "Yeah, he should be on the ballot, as he did move here and kind of live here after growing up in the SUBURBS and then later after he worked in WASHINGTON. He even has a house here, so he obviously wants to be a Chicagoan. We can understand if he's a little out of touch with Chicago given his upbringing in the SUBURBS and his time in WASHINGTON."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2011, 01:51:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:47:47 PM
I do find it curious his opponents aren't exploiting this a little more, as in "Yeah, he should be on the ballot, as he did move here and kind of live here after growing up in the SUBURBS and then later after he worked in WASHINGTON. He even has a house here, so he obviously wants to be a Chicagoan. We can understand if he's a little out of touch with Chicago given his upbringing in the SUBURBS and his time in WASHINGTON."

It's not that curious.  They can't beat him with a campaign.  The only way to beat him is to keep him off the ballot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:57:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:47:47 PM
I do find it curious his opponents aren't exploiting this a little more, as in "Yeah, he should be on the ballot, as he did move here and kind of live here after growing up in the SUBURBS and then later after he worked in WASHINGTON. He even has a house here, so he obviously wants to be a Chicagoan. We can understand if he's a little out of touch with Chicago given his upbringing in the SUBURBS and his time in WASHINGTON."

So, TJ, they should be saying GO BACK TO THE SUBURBS!?!?!?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2011, 01:51:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:47:47 PM
I do find it curious his opponents aren't exploiting this a little more, as in "Yeah, he should be on the ballot, as he did move here and kind of live here after growing up in the SUBURBS and then later after he worked in WASHINGTON. He even has a house here, so he obviously wants to be a Chicagoan. We can understand if he's a little out of touch with Chicago given his upbringing in the SUBURBS and his time in WASHINGTON."

It's not that curious.  They can't beat him with a campaign.  The only way to beat him is to keep him off the ballot.

Why can't they beat him in a campaign? This is an example of a race in which Emanuel's funding should almost be a handicap.

Quote from: morpheus on January 25, 2011, 01:57:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:47:47 PM
I do find it curious his opponents aren't exploiting this a little more, as in "Yeah, he should be on the ballot, as he did move here and kind of live here after growing up in the SUBURBS and then later after he worked in WASHINGTON. He even has a house here, so he obviously wants to be a Chicagoan. We can understand if he's a little out of touch with Chicago given his upbringing in the SUBURBS and his time in WASHINGTON."

So, TJ, they should be saying GO BACK TO THE SUBURBS!?!?!?

Yes. Free political advice to Miguel del Valle, Carol Moseley-Braun and Gery Chico. All Democrats. I'm in a charitable mood.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2011, 02:37:43 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2011, 01:51:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:47:47 PM
I do find it curious his opponents aren't exploiting this a little more, as in "Yeah, he should be on the ballot, as he did move here and kind of live here after growing up in the SUBURBS and then later after he worked in WASHINGTON. He even has a house here, so he obviously wants to be a Chicagoan. We can understand if he's a little out of touch with Chicago given his upbringing in the SUBURBS and his time in WASHINGTON."

It's not that curious.  They can't beat him with a campaign.  The only way to beat him is to keep him off the ballot.

Why can't they beat him in a campaign? This is an example of a race in which Emanuel's funding should almost be a handicap.

Because they are lousy candidates.  Chico would be acceptable, but he seems to have no clue how to campaign.

Braun makes Alexi look qualified to be the Chairman of the Fed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 25, 2011, 02:55:34 PM
Mrs. Cubbieblue and I were at a social event about a year ago and were seated at a table opposite a woman who attempted to get us in a conversation about Michael Savage and Glenn Beck.  She thought that Savage was wonderful and that he was being victimized by the liberal establishment.  She asked whether we agreed.  Rather than answer her question I blurted out that we thought that Rahm Emanuel was the greatest living American and that we had a photo of him hanging in our living room.  She appeared to be frightened and didn't speak another word for the rest of the event.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 25, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:37:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Gery Chico.

No
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 25, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:37:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Gery Chico.

No

"Gery thinks the parking meter deal was the worst since the Louisiana Purchase"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 05:58:52 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 25, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:37:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Gery Chico.

No

"Gery thinks the parking meter deal was the worst since the Louisiana Purchase"

Well, yeah. We got St. Louis in the deal. We were robbed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 25, 2011, 08:48:51 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 05:58:52 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on January 25, 2011, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2011, 01:37:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on January 25, 2011, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2011, 12:07:26 PM
He's baaaaack. (http://www.suntimes.com/3483600-417/court-emanuel-ballot-appellate-illinois.html)

(For now.)

So, longtime locals, please help me out. In three words or less, who is the least-worst turd I have to choose from here?

Gery Chico.

No

"Gery thinks the parking meter deal was the worst since the Louisiana Purchase"

Well, yeah. We got St. Louis in the deal. We were robbed.

What Gery did to the firm I worked for was a bit worse than the parking meter deal, as Chicago is not currently a smoking hole of nothingness.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 09:09:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

It's flabby. I'd rather see someone bash themselves in the head with a bowling ball than prattle about "education reform" and "winning the future."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 09:12:21 PM
Hey, who am I?

"In South Korea, teachers are known as 'nation builders.'"

"South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 25, 2011, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 09:12:21 PM
Hey, who am I?

"In South Korea, teachers are known as 'nation builders.'"

"South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do."


Wheezer wins this whole shitty thread.

"Hey, who am I?"

Fucking gold.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 09:17:05 PM
"And last month, we finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 09:18:29 PM
"And on the Korean peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:18:43 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 09:09:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

It's flabby. I'd rather see someone bash themselves in the head with a bowling ball than prattle about "education reform" and "winning the future."

I like the theatrics sometimes.  I was pretty bored at parts.  

To be honest, I'd like to see more of the conversations between politicians when he's walking though the center aisle.  I think I caught one representative asking about the health care repeal, featuring some back and forth.  I'd like more of that.

The salmon line was funnier than I thought it would be.

Edit: I did like the line about government reorganization.  There hasn't been a substantive government review and reorganization since the 1947 National Security Act.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 09:22:54 PM
Now this is a headline (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061103-salmon-festival.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on January 25, 2011, 09:30:22 PM
The Republican response would have been much better if they saved us all the time and distilled it to its singular main point:

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 09:34:39 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on January 25, 2011, 09:30:22 PM
The Republican response would have been much better if they saved us all the time and distilled it to its singular main point:

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Needs more Korean (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/DESIGN/hotel-of-doom-012808).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.

What lie?  I support a few of the man's ideas and oppose some of the man's ideas.  I don't understand how that equals DONGCHUGGER or some how makes him my idol.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 25, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.

What lie?  I support a few of the man's ideas and oppose some of the man's ideas.  I don't understand how that equals DONGCHUGGER or some how makes him my idol.

You're missing the point here.  And that is the term "GUNDERDOME" is awesome.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 10:39:15 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.

What lie?  I support a few of the man's ideas and oppose some of the man's ideas.  I don't understand how that equals DONGCHUGGER or some how makes him my idol.

I think the real story here is the scrappy love of South Korean immigrants for American football (http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/people/Korean-Immigrants-Embrace-Pittsburgh-Football-114513334.html).

[In South Korea, they play until they collapse on the field (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfIdTNdVvLY).]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 25, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.

What lie?  I support a few of the man's ideas and oppose some of the man's ideas.  I don't understand how that equals DONGCHUGGER or some how makes him my idol.

You're missing the point here.  And that is the term "GUNDERDOME" is awesome.

I imagine that it's a boring place, where cloture, Swiss lakes, legal esoterica, and Lincoln signature conspiracies are discussed?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 25, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.

What lie?  I support a few of the man's ideas and oppose some of the man's ideas.  I don't understand how that equals DONGCHUGGER or some how makes him my idol.

You're missing the point here.  And that is the term "GUNDERDOME" is awesome.

I imagine that it's a boring place, where cloture, Swiss lakes, legal esoterica, and Lincoln signature conspiracies are discussed?

Enough.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on January 25, 2011, 11:26:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 25, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.

What lie?  I support a few of the man's ideas and oppose some of the man's ideas.  I don't understand how that equals DONGCHUGGER or some how makes him my idol.

You're missing the point here.  And that is the term "GUNDERDOME" is awesome.

I imagine that it's a boring place, where cloture, Swiss lakes, legal esoterica, and Lincoln signature conspiracies are discussed?

Enough.

I watched the Hawks game.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 11:51:59 PM
Quote from: flannj on January 25, 2011, 11:26:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 25, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.

What lie?  I support a few of the man's ideas and oppose some of the man's ideas.  I don't understand how that equals DONGCHUGGER or some how makes him my idol.

You're missing the point here.  And that is the term "GUNDERDOME" is awesome.

I imagine that it's a boring place, where cloture, Swiss lakes, legal esoterica, and Lincoln signature conspiracies are discussed?

Enough.

I watched the Hawks game.

In case you missed it.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/strongpie.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 26, 2011, 07:56:00 AM

What the hell was Michelle Bachmann looking at?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

EDIT: Source statistics found here (http://pleated-jeans.com/2011/01/24/the-united-states-of-shame-chart/#more-6203).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:19:30 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 07:56:00 AM

What the hell was Michelle Bachmann looking at?

DPD.  We get it, you chug Olberdong (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/michele-bachmann-tries-to-steal-obamas-thunder-by-refusing-to-look-america-in-the-eye/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 26, 2011, 09:10:29 AM
Quote from: flannj on January 25, 2011, 11:26:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 25, 2011, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:52:40 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 25, 2011, 10:30:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 10:16:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 25, 2011, 10:11:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 09:15:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2011, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 25, 2011, 08:56:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 25, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
This is not a good speech.

May I ask how so?

Wheezer just entered the GUNDERDOME by picking on Gil's hero.

Oh for fuck's sake, I was just fucking asking a goddamned question.


Enough.

Awfully touchy for a guy who Isn't asshurt about Wheezer insulting his hero.

I understand the meme, it's funny.  But it's not the truth and I was just asking a question.

Enough.

Touch-y.

Maybe, just maybe, the guy who's taken it upon himself to defend Jay Cutler against every single negative comment made about him on Facebook shouldn't be calling other people "touchy".

Yeah, but I freely admit to being a Cutler dong-chugger. Gil has to stop living the lie.

What lie?  I support a few of the man's ideas and oppose some of the man's ideas.  I don't understand how that equals DONGCHUGGER or some how makes him my idol.

You're missing the point here.  And that is the term "GUNDERDOME" is awesome.

I imagine that it's a boring place, where cloture, Swiss lakes, legal esoterica, and Lincoln signature conspiracies are discussed?

Enough.

I watched the Hawks game.

Fucking Bäckström.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 26, 2011, 09:31:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Damn!  You thought we got trouble? They are suffering with pleated jeans in Cuba
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:32:24 AM
Quote from: CBStew on January 26, 2011, 09:31:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Damn!  You thought we got trouble? They are suffering with pleated jeans in Cuba

Stew wins the internet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 26, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Why would the old Princeton basketball coach go to Seattle?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 26, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Why would the old Princeton basketball coach go to Seattle?

Does this mean that we're really good at being alcoholics or really bad at it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 26, 2011, 10:29:22 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 26, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Why would the old Princeton basketball coach go to Seattle?

Does this mean that we're really good at being alcoholics or really bad at it?

Yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 10:33:08 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 26, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Why would the old Princeton basketball coach go to Seattle?

Does this mean that we're really good at being alcoholics or really bad at it?

http://pleated-jeans.com/2011/01/24/the-united-states-of-shame-chart/#more-6203
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:40:58 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 10:33:08 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 26, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Why would the old Princeton basketball coach go to Seattle?

Does this mean that we're really good at being alcoholics or really bad at it?

http://pleated-jeans.com/2011/01/24/the-united-states-of-shame-chart/#more-6203

We gave them 26,000 square miles of completely unlivable desert, and THIS is how they repay us?

Thanks a lot, Navajos.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 10:48:58 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:40:58 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 10:33:08 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 26, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Why would the old Princeton basketball coach go to Seattle?

Does this mean that we're really good at being alcoholics or really bad at it?

http://pleated-jeans.com/2011/01/24/the-united-states-of-shame-chart/#more-6203

We gave them 26,000 square miles of completely unlivable desert, and THIS is how they repay us?

Thanks a lot, Navajos.

They did help with that whole code thing in that little conflict you may have heard of...THE FRENCH REVOLUTION!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 26, 2011, 10:58:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 10:48:58 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:40:58 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 10:33:08 AM
Quote from: PenPho on January 26, 2011, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 26, 2011, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 26, 2011, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 26, 2011, 09:23:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 26, 2011, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 26, 2011, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2011, 08:49:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 26, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Rather than talking about how we can increase government spending while freezing government spending (which is what I think last night's SOTU was saying)...

(http://pleated-jeans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/The-United-States-of-Shame.png)

There's something here for everyone.

Where is IAN's Gubment penicillin?

I have no idea.   All I know is that you fucking people need to get the hell away from me.

I'd respond but I think someone stole my iPad.

I'm not sure whether to get an iPad or upgrade to a doublewide.

Now we understand why Pete Carrill would leave USC for Seattle.

Why would the old Princeton basketball coach go to Seattle?

Does this mean that we're really good at being alcoholics or really bad at it?

http://pleated-jeans.com/2011/01/24/the-united-states-of-shame-chart/#more-6203

We gave them 26,000 square miles of completely unlivable desert, and THIS is how they repay us?

Thanks a lot, Navajos.

They did help with that whole code thing in that little conflict you may have heard of...THE FRENCH REVOLUTION!!!

BO-ring.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 27, 2011, 10:15:46 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats

QuoteIn one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 27, 2011, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 27, 2011, 10:15:46 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats

QuoteIn one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.

Damn it, Tank. Stop ruining the narrative that Wikileaks is going to undo years of "good work."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 27, 2011, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2011, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 27, 2011, 10:15:46 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats

QuoteIn one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.

Damn it, Tank. Stop ruining the narrative that Wikileaks is going to undo years of "good work."

Gill Gunderson will have you ingrates know that roughly 90% of government work should be conducted in complete secrecy (including his investigation into the possible unionization of Chicagoland exotic dancers). Wikileaks has gone and ruined that with their unpatriotic leakage.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on January 27, 2011, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 27, 2011, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2011, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 27, 2011, 10:15:46 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats

QuoteIn one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.

Damn it, Tank. Stop ruining the narrative that Wikileaks is going to undo years of "good work."

Gill Gunderson will have you ingrates know that roughly 90% of government work should be conducted in complete secrecy (including his investigation into the possible unionization of Chicagoland exotic dancers). Wikileaks has gone and ruined that with their unpatriotic leakage.

This makes the idea of scabs even more distasteful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 11:29:24 AM
Quote from: powen01 on January 27, 2011, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 27, 2011, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2011, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 27, 2011, 10:15:46 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats

QuoteIn one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.

Damn it, Tank. Stop ruining the narrative that Wikileaks is going to undo years of "good work."

Gill Gunderson will have you ingrates know that roughly 90% of government work should be conducted in complete secrecy (including his investigation into the possible unionization of Chicagoland exotic dancers). Wikileaks has gone and ruined that with their unpatriotic leakage.

This makes the idea of scabs even more distasteful.

Gil Gunderson would have you eat shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 27, 2011, 12:47:36 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 27, 2011, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2011, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 27, 2011, 10:15:46 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats

QuoteIn one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.

Damn it, Tank. Stop ruining the narrative that Wikileaks is going to undo years of "good work."

Gill Gunderson will have you ingrates know that roughly 90% of government work should be conducted in complete secrecy (including his investigation into the possible unionization of Chicagoland exotic dancers). Wikileaks has gone and ruined that with their unpatriotic leakage.

Hey.  One of my Union clients here in San Francisco organized strippers into the union decades ago.  Everyone paid attention to their picket lines.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 27, 2011, 12:47:36 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 27, 2011, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2011, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 27, 2011, 10:15:46 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats

QuoteIn one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.

Damn it, Tank. Stop ruining the narrative that Wikileaks is going to undo years of "good work."

Gill Gunderson will have you ingrates know that roughly 90% of government work should be conducted in complete secrecy (including his investigation into the possible unionization of Chicagoland exotic dancers). Wikileaks has gone and ruined that with their unpatriotic leakage.

Hey.  One of my Union clients here in San Francisco organized strippers into the union decades ago.  Everyone paid attention to their picket lines.

I'm acutely aware of said strip club too.  The Lucky Lady, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 27, 2011, 01:21:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 27, 2011, 12:47:36 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 27, 2011, 10:25:48 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2011, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 27, 2011, 10:15:46 AM
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/25/whispering_at_autocrats

QuoteIn one fell swoop, the candor of the cables released by WikiLeaks did more for Arab democracy than decades of backstage U.S. diplomacy.

Damn it, Tank. Stop ruining the narrative that Wikileaks is going to undo years of "good work."

Gill Gunderson will have you ingrates know that roughly 90% of government work should be conducted in complete secrecy (including his investigation into the possible unionization of Chicagoland exotic dancers). Wikileaks has gone and ruined that with their unpatriotic leakage.

Hey.  One of my Union clients here in San Francisco organized strippers into the union decades ago.  Everyone paid attention to their picket lines.

I'm acutely aware of said strip club too.  The Lucky Lady, right?

Stripclub unionizing is relevant to Gil's interests.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 01:31:31 PM
Paul Rand on how to save $500 billion per year (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill).  I like some of it.  Probably more than half of it.  Some of it is standard right wing talking points crap (NEA, Public Broadcasting) and there's nothing about farm subsidies and ethanol.

But it's a good place to start a discussion.  Far better than Jan Schkowsky's ideas.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH...............................$1,283,000,000. (23%)
Notes: The Government Printing Office is abolished.

JUDICIAL BRANCH......................................$2,434,000,000. (32%)

AGRICULTURE............................................$42,542,000,000. (30%)
The Agriculture Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Resources Conservation Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service are abolished. The Forest Service gets a $1.2 billion haircut.

COMMERCE...................................................$5,322,000,000. (54%)
National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is cut by $857,000,000.

DEFENSE.......................................................$47,500,000,000. (6.5%)

EDUCATION..................................................$78,000,000,000 (83%)
Only the Pell grant program survives.

ENERGY............................................................$44,200,000,000 (100%)
The Defense Department takes over all of Energy's remaining functions (nuclear waste, for example) and about $18 billion of its budget.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES..............$26,510,000,000. (26%)
Notes: FDA is cut by $230,000,000; Indian Health Service is cut by $650 million; CDC is cut by $1.17 billion; NIH by $5.8 billion.

HOMELAND SECURITY.................................$23,765,000,000. (43%)
Notes: Coast Guard is shifted to Defense. TSA's funds are cut by $900 million.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT....$53,100,000,000. (100%)
Notes: Completely eliminated. Veterans' housing programs are transferred to the VA

INTERIOR........................................................$10,934,000,000. (78%)
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs are abolished.

JUSTICE.............................................................$9,057,000,000. (28%)
Note: Office of Justice Programs is abolished.

LABOR....................................................$2,803,000,000. (2%)
OSHA, MSHA, and the The Employment and Training Administration are spared all cuts (no cuts to unemployment benefits)

STATE...................................................................$20,321,000,000. (71%)
Note: Massive foreign aid cuts. All international commissions and organizations are defunded.

TRANSPORTATION............................................$42,810,000,000. (49%)
Notes: Amtrak is completely de-funded.

VETERANS' AFFAIRS..........................................No cuts

CORPS OF ENGINEERS......................................$1,854,000,000. (27%)

EPA..............................................................$3,238,000,000. (29%)

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.....$1,936,000,000. (85%)

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS...$24,300,000,000 (100%)

NASA.........................................................................$4,500,000,000 (25%)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION...............$4,723,000,000. (62%)

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......$9,070,000,000.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.........No cuts

FCC...........................................................$2,150,000,000. (22%)

ABOLISH...............................................................$2,050,000,000. (100%)

(1) Affordable Housing Program.
(2) Commission on Fine Arts.
(3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(4) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
(5) National Endowment for the Arts.
(6) National Endowment for the Humanities.
(7) State Justice Institute.

MISC

Collect delinquent taxes from Federal Employees........$3,000,000,000.
Freeze Federal Government employee pay...................$2,000,000,000.
Reduce Federal Government travel..............................$7,500,000,000.
Repeal Davis-Bacon..................................................... $6,000,000,000.
Prohibit union project labor agreements......................$2,000,000,000.
TARP repeal.................................................................$4,481,000,000.
Sell Federal Buildings..................................................$19,000,000,000.
Reduce Federal vehicle budget..........................................$600,000,000.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 01:52:14 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 01:31:31 PM
Paul Rand on how to save $500 billion per year (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill).  I like some of it.  Probably more than half of it.  Some of it is standard right wing talking points crap (NEA, Public Broadcasting) and there's nothing about farm subsidies and ethanol.

But it's a good place to start a discussion.  Far better than Jan Schkowsky's ideas.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH...............................$1,283,000,000. (23%)
Notes: The Government Printing Office is abolished.

JUDICIAL BRANCH......................................$2,434,000,000. (32%)

AGRICULTURE............................................$42,542,000,000. (30%)
The Agriculture Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Resources Conservation Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service are abolished. The Forest Service gets a $1.2 billion haircut.

COMMERCE...................................................$5,322,000,000. (54%)
National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is cut by $857,000,000.

DEFENSE.......................................................$47,500,000,000. (6.5%)

EDUCATION..................................................$78,000,000,000 (83%)
Only the Pell grant program survives.

ENERGY............................................................$44,200,000,000 (100%)
The Defense Department takes over all of Energy's remaining functions (nuclear waste, for example) and about $18 billion of its budget.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES..............$26,510,000,000. (26%)
Notes: FDA is cut by $230,000,000; Indian Health Service is cut by $650 million; CDC is cut by $1.17 billion; NIH by $5.8 billion.

HOMELAND SECURITY.................................$23,765,000,000. (43%)
Notes: Coast Guard is shifted to Defense. TSA's funds are cut by $900 million.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT....$53,100,000,000. (100%)
Notes: Completely eliminated. Veterans' housing programs are transferred to the VA

INTERIOR........................................................$10,934,000,000. (78%)
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs are abolished.

JUSTICE.............................................................$9,057,000,000. (28%)
Note: Office of Justice Programs is abolished.

LABOR....................................................$2,803,000,000. (2%)
OSHA, MSHA, and the The Employment and Training Administration are spared all cuts (no cuts to unemployment benefits)

STATE...................................................................$20,321,000,000. (71%)
Note: Massive foreign aid cuts. All international commissions and organizations are defunded.

TRANSPORTATION............................................$42,810,000,000. (49%)
Notes: Amtrak is completely de-funded.

VETERANS' AFFAIRS..........................................No cuts

CORPS OF ENGINEERS......................................$1,854,000,000. (27%)

EPA..............................................................$3,238,000,000. (29%)

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.....$1,936,000,000. (85%)

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS...$24,300,000,000 (100%)

NASA.........................................................................$4,500,000,000 (25%)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION...............$4,723,000,000. (62%)

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......$9,070,000,000.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.........No cuts

FCC...........................................................$2,150,000,000. (22%)

ABOLISH...............................................................$2,050,000,000. (100%)

(1) Affordable Housing Program.
(2) Commission on Fine Arts.
(3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(4) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
(5) National Endowment for the Arts.
(6) National Endowment for the Humanities.
(7) State Justice Institute.

MISC

Collect delinquent taxes from Federal Employees........$3,000,000,000.
Freeze Federal Government employee pay...................$2,000,000,000.
Reduce Federal Government travel..............................$7,500,000,000.
Repeal Davis-Bacon..................................................... $6,000,000,000.
Prohibit union project labor agreements......................$2,000,000,000.
TARP repeal.................................................................$4,481,000,000.
Sell Federal Buildings..................................................$19,000,000,000.
Reduce Federal vehicle budget..........................................$600,000,000.


Abolishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to go over swimmingly with mothers and anyone that buys anything.

Also, abolishing the Bureau of Indian Affairs?  Really?

Guh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 01:52:14 PM
Abolishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to go over swimmingly with mothers and anyone that buys anything.

I did say there was some right wing crap in here.

Quote
Also, abolishing the Bureau of Indian Affairs?  Really?

What's the problem here?  We really need specific government oversight for this?

How about creating the the Bureau of Baha'i Affairs?  I'm sure there's a place in Commerce, or Interior, or Justice that can handle these issues.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 27, 2011, 02:06:30 PM
Once again, white man turns his back on the treaties.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on January 27, 2011, 02:09:20 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2011, 02:06:30 PM
Once again, white man turns his back on the treaties.

We'll give them more firewater and muskets. The problem will take care of itself, if you catch my drift.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 01:52:14 PM
Abolishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to go over swimmingly with mothers and anyone that buys anything.

I did say there was some right wing crap in here.

Quote
Also, abolishing the Bureau of Indian Affairs?  Really?

What's the problem here?  We really need specific government oversight for this?

How about creating the the Bureau of Baha'i Affairs?  I'm sure there's a place in Commerce, or Interior, or Justice that can handle these issues.

I'd be down for doing that if it was part of a government-wide reorganization.  And this Bureau is already in the Interior Department, for the record.

Just as long as it's not a wholesale abrogation of our treaty obligations with Native Americans.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 27, 2011, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 27, 2011, 02:09:20 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 27, 2011, 02:06:30 PM
Once again, white man turns his back on the treaties.

We'll give them more firewater and muskets. The problem will take care of itself, if you catch my drift.

Not exactly taken care of. (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg235411#msg235411)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 01:52:14 PM
Abolishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to go over swimmingly with mothers and anyone that buys anything.

I did say there was some right wing crap in here.

Quote
Also, abolishing the Bureau of Indian Affairs?  Really?

What's the problem here?  We really need specific government oversight for this?

How about creating the the Bureau of Baha'i Affairs?  I'm sure there's a place in Commerce, or Interior, or Justice that can handle these issues.

I'd be down for doing that if it was part of a government-wide reorganization.  And this Bureau is already in the Interior Department, for the record.

Just as long as it's not a wholesale abrogation of our treaty obligations with Native Americans.

I'm not suggesting that we abrogate a treaty.  Just cut funding to those whose sole job is to monitor adherence.

Did we ever get rid of the helium reserve?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 27, 2011, 02:52:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 01:52:14 PM
Abolishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to go over swimmingly with mothers and anyone that buys anything.

I did say there was some right wing crap in here.

Quote
Also, abolishing the Bureau of Indian Affairs?  Really?

What's the problem here?  We really need specific government oversight for this?

How about creating the the Bureau of Baha'i Affairs?  I'm sure there's a place in Commerce, or Interior, or Justice that can handle these issues.

I'd be down for doing that if it was part of a government-wide reorganization.  And this Bureau is already in the Interior Department, for the record.

Just as long as it's not a wholesale abrogation of our treaty obligations with Native Americans.

I'm not suggesting that we abrogate a treaty.  Just cut funding to those whose sole job is to monitor adherence.

Did we ever get rid of the helium reserve?

WE NEEDED THAT FUCKING HELIUM!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 01:52:14 PM
Abolishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to go over swimmingly with mothers and anyone that buys anything.

I did say there was some right wing crap in here.

Quote
Also, abolishing the Bureau of Indian Affairs?  Really?

What's the problem here?  We really need specific government oversight for this?

How about creating the the Bureau of Baha'i Affairs?  I'm sure there's a place in Commerce, or Interior, or Justice that can handle these issues.

I'd be down for doing that if it was part of a government-wide reorganization.  And this Bureau is already in the Interior Department, for the record.

Just as long as it's not a wholesale abrogation of our treaty obligations with Native Americans.

I'm not suggesting that we abrogate a treaty.  Just cut funding to those whose sole job is to monitor adherence.

Did we ever get rid of the helium reserve?

Don't even get me started on that clusterfuck.

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF PRECIOUS HELIUM!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 27, 2011, 02:53:35 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:35:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 02:10:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 02:03:23 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 01:52:14 PM
Abolishing the Consumer Product Safety Commission is going to go over swimmingly with mothers and anyone that buys anything.

I did say there was some right wing crap in here.

Quote
Also, abolishing the Bureau of Indian Affairs?  Really?

What's the problem here?  We really need specific government oversight for this?

How about creating the the Bureau of Baha'i Affairs?  I'm sure there's a place in Commerce, or Interior, or Justice that can handle these issues.

I'd be down for doing that if it was part of a government-wide reorganization.  And this Bureau is already in the Interior Department, for the record.

Just as long as it's not a wholesale abrogation of our treaty obligations with Native Americans.

I'm not suggesting that we abrogate a treaty.  Just cut funding to those whose sole job is to monitor adherence.

Did we ever get rid of the helium reserve?

Don't even get me started on that clusterfuck.

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF PRECIOUS HELIUM!!!!


Hey...why is your voice so squeaky?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 27, 2011, 04:23:47 PM
Defend him now, dongchuggers! He's a flip-flopper!

THEN: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903196.html)

QuoteYesterday, though, both Obama and Vice President Biden made clear they want Pittsburgh to win the Super Bowl on Sunday.

"I have to say, you know, I wish the Cardinals the best," Obama replied. "You know, Kurt Warner is a great story, and he's closer to my age than anybody else on the field. But I am a longtime Steelers fan."

He went on to explain that Steelers owner Dan Rooney was "an extraordinary supporter" during his presidential campaign. Franco Harris, the Steelers' Hall of Fame running back, and the team's current head coach, Mike Tomlin, also backed his candidacy, Obama said.

"So . . . I wish the best to the Cardinals," the former senator from Illinois continued. "They've been long-suffering. It's a great Cinderella story. But other than the Bears, the Steelers are probably the team that's closest to my heart. All right?"

NOW (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2011/01/bears-fan-obama-staying-neutral-on-super-bowl.html)

Quote
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama openly cheered for the Chicago Bears to make it to the Super Bowl, but they lost.

Now he says he isn't taking sides when the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers meet next week in the Super Bowl.
During a wide-ranging interview on Thursday on YouTube, Obama said he has to stay "absolutely neutral on this one" and let the best team win.

If Obama simply said "I've always liked the Steelers, and besides fuck the Packers," he'd have risen a couple points in my book. Is Wisconsin simply too much in play in 2012?

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 04:28:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 27, 2011, 04:23:47 PM
Defend him now, dongchuggers! He's a flip-flopper!

THEN: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903196.html)

QuoteYesterday, though, both Obama and Vice President Biden made clear they want Pittsburgh to win the Super Bowl on Sunday.

"I have to say, you know, I wish the Cardinals the best," Obama replied. "You know, Kurt Warner is a great story, and he's closer to my age than anybody else on the field. But I am a longtime Steelers fan."

He went on to explain that Steelers owner Dan Rooney was "an extraordinary supporter" during his presidential campaign. Franco Harris, the Steelers' Hall of Fame running back, and the team's current head coach, Mike Tomlin, also backed his candidacy, Obama said.

"So . . . I wish the best to the Cardinals," the former senator from Illinois continued. "They've been long-suffering. It's a great Cinderella story. But other than the Bears, the Steelers are probably the team that's closest to my heart. All right?"

NOW (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2011/01/bears-fan-obama-staying-neutral-on-super-bowl.html)

Quote
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama openly cheered for the Chicago Bears to make it to the Super Bowl, but they lost.

Now he says he isn't taking sides when the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers meet next week in the Super Bowl.
During a wide-ranging interview on Thursday on YouTube, Obama said he has to stay "absolutely neutral on this one" and let the best team win.

If Obama simply said "I've always liked the Steelers, and besides fuck the Packers," he'd have risen a couple points in my book. Is Wisconsin simply too much in play in 2012?

I don't think he can support a rapist at QB.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 27, 2011, 04:55:40 PM
Fuck these gutless fucking senators (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/reid_and_mcconnell_agree_there.html).

QuoteThere is some good stuff in the agreement Reid and McConnell struck. The Senate will vote on eliminating secret holds, ending the timewaster of having the clerk read legislation out on the Senate floor, and cutting the number of nominees who require Senate confirmation by a third (which would free about 400 positions from the process). Reid and McConnell have also agreed, in principle, to avoid filibustering the motion to debate and to grant the other side more opportunities to amend legislation.

All that is laudable, particularly the effort to lower the number of nominees the Senate needs to confirm. But this process kicked off because Democrats were furious at Republican abuse of the filibuster. It's ended with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the filibuster is here to stay. And the reason is both simple and depressing: Democrats want to be able to use the filibuster, too. Both parties are more committed to being able to obstruct than they are to being able to govern. That fundamental preference, as much as any particular rule, is why the Senate is dysfunctional.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 27, 2011, 05:07:42 PM
Quote from: R-V on January 27, 2011, 04:55:40 PM
Fuck these gutless fucking senators (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/reid_and_mcconnell_agree_there.html).

QuoteThere is some good stuff in the agreement Reid and McConnell struck. The Senate will vote on eliminating secret holds, ending the timewaster of having the clerk read legislation out on the Senate floor, and cutting the number of nominees who require Senate confirmation by a third (which would free about 400 positions from the process). Reid and McConnell have also agreed, in principle, to avoid filibustering the motion to debate and to grant the other side more opportunities to amend legislation.

All that is laudable, particularly the effort to lower the number of nominees the Senate needs to confirm. But this process kicked off because Democrats were furious at Republican abuse of the filibuster. It's ended with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the filibuster is here to stay. And the reason is both simple and depressing: Democrats want to be able to use the filibuster, too. Both parties are more committed to being able to obstruct than they are to being able to govern. That fundamental preference, as much as any particular rule, is why the Senate is dysfunctional.

Or maybe some Democrats recognize that, one day, they'll be in the minority and will want to block all the reactionary, right-wing batshit legislation that comes to the Senate floor?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 27, 2011, 05:18:06 PM
"The novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law (http://www.suntimes.com/3521480-417/court-emanuel-ballot-decision-election.html)".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 27, 2011, 06:18:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 04:28:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 27, 2011, 04:23:47 PM
Defend him now, dongchuggers! He's a flip-flopper!

THEN: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903196.html)

QuoteYesterday, though, both Obama and Vice President Biden made clear they want Pittsburgh to win the Super Bowl on Sunday.

"I have to say, you know, I wish the Cardinals the best," Obama replied. "You know, Kurt Warner is a great story, and he's closer to my age than anybody else on the field. But I am a longtime Steelers fan."

He went on to explain that Steelers owner Dan Rooney was "an extraordinary supporter" during his presidential campaign. Franco Harris, the Steelers' Hall of Fame running back, and the team's current head coach, Mike Tomlin, also backed his candidacy, Obama said.

"So . . . I wish the best to the Cardinals," the former senator from Illinois continued. "They've been long-suffering. It's a great Cinderella story. But other than the Bears, the Steelers are probably the team that's closest to my heart. All right?"

NOW (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2011/01/bears-fan-obama-staying-neutral-on-super-bowl.html)

Quote
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama openly cheered for the Chicago Bears to make it to the Super Bowl, but they lost.

Now he says he isn't taking sides when the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers meet next week in the Super Bowl.
During a wide-ranging interview on Thursday on YouTube, Obama said he has to stay "absolutely neutral on this one" and let the best team win.

If Obama simply said "I've always liked the Steelers, and besides fuck the Packers," he'd have risen a couple points in my book. Is Wisconsin simply too much in play in 2012?

I don't think he can support a rapist* at QB.

*alleged.

Plus...honestly, this doesn't look neutral. (http://www.google.com/images?q=obama+steelers+jersey&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1440&bih=617)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 27, 2011, 07:02:03 PM
Holy cats, practically the first thing to come out of Carol Moseley Braun's mouth in this debate was "as you know, I'm a lawyer."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 08:13:16 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 27, 2011, 07:02:03 PM
Holy cats, practically the first thing to come out of Carol Moseley Braun's mouth in this debate was "as you know, I'm a lawyer."

How the fuck did Rich Williamson lose to this idiot?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 27, 2011, 09:28:03 PM
I'm inclined to write in "Peppermint Patty von Krenwinckel" on general principles.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on January 28, 2011, 08:03:49 AM
A small step and, also, a giant leap. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/27/obama-drug-legalization-debate_n_815074.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on January 28, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Counter-infographic time. 

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfnpakEGBp1qd0p40o1_r1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1296311381&Signature=f6vPZW0LVxu%2BC45Z6AA4oQEczHo%3D)

Source : http://ilyagerner.tumblr.com/post/2941539079/my-contribution-to-winning-the-future
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2011, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 27, 2011, 09:28:03 PM
I'm inclined to write in "Peppermint Patty von Krenwinckel" on general principles.

Her cousin, Toni Preckwinkle seems to be trying to do a good job (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cook-20110127,0,3011285.story).

Tuesday morning, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle will propose a 2011 budget of $3.09 billion, up 1.16 percent from 2010's spending. Given the amount of county debt service, health insurance premiums and other fixed costs, that means a budget full of serious cost cuts in personnel — a prospect sure to frighten the county's ample supply of patronage payrollers. This is huge — the equivalent of the sun rising in the north. No prior board president has demanded such deep cuts in this antiquated, sclerotic government.

...

So we'll say this early and perhaps say it often: Citizens should thank their stars for Preckwinkle's determination to trim expenses.

...

Preckwinkle and her budgeteers intend to combine spending cuts, new revenues and a one-time use of reserve funds to reduce most county offices' net spending by 16 percent. She also says she's sticking to her promise to kill within two years the remainder of her predecessor Todd Stroger's jobs-killing sales tax hike. (Yes, we know what you're thinking — maybe in her spare time, Preckwinkle would like to be mayor of Chicago and governor of Illinois.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 28, 2011, 09:16:05 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 27, 2011, 08:13:16 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 27, 2011, 07:02:03 PM
Holy cats, practically the first thing to come out of Carol Moseley Braun's mouth in this debate was "as you know, I'm a lawyer."

How the fuck did Rich Williamson lose to this idiot?

It was the Year of the Woman.  D'UR.  Blame Anita Hill.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 28, 2011, 09:24:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Counter-infographic time. 

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfnpakEGBp1qd0p40o1_r1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1296311381&Signature=f6vPZW0LVxu%2BC45Z6AA4oQEczHo%3D)

Source : http://ilyagerner.tumblr.com/post/2941539079/my-contribution-to-winning-the-future

We're # 25!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 28, 2011, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 28, 2011, 09:24:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Counter-infographic time. 

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfnpakEGBp1qd0p40o1_r1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1296311381&Signature=f6vPZW0LVxu%2BC45Z6AA4oQEczHo%3D)

Source : http://ilyagerner.tumblr.com/post/2941539079/my-contribution-to-winning-the-future

We're # 25!

I approve.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 28, 2011, 09:32:02 AM

"Mosy busiest airport hub"? Sounds like someone needs to get Tiger Mom on their ass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on January 28, 2011, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2011, 09:32:02 AM

"Mosy busiest airport hub"? Sounds like someone needs to get Tiger Mom on their ass.

I think that's "Hosts busiest airport hub".  Better move closer the to screen, gramps.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on January 28, 2011, 09:47:11 AM
Most average?  Does that mean that there is a "Least Average" and an "Average Average"?   
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on January 28, 2011, 09:56:24 AM
I propose we change the Illinois state motto to "Meh..."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2011, 09:56:37 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20029874-501465.html

(http://i.imgur.com/hFLlS.jpg)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8288163/How-Egypt-shut-down-the-internet.html

QuoteThe Egyptian government's action is unprecedented in the history of the internet. Countries such as China, Iran, Thailand and Tunisia have cut off access to news websites and social networking services during periods of unrest, as Egypt did when it cut off Facebook and Twitter earlier this week.

The ongoing attempt by the Egyptian government to shut down all online communication is, however, a new phenomenon. It not only prevents ordinary Egyptian internet users from accessing any websites, it cripples Tor, an anti-censorship tool that technical experts and activists were using to circumvent the Facebook and Twitter blocks.

The action puts Egypt, temporarily at least, in the company of North Korea, which has never allowed its citizens access to the internet.

http://gigaom.com/2011/01/28/how-egypt-switched-off-the-internet/

Quote"It looks like they're taking action at two levels," Rik Ferguson of Trend Micro told me. "First at the DNS level, so any attempt to resolve any address in .eg will fail — but also, in case you're trying to get directly to an address, they are also using the Border Gateway Protocol, the system through which ISPs advertise their internet protocol addresses to the network. Many ISPs have basically stopped advertising any internet addresses at all."

Essentially we're talking about a system that no longer knows where anything is. Outsiders can't find Egyptian websites, and insiders can't find anything at all. It's as if the postal system suddenly erased every address inside America — and forgot that it was even called America in the first place.

A complete border shutdown might have been easier, but Egypt has made sure that there should be no downstream impact, no loss of traffic in countries further down the cables. That will ease the diplomatic and economic pressure from other nations, and make it harder for protesters inside the country to get information in and out.

Ferguson suggests that, if nothing else, the methods used by the Egyptian government proves how fragile digital communication really is.

"What struck me most is that we've been extolling the virtues of the internet for democracy and free speech, but an incident like this demonstrates how easy it is — particularly in a country where there's a high level of governmental control — to just switch this access off."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 28, 2011, 09:57:27 AM
"Best damn tapper, most smartest."
"Most smartest?"
"Most smartest!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 28, 2011, 10:16:55 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2011, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2011, 09:32:02 AM

"Mosy busiest airport hub"? Sounds like someone needs to get Tiger Mom on their ass.

I think that's "Hosts busiest airport hub".  Better move closer the to screen, gramps.

I was trying to read through a noseprint.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2011, 10:18:36 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28alexandria.html

QuoteALEXANDRIA, Egypt — Demonstrators in Egypt have protested against rising prices and stagnant incomes, for greater freedom and against police brutality. But religion, so often a powerful mobilizing force here, has so far played little role.

That may be about to change.

With organizers calling for demonstrations after Friday prayer, the political movement will literally be taken to the doorsteps of the nation's mosques. And as the Egyptian government and security services brace for the expected wave of mass demonstrations, Islamic groups seem poised to emerge as wildcards in the growing political movement.

(http://i.imgur.com/0Bk3o.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 28, 2011, 10:30:23 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2011, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 28, 2011, 09:24:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Counter-infographic time. 

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfnpakEGBp1qd0p40o1_r1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1296311381&Signature=f6vPZW0LVxu%2BC45Z6AA4oQEczHo%3D)

Source : http://ilyagerner.tumblr.com/post/2941539079/my-contribution-to-winning-the-future

We're # 25!

I approve.

We're the birthplace of the fuckin' Atomic Bomb and those assholes hang the damn Spaceport on us?  I'm sure Richard Branson is behind this somehow.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 10:46:44 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 28, 2011, 10:30:23 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2011, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 28, 2011, 09:24:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Counter-infographic time. 

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfnpakEGBp1qd0p40o1_r1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1296311381&Signature=f6vPZW0LVxu%2BC45Z6AA4oQEczHo%3D)

Source : http://ilyagerner.tumblr.com/post/2941539079/my-contribution-to-winning-the-future

We're # 25!

I approve.

We're the birthplace of the fuckin' Atomic Bomb and those assholes hang the damn Spaceport on us?  I'm sure Richard Branson is behind this somehow.

Amos Alonzo Stagg and his stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagg_Field) would like to have a word with you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 28, 2011, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 10:46:44 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 28, 2011, 10:30:23 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2011, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 28, 2011, 09:24:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Counter-infographic time. 

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfnpakEGBp1qd0p40o1_r1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1296311381&Signature=f6vPZW0LVxu%2BC45Z6AA4oQEczHo%3D)

Source : http://ilyagerner.tumblr.com/post/2941539079/my-contribution-to-winning-the-future

We're # 25!

I approve.

We're the birthplace of the fuckin' Atomic Bomb and those assholes hang the damn Spaceport on us?  I'm sure Richard Branson is behind this somehow.

Amos Alonzo Stagg and his stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagg_Field) would like to have a word with you.

Aw, a chain reaction.  That's cute. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru2PWmGIoB8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru2PWmGIoB8)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on January 28, 2011, 11:02:39 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 28, 2011, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 10:46:44 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 28, 2011, 10:30:23 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2011, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 28, 2011, 09:24:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Counter-infographic time. 

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfnpakEGBp1qd0p40o1_r1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1296311381&Signature=f6vPZW0LVxu%2BC45Z6AA4oQEczHo%3D)

Source : http://ilyagerner.tumblr.com/post/2941539079/my-contribution-to-winning-the-future

We're # 25!

I approve.

We're the birthplace of the fuckin' Atomic Bomb and those assholes hang the damn Spaceport on us?  I'm sure Richard Branson is behind this somehow.

Amos Alonzo Stagg and his stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagg_Field) would like to have a word with you.

Aw, a chain reaction.  That's cute. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru2PWmGIoB8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru2PWmGIoB8)

Pipe down, Tex-Mex.

(http://ninecooks.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/greenchiles.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 11:03:17 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 28, 2011, 10:58:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 10:46:44 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on January 28, 2011, 10:30:23 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 28, 2011, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 28, 2011, 09:24:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 28, 2011, 08:26:07 AM
Counter-infographic time.  

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfnpakEGBp1qd0p40o1_r1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1296311381&Signature=f6vPZW0LVxu%2BC45Z6AA4oQEczHo%3D)

Source : http://ilyagerner.tumblr.com/post/2941539079/my-contribution-to-winning-the-future

We're # 25!

I approve.

We're the birthplace of the fuckin' Atomic Bomb and those assholes hang the damn Spaceport on us?  I'm sure Richard Branson is behind this somehow.

Amos Alonzo Stagg and his stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagg_Field) would like to have a word with you.

Aw, a chain reaction.  That's cute.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru2PWmGIoB8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru2PWmGIoB8)

Hey, it was a secret government attempt to vaporize the South Side. No University of Chicago, so goodbye Friedman, goodbye Obama. No more White Sox, no more Cardinals.[./url]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1)
Quote
Unlike most reactors that have been built since, this first one had no radiation shielding and no cooling system of any kind. Fermi had convinced Arthur Compton that his calculations were reliable enough to rule out a runaway chain reaction or an explosion, but, as the official historians of the Atomic Energy Commission later noted, the "gamble" remained in conducting "a possibly catastrophic experiment in one of the most densely populated areas of the nation!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on January 28, 2011, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 11:03:17 AM
Hey, it was a secret government attempt to vaporize the South Side. No University of Chicago, so goodbye Friedman, goodbye Obama. No more White Sox, no more Cardinals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1)

Was there another reaction in Nairobi they glossed over?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2011, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2011, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 11:03:17 AM
Hey, it was a secret government attempt to vaporize the South Side. No University of Chicago, so goodbye Friedman, goodbye Obama. No more White Sox, no more Cardinals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1)

Was there another reaction in Nairobi they glossed over?

Bah! Everyone knows he was born in Kisumu.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: Fork on January 28, 2011, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 28, 2011, 11:03:17 AM
Hey, it was a secret government attempt to vaporize the South Side. No University of Chicago, so goodbye Friedman, goodbye Obama. No more White Sox, no more Cardinals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1)

Was there another reaction in Nairobi they glossed over?

Nah, I was referring to the University of Chicago and its affiliations with Friedman and Obama. Plus, there would be no South Side community to organize.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 28, 2011, 05:59:48 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 28, 2011, 09:56:37 AM
Quote"What struck me most is that we've been extolling the virtues of the internet for democracy and free speech, but an incident like this demonstrates how easy it is — particularly in a country where there's a high level of governmental control — to just switch this access off."

It's called UUCP, kids.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 28, 2011, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 28, 2011, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on January 27, 2011, 09:28:03 PM
I'm inclined to write in "Peppermint Patty von Krenwinckel" on general principles.

Her cousin, Toni Preckwinkle seems to be trying to do a good job (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cook-20110127,0,3011285.story).

Toni Preckwinkle is a fucking blob. The only notable thing I've seen her do in the 4th Ward is scream at her kids in the former Mr. G's.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on January 28, 2011, 07:04:18 PM
TPD. This sounds just mean-spirited (http://www.therepublic.com/view/local_story/After_30_years_fugitive_arrest_1295750451/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 31, 2011, 10:27:52 AM

I've got the feeling that Rahm Emanuel's people got to sleep in today. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/carol-moseley-braun-lashe_1_n_816113.html)

Don't just read the text.  Do yourself a favor and actually hear it.  BWAHAHAHAHA.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 31, 2011, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 10:27:52 AM

I've got the feeling that Rahm Emmanuel's people got to sleep in today. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/carol-moseley-braun-lashe_1_n_816113.html)

Don't just read the text.  Do yourself a favor and actually hear it.  BWAHAHAHAHA.

Gery Chico's people stopped updating their resumes until the run-off.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 31, 2011, 10:38:51 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 10:27:52 AM

I've got the feeling that Rahm Emmanuel's people got to sleep in today. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/carol-moseley-braun-lashe_1_n_816113.html)

Don't just read the text.  Do yourself a favor and actually hear it.  BWAHAHAHAHA.

This moron needs to be expunged from the public record.

Fucking sick that in a seat once held by Everett Dirksen, Adlai Stevenson III, Barack Obama and Alan Dixon, she also got to sit in it.

Mr. Kirk, please get a new chair.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 31, 2011, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 31, 2011, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 10:27:52 AM

I've got the feeling that Rahm Emanuel's people got to sleep in today. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/carol-moseley-braun-lashe_1_n_816113.html)

Don't just read the text.  Do yourself a favor and actually hear it.  BWAHAHAHAHA.

Gery Chico's people stopped updating their resumes until the run-off.

You think this helps Chico?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 31, 2011, 11:12:50 AM
DPD, just to clarify my thinking...

Emanuel's probably got this thing in the bag, but my thinking is that Chico can still drag down the "white" vote (I put white in quotes, because even though Chico is Hispanic, he's more mainstream...nothing like that dirty spic Del Valle...) and that if teh blacks could unify behind Mosley Braun, that Emanuel could conceivably be put to the test.  

I don't think this is a fear any more.

Also, is this where I tell Chuck that way back in 1992, as an idealistic 20 year old, that I voted for Mosely Braun...in the primary (over Dixon and Al Hofield, who did a good job splitting the "white" vote for Dixon's seat)?  If it makes you feel better, I recognized the error of my ways about 8 seconds after she was inaugurated.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on January 31, 2011, 11:16:52 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 11:12:50 AM
Also, is this where I tell Chuck that way back in 1992, as an idealistic 20 year old, that I voted for Mosely Braun...in the primary (over Dixon and Al Hofield, who did a good job splitting the "white" vote for Dixon's seat)?  If it makes you feel better, I recognizes the error of my aways about 8 seconds after she was inaugurated.

You mean you didn't figure it out when she and Kosgie went on vacation together right after winning the primary?  Nothing shows that you really want something more than taking a break after getting your chance.

That her only notable accomplishment was a bashing of Jesse Helms on the senate floor only shows how big of a moron Helms was.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 31, 2011, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 31, 2011, 11:16:52 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 11:12:50 AM
Also, is this where I tell Chuck that way back in 1992, as an idealistic 20 year old, that I voted for Mosely Braun...in the primary (over Dixon and Al Hofield, who did a good job splitting the "white" vote for Dixon's seat)?  If it makes you feel better, I recognizes the error of my aways about 8 seconds after she was inaugurated.

You mean you didn't figure it out when she and Kosgie went on vacation together right after winning the primary?  Nothing shows that you really want something more than taking a break after getting your chance.

Pretty sure that happened after she was elected in the general (it was, indeed, one of the things that made me reallize how awful she was).  If not, I'm then pretty sure that that story didn't break until after such.  Prove me wrong, children.  Prove.  Me.  Wrong.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on January 31, 2011, 11:21:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 31, 2011, 11:16:52 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 11:12:50 AM
Also, is this where I tell Chuck that way back in 1992, as an idealistic 20 year old, that I voted for Mosely Braun...in the primary (over Dixon and Al Hofield, who did a good job splitting the "white" vote for Dixon's seat)?  If it makes you feel better, I recognizes the error of my aways about 8 seconds after she was inaugurated.

You mean you didn't figure it out when she and Kosgie went on vacation together right after winning the primary?  Nothing shows that you really want something more than taking a break after getting your chance.

Pretty sure that happened after she was elected in the general (it was, indeed, one of the things that made me reallize how awful she was).  If not, I'm then pretty sure that that story didn't break until after such.  Prove me wrong, children.  Prove.  Me.  Wrong.

When did this Emmanuel guy get into the race? What's his platform?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on January 31, 2011, 11:23:31 AM
Quote from: R-V on January 31, 2011, 11:21:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 31, 2011, 11:16:52 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 11:12:50 AM
Also, is this where I tell Chuck that way back in 1992, as an idealistic 20 year old, that I voted for Mosely Braun...in the primary (over Dixon and Al Hofield, who did a good job splitting the "white" vote for Dixon's seat)?  If it makes you feel better, I recognizes the error of my aways about 8 seconds after she was inaugurated.

You mean you didn't figure it out when she and Kosgie went on vacation together right after winning the primary?  Nothing shows that you really want something more than taking a break after getting your chance.

Pretty sure that happened after she was elected in the general (it was, indeed, one of the things that made me reallize how awful she was).  If not, I'm then pretty sure that that story didn't break until after such.  Prove me wrong, children.  Prove.  Me.  Wrong.

When did this Emmanuel guy get into the race? What's his platform?

Who are you talking about?  I don't see Emmanual referenced but for your query?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on January 31, 2011, 11:30:19 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 11:07:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 31, 2011, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 31, 2011, 10:27:52 AM

I've got the feeling that Rahm Emanuel's people got to sleep in today. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/carol-moseley-braun-lashe_1_n_816113.html)

Don't just read the text.  Do yourself a favor and actually hear it.  BWAHAHAHAHA.

Gery Chico's people stopped updating their resumes until the run-off.

You think this helps Chico?
Absolutely. As long as Rahm stays under 50 percent, someone gets to run off against him. Won't be del Valle. It's a race between Carol and Gery.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?

You rang?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 01, 2011, 10:39:08 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?

Mostly I just want to tell Yeti to stop TAKING MY HARD EARNED MONEY!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on February 01, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?

You rang?
(http://americancivilwar.com/north/Union_Generals/sherman.gif) Come again?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:43:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 10:39:08 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?

Mostly I just want to tell Yeti to stop TAKING MY HARD EARNED MONEY!

Keep me posted. I'm interested in making fun of Yeti too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 01, 2011, 10:46:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 01, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?

You rang?
(http://americancivilwar.com/north/Union_Generals/sherman.gif) Come again?

(http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn43/FighterGlory/CIVIL%20WAR/074sherman-burning-railroad.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 01, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?

You rang?
(http://americancivilwar.com/north/Union_Generals/sherman.gif) Come again?

I think I have a solution to distract any given Union general.

(http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.87853670.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 01, 2011, 10:54:12 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 01, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?

You rang?
(http://americancivilwar.com/north/Union_Generals/sherman.gif) Come again?

I think I have a solution to distract any given Union general.

(http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.87853670.jpg)

You know that only makes them stronger, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 01, 2011, 10:54:12 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:48:25 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 01, 2011, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 01, 2011, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on February 01, 2011, 10:33:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 01, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Saw this and it got me wondering about Chicago - does the city provide more revenue to Illinois than the amount of state services it uses? Can't seem to find an answer on the Google machines.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/01/25/welfare-state

Thinking about secession?

You rang?
(http://americancivilwar.com/north/Union_Generals/sherman.gif) Come again?

I think I have a solution to distract any given Union general.

(http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.87853670.jpg)

You know that only makes them stronger, right?

You know my goal is just to get Georgia burnt again?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 01, 2011, 11:11:18 PM
Securing the Homeland from the threat of live streaming sports...

(http://i.imgur.com/hmfPQ.gif)

http://atdhe.net (http://atdhe.net), seized by the Feds.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 01, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
In double-posting douche news, I present the new hotness: http://atdhenet.tv/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on February 01, 2011, 11:35:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 01, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
In double-posting douche news, I present the new hotness: http://atdhenet.tv/

Fortunately, Al Yellon is there to weigh in (http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/2/1/1968770/atdhe-live-sports-streaming-shut-down-seized-homeland-security) on this situation. His entire pantywaisting post:

Quote
This is a difficult post to write since the subject of it, ATDHE, is a site which live-streams sports events in the USA... that it doesn't legally have the right to stream.

But today, ATDHE, which many of you might not have even heard of, was seized by the federal Department of Homeland Security. Going to their homepage at ATDHE.net, all you see now is a large Department of Homeland Security seizure notice.

Without any further comment on the federal government's action or what might be next, I want to make it clear that SB Nation does not endorse illegal video streams nor allow such streams to be linked here or on other SB Nation site. There is word that ATDHE has already come back on line, but I will neither link nor post the location here -- the purpose of this post is informational only, to report something that is of interest to sports fans.

This post is immediately followed by a fellow SB Nation blogger making fun of him:

Quotewhy so serious?

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 1, 2011 4:06 PM CST

QuoteJust reporting the facts.

by Al Yellon on Feb 1, 2011 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 02, 2011, 08:55:27 AM
I hate the fucking government so much.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 02, 2011, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 01, 2011, 11:35:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 01, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
In double-posting douche news, I present the new hotness: http://atdhenet.tv/

Fortunately, Al Yellon is there to weigh in (http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/2/1/1968770/atdhe-live-sports-streaming-shut-down-seized-homeland-security) on this situation. His entire pantywaisting post:

Quote
This is a difficult post to write since the subject of it, ATDHE, is a site which live-streams sports events in the USA... that it doesn't legally have the right to stream.

But today, ATDHE, which many of you might not have even heard of, was seized by the federal Department of Homeland Security. Going to their homepage at ATDHE.net, all you see now is a large Department of Homeland Security seizure notice.

Without any further comment on the federal government's action or what might be next, I want to make it clear that SB Nation does not endorse illegal video streams nor allow such streams to be linked here or on other SB Nation site. There is word that ATDHE has already come back on line, but I will neither link nor post the location here -- the purpose of this post is informational only, to report something that is of interest to sports fans.

This post is immediately followed by a fellow SB Nation blogger making fun of him:

Quotewhy so serious?

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 1, 2011 4:06 PM CST

QuoteJust reporting the facts.

by Al Yellon on Feb 1, 2011 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 

112 posts on "The Deep Dish" since the start of the year, 14 total comments.

This is SB Nation Chicago leveraging Yellon's formidable community-building prowess.

Community-building and unbeatable original content...

http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/1/26/1957442/lingerie-football-league-tells-the-heckler-to-cease-and-desist

Quote"www.thehacker.com"? Nice try. That site doesn't even exist. Your move, LFL.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 02, 2011, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 02, 2011, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 01, 2011, 11:35:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 01, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
In double-posting douche news, I present the new hotness: http://atdhenet.tv/

Fortunately, Al Yellon is there to weigh in (http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/2/1/1968770/atdhe-live-sports-streaming-shut-down-seized-homeland-security) on this situation. His entire pantywaisting post:

Quote
This is a difficult post to write since the subject of it, ATDHE, is a site which live-streams sports events in the USA... that it doesn't legally have the right to stream.

But today, ATDHE, which many of you might not have even heard of, was seized by the federal Department of Homeland Security. Going to their homepage at ATDHE.net, all you see now is a large Department of Homeland Security seizure notice.

Without any further comment on the federal government's action or what might be next, I want to make it clear that SB Nation does not endorse illegal video streams nor allow such streams to be linked here or on other SB Nation site. There is word that ATDHE has already come back on line, but I will neither link nor post the location here -- the purpose of this post is informational only, to report something that is of interest to sports fans.

This post is immediately followed by a fellow SB Nation blogger making fun of him:

Quotewhy so serious?

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 1, 2011 4:06 PM CST

QuoteJust reporting the facts.

by Al Yellon on Feb 1, 2011 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 

112 posts on "The Deep Dish" since the start of the year, 14 total comments.

This is SB Nation Chicago leveraging Yellon's formidable community-building prowess.

Community-building and unbeatable original content...

http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/1/26/1957442/lingerie-football-league-tells-the-heckler-to-cease-and-desist

Quote"www.thehacker.com"? Nice try. That site doesn't even exist. Your move, LFL.

I saw a commercial for the lingerie football league. Oh, my.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 02, 2011, 11:09:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 02, 2011, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 01, 2011, 11:35:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 01, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
In double-posting douche news, I present the new hotness: http://atdhenet.tv/

Fortunately, Al Yellon is there to weigh in (http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/2/1/1968770/atdhe-live-sports-streaming-shut-down-seized-homeland-security) on this situation. His entire pantywaisting post:

Quote
This is a difficult post to write since the subject of it, ATDHE, is a site which live-streams sports events in the USA... that it doesn't legally have the right to stream.

But today, ATDHE, which many of you might not have even heard of, was seized by the federal Department of Homeland Security. Going to their homepage at ATDHE.net, all you see now is a large Department of Homeland Security seizure notice.

Without any further comment on the federal government's action or what might be next, I want to make it clear that SB Nation does not endorse illegal video streams nor allow such streams to be linked here or on other SB Nation site. There is word that ATDHE has already come back on line, but I will neither link nor post the location here -- the purpose of this post is informational only, to report something that is of interest to sports fans.

This post is immediately followed by a fellow SB Nation blogger making fun of him:

Quotewhy so serious?

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 1, 2011 4:06 PM CST

QuoteJust reporting the facts.

by Al Yellon on Feb 1, 2011 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 

112 posts on "The Deep Dish" since the start of the year, 14 total comments.

This is SB Nation Chicago leveraging Yellon's formidable community-building prowess.

Community-building and unbeatable original content...

http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/1/26/1957442/lingerie-football-league-tells-the-heckler-to-cease-and-desist

Quote"www.thehacker.com"? Nice try. That site doesn't even exist. Your move, LFL.

The Heckler piece would have been funnier if it had the LFL players putting themselves up for bid on eBay.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 02, 2011, 01:38:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 02, 2011, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 01, 2011, 11:35:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 01, 2011, 11:14:03 PM
In double-posting douche news, I present the new hotness: http://atdhenet.tv/

Fortunately, Al Yellon is there to weigh in (http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/2/1/1968770/atdhe-live-sports-streaming-shut-down-seized-homeland-security) on this situation. His entire pantywaisting post:

Quote
This is a difficult post to write since the subject of it, ATDHE, is a site which live-streams sports events in the USA... that it doesn't legally have the right to stream.

But today, ATDHE, which many of you might not have even heard of, was seized by the federal Department of Homeland Security. Going to their homepage at ATDHE.net, all you see now is a large Department of Homeland Security seizure notice.

Without any further comment on the federal government's action or what might be next, I want to make it clear that SB Nation does not endorse illegal video streams nor allow such streams to be linked here or on other SB Nation site. There is word that ATDHE has already come back on line, but I will neither link nor post the location here -- the purpose of this post is informational only, to report something that is of interest to sports fans.

This post is immediately followed by a fellow SB Nation blogger making fun of him:

Quotewhy so serious?

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Feb 1, 2011 4:06 PM CST

QuoteJust reporting the facts.

by Al Yellon on Feb 1, 2011 4:18 PM CST up reply actions 

112 posts on "The Deep Dish" since the start of the year, 14 total comments.

This is SB Nation Chicago leveraging Yellon's formidable community-building prowess.

Community-building and unbeatable original content...

http://chicago.sbnation.com/2011/1/26/1957442/lingerie-football-league-tells-the-heckler-to-cease-and-desist

Quote"www.thehacker.com"? Nice try. That site doesn't even exist. Your move, LFL.

I need closure goddamn it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 02, 2011, 09:11:44 PM
OMG, it's all true (http://www.swldxer.co.uk/peaceandprogress.wma).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2011, 08:56:45 AM
I guess Crain's doesn't monitor their comments (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=greg-hinz&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&uid=1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35c&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a068de7c3-8b72-4d94-b954-6ab29549016c&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:0ddfb1d1-559d-4784-83de-d7d37f9f243b).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 03, 2011, 11:07:14 AM
Kudos to Andrew Cuomo.  I never thought I'd say that, but he deserves it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960804576120360648820674.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

QuoteThese cuts are impressive on their own, but Mr. Cuomo's real conceptual breakthrough is to expose the rigged-game of "baseline budgeting." This is a gambit by which spending increases automatically each year even before a Governor submits his budget. The "baseline" grows each year due to spending formulas that legislatures build into the law even before they take a single vote.

Mr. Cuomo put it this way in a New York Post op-ed on Tuesday: "When a governor takes office, in many ways the die has already been cast. Unbelievably, this year these rates and formulas in total call for a 13 percent increase in Medicaid and a 13 percent increase in education funding next year."

This means that if Mr. Cuomo proposes a spending increase for Medicaid that is less than 13%, he will be attacked for "cutting" spending. Yet overall Medicaid spending would still increase. As Mr. Cuomo notes, "this process frames the dialogue around the budget and biases the political discourse." That is precisely the goal of government unions and the politicians who follow their orders because it allows them to increase spending even as they cry fiscal havoc.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 05, 2011, 03:47:34 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/04/guantanamo/index.html

Quote... Gul was imprisoned for 8 years without a shred of due process (outside of internal Bush Pentagon "administrative reviews") and finally had his Constitutional right to obtain habeas review affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2008.  His habeas petition was fully submitted and orally argued almost a full year ago, yet even in the face of his prolonged, due-process-free imprisonment, the federal judge presiding over the case just never bothered to rule on his claims.  There's a well-known legal maxim that "justice delayed is justice denied," but this goes well beyond merely violating that.  Taking almost a full year -- at least -- to decide a habeas petition for someone who is languishing in indefinite detention for their ninth year is simply inexcusable.

Gul's death -- and what turned out to be his due-process-free life sentence -- is an important reminder of the heinous detention policies of the U.S.: not as a matter of the Bush/Cheney past, but very much the current U.S. posture as well.  The only difference is that there is no more partisan gain to be squeezed from the controversy, so it has blissfully disappeared into the harmonious dead zone of bipartisan consensus.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 06, 2011, 08:14:30 PM
It wasn't a great block to start with (http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/unknown-chicago/2011/02/ronald-reagans-chicago-home.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 07, 2011, 08:31:55 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07aol.html

QuoteThe Huffington Post, which began in 2005 with a meager $1 million investment and has grown into one of the most heavily visited news Web sites in the country, is being acquired by AOL in a deal that creates an unlikely pairing of two online media giants.

The two companies completed the sale Sunday evening and announced the deal just after midnight on Monday. AOL will pay $315 million, $300 million of it in cash and the rest in stock. It will be the company's largest acquisition since it was separated from Time Warner in 2009.

The deal will allow AOL to greatly expand its news gathering and original content creation, areas that its chief executive, Tim Armstrong, views as vital to reversing a decade-long decline.

Lint?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 07, 2011, 08:46:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 07, 2011, 08:31:55 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07aol.html

QuoteThe Huffington Post, which began in 2005 with a meager $1 million investment and has grown into one of the most heavily visited news Web sites in the country, is being acquired by AOL in a deal that creates an unlikely pairing of two online media giants.

The two companies completed the sale Sunday evening and announced the deal just after midnight on Monday. AOL will pay $315 million, $300 million of it in cash and the rest in stock. It will be the company's largest acquisition since it was separated from Time Warner in 2009.

The deal will allow AOL to greatly expand its news gathering and original content creation, areas that its chief executive, Tim Armstrong, views as vital to reversing a decade-long decline.

Lint?

Should have gotten Jesse Michaels.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 07, 2011, 09:30:41 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 07, 2011, 08:46:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 07, 2011, 08:31:55 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07aol.html

QuoteThe Huffington Post, which began in 2005 with a meager $1 million investment and has grown into one of the most heavily visited news Web sites in the country, is being acquired by AOL in a deal that creates an unlikely pairing of two online media giants.

The two companies completed the sale Sunday evening and announced the deal just after midnight on Monday. AOL will pay $315 million, $300 million of it in cash and the rest in stock. It will be the company's largest acquisition since it was separated from Time Warner in 2009.

The deal will allow AOL to greatly expand its news gathering and original content creation, areas that its chief executive, Tim Armstrong, views as vital to reversing a decade-long decline.

Lint?

Should have gotten Jesse Michaels.

He's got to be way more available.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 07, 2011, 11:17:12 AM
I'm not trying to make a big point of this or start a debate (OBSESSED!!!), especially since it is my birthday, but I found this funny.

Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol are attempting to trademark their names. 

QuoteThe Palins are facing a long road in the effort to trademark their names. "Generally one can trademark one's name," said Jeffrey S. Kravitz, a Los Angeles-based intellectual property attorney. "But, it is not easy."

The funny part is this:
QuoteIt seems like signing your name is not something you would forget when your name is what you're trying to trademark, but she's a busy woman.

The application also says that the mark's "first use in commerce" was on January 1, 1996.

This is actually the second Palin registration effort - the first one, in September of last year, was filed by Bristol. She, too, says she provides "motivational speaking services," but hers are "in the field of life choices."

Bristol didn't sign, either.

I just found these items interesting.  http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/02/protecting-the-palin-brand-sarah-and-bristol-go-for-trademark-s/ and http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/02/sarah-palin-tm-having-trouble-with-registration.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LoweringTheBar+%28Lowering+the+Bar%29

I've redacted the second quote to take the author's potshots out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 07, 2011, 11:20:39 AM
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but no one particularly cares when your birthday is.

Also, you are obsessed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 07, 2011, 11:46:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 07, 2011, 11:20:39 AM
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but no one particularly cares when your birthday is.

Also, you are obsessed.

I wasn't saying that to make that information public, I was saying it because I didn't want to start a large debate, especially since it happened to be today.

However, I'm sure there's a new meme around that posits that I did it because I wanted to spread that news, so c'est la vie.

EDIT: ASSHURT!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 07, 2011, 12:18:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 07, 2011, 11:46:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 07, 2011, 11:20:39 AM
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but no one particularly cares when your birthday is.

Also, you are obsessed.

I wasn't saying that to make that information public, I was saying it because I didn't want to start a large debate, especially since it happened to be today.

However, I'm sure there's a new meme around that posits that I did it because I wanted to spread that news, so c'est la vie.

EDIT: ASSHURT!!!

I find it interesting you haven't produced a birth certificate yet people readily accept that it's your birthday.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 07, 2011, 12:39:44 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 07, 2011, 12:18:40 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 07, 2011, 11:46:53 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 07, 2011, 11:20:39 AM
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but no one particularly cares when your birthday is.

Also, you are obsessed.

I wasn't saying that to make that information public, I was saying it because I didn't want to start a large debate, especially since it happened to be today.

However, I'm sure there's a new meme around that posits that I did it because I wanted to spread that news, so c'est la vie.

EDIT: ASSHURT!!!

I find it interesting you haven't produced a birth certificate yet people readily accept that it's your birthday.

Also, there was Gil Soetero born in Kenya on this day...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 09, 2011, 08:40:24 AM
The Fed Chair looks pretty hot today.

(http://i54.tinypic.com/zjxl6w.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 10, 2011, 12:00:41 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/CBGJM.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 16, 2011, 01:35:24 PM
No more second engine for the F-35 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110216/ap_on_re_us/us_congress_spending).  Win for Obama and GOP Frosh.  A loser is Boehner.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2011, 04:22:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 01, 2011, 11:11:18 PM
Securing the Homeland from the threat of live streaming sports...

(http://i.imgur.com/hmfPQ.gif)

http://atdhe.net (http://atdhe.net), seized by the Feds.

Oops...

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/ice-seizures-raising-new-speech-concerns

QuoteAs legislators in DC contemplate expanding (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/02/senate-judiciary-holds-hearing-on-online-ip-infringement-theft-.html/) government copyright enforcement powers, there's new reason to worry that government agents are misusing the Internet policing powers they already have -- with disastrous consequences for thousands of innocent bystanders. Torrentfreak is reporting (http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-shuts-down-84000-websites-by-mistake-110216/?) that the Department of Homeland Security's ICE agents temporarily shut down 84,000 websites, possibly by accident, in the name of shutting down just ten websites that allegedly contained child pornography.

We're still getting a handle on the details, but it appears that the government took down all sites associated with a dynamic DNS service called afraid.org, in particular subdomains beneath mooo.com. One or more of the subdomains may have been hosting child porn, but instead of seizing that subdomain alone, the takedown targeted mooo.com. What is worse, it also appears that the perfectly legal sites were temporarily plastered (http://stop-error.xanga.com/741136585/from-the-blithering-idiots-department/) with a notice suggesting they trafficked in child porn.

For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint. I got buddies who died face down in the muck so you and I could enjoy this family internet!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on February 18, 2011, 06:10:26 AM
Ohhhh my more of that violent Tea Party rhetoric!

(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/walker-crosshairs.jpg)

Nope just liberal teachers unions who are loyal Obama supporters.

So if he gets shot can we blame your entire political party? Why isn't any Democrats outraged with whats going on there? Right i know its the Tea Party that is ultra violent......i have to stay on the narrative. Sorry guys.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on February 18, 2011, 07:35:08 AM
Quote from: MikeC on February 18, 2011, 06:10:26 AM
Ohhhh my more of that violent Tea Party rhetoric!

(http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/walker-crosshairs.jpg)

Nope just liberal teachers unions who are loyal Obama supporters.

So if he gets shot can we blame your entire political party? Why isn't any Democrats outraged with whats going on there? Right i know its the Tea Party that is ultra violent......i have to stay on the narrative. Sorry guys.



Seriously, to whom, exactly, do you imagine you're talking?   I'm really sort of curious.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 18, 2011, 08:41:56 AM
WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE HUEY, YOU COMMUNAZI SOCIALMICK? YOU SIT THERE WITH MUBARACK SOETERO OBAMADONG JUICE DRIBBLING DOWN YOUR CHIN WHILE AMERCIN TEACHERS PLOT TO KILL INNOCENT POLITICIANS BUT THE TEA PARTY IS THE ONE THAT IS PURGED AND KILLED BY DEMOTHUG SPENDIBRULS!!! MOVE MOUSE TO POST BUTTON! CLICK MOUSE! SPENT!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 18, 2011, 08:46:47 AM
MikeC poses an excellent question: why isn't any Democrats outraged with whats going on there?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 18, 2011, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on February 18, 2011, 08:46:47 AM
MikeC poses an excellent question: why isn't any Democrats outraged with whats going on there?

Well, I'm not a Democrat, but the main source of my personal lack of outrage is that I:

a) have no real idea who is holding the sign
b) have no real idea where the sign is being held
c) have no real idea how many people support the ideals of the person holding the sign
d) assume that this sign is the act of a single person, not the entire democratic party (assuming the person is a democrat)
e) have not seen this random picture until about 5 minutes ago.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on February 18, 2011, 11:21:55 AM
f) it could be a surveyors' mark;
g) Sara Palin hasn't complained yet;
h) it wont bring back SilkyD Dave Dewerson or Dale Ehrnhart;
i) Marxicrats are idiots who cant keep their '85 Bears straight


Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 18, 2011, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: thehawk on February 18, 2011, 11:21:55 AM
f) it could be a surveyors' mark;
g) Sara Palin hasn't complained yet;
h) it wont bring back SilkyD or Dale Ehrnhart;




Wait, wait, Silky D is dead??!?!?

DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 18, 2011, 10:16:19 PM
I intend to get outraged as soon as someone tells me what that symbol over Gov. Walker's face are.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on February 22, 2011, 08:18:54 PM
Yes, it appears Mike of the Valley will not prevail, but it's good to see Eugene Schulter's 47th Ward reign of terror* could be over. His hand picked potato-eating lackey is losing to the young upstart:

Quote47th Ward Alderman
92% of precincts reporting
Updated 8:12 p.m. Feb. 22, 2011
Source: Associated Press

Candidate   Votes   Pct.   
Pawar   7,811   50.7%   

O'Donnell   6,718   43.6%   

Reichel   558   3.6%   

Jacks   327   2.1%   

* may not have been an actual reign of terror
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 22, 2011, 08:47:35 PM
Quote from: R-V on February 22, 2011, 08:18:54 PM
Yes, it appears Mike of the Valley will not prevail...

At least it appears he won't lose to CMB.

Here's to third place!

(http://i.imgur.com/wfaAT.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 23, 2011, 09:46:40 AM
BTW... I flipped to CLTV last night for a glance at the returns. They had Clarence Page on opposite John Kass, who I'd had the good fortune to have never had to watch on TV before.

Holy shit, that guy is worse live than he is on the printed page.

Mumble, mumble, mumble, vague and insubstantial insinuations about Rahm's residency issue, turn away from the camera, mumble, mumble.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 23, 2011, 09:51:04 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 23, 2011, 09:46:40 AM
BTW... I flipped to CLTV last night for a glance at the returns. They had Clarence Page on opposite John Kass, who I'd had the good fortune to have never had to watch on TV before.

Holy shit, that guy is worse live than he is on the printed page.

Mumble, mumble, mumble, vague and insubstantial insinuations about Rahm's residency issue, turn away from the camera, mumble, mumble.

That's the White Knight of City Hall you're bad mouthing.


I've heard Kass before because every once in awhile The Score or ESPN1000 gets it in their head that Kass might know shit about sports and grants him a fill-in slot.  And it is always awful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on February 23, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 23, 2011, 09:46:40 AM
BTW... I flipped to CLTV last night for a glance at the returns. They had Clarence Page on opposite John Kass, who I'd had the good fortune to have never had to watch on TV before.

Holy shit, that guy is worse live than he is on the printed page.

Mumble, mumble, mumble, vague and insubstantial insinuations about Rahm's residency issue, turn away from the camera, mumble, mumble.

Usually when Kass talks the anchors have this what the fuck is he talking about look on their faces.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on February 23, 2011, 11:50:02 AM
Royko was also terrible on election-night television coverage.*

*apologizes to Royko's corpse for mentioning him in the same sentence as Kass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 23, 2011, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 23, 2011, 11:50:02 AM
Royko was also terrible on election-night television coverage.*

*apologizes to Royko's corpse for mentioning him in the same sentence as Kass.

Meatball.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 23, 2011, 10:49:37 PM
MayorRahm is off with Wesley Crusher, I guess.

http://twitter.com/#!/MayorEmanuel
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 23, 2011, 11:57:00 PM
Mary Mitchell was good for an uproarious hour during the WGN radio coverage in blaming Braun's dismal performance on everything within grasp, which did not include Braun.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 24, 2011, 12:07:51 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/24/948968/-Map-of-Chicago-mayoral-election-results-by-precinct

QuoteThe map below, put together by mapping guru jeffmd, shows the results of last night's elections by precinct. Blue is for Emanuel (who won 2,087 precincts), red for Chico (410), orange for del Valle (47). Oh, and green for Carol Moseley Braun, but you can't tell with her, since she won exactly one precinct. There were also 11 ties. (The dashed line toward the top represents Rahm's old congressional district, IL-05, now held by Dem Mike Quigley.)

(http://i.imgur.com/ZqODk.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 12:14:49 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 24, 2011, 12:07:51 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/24/948968/-Map-of-Chicago-mayoral-election-results-by-precinct

QuoteThe map below, put together by mapping guru jeffmd, shows the results of last night's elections by precinct. Blue is for Emanuel (who won 2,087 precincts), red for Chico (410), orange for del Valle (47). Oh, and green for Carol Moseley Braun, but you can't tell with her, since she won exactly one precinct. There were also 11 ties. (The dashed line toward the top represents Rahm's old congressional district, IL-05, now held by Dem Mike Quigley.)

(http://i.imgur.com/ZqODk.png)

The person who put that map together was clearly strung out on crack.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 12:53:40 PM
DPD, but good ol' Abe sure was such a rapscallion back in the day.

QuoteOn December 5, 1840, Democrats "proposed an early adjournment, knowing this would bring a speedy end to the State Bank. The Whigs tried to counter by leaving the capitol building before the vote, but the doors were locked. That's when Lincoln made his move. He headed for the second story, opened a window and jumped to the ground!"

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/24/when_lincoln_fled.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 02:32:20 PM
TPD...

God bless America.

QuoteIn the wake of the health reform repeal vote in the U.S. House and the ongoing legal challenges over the individual mandate, nearly half the country either believes that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been repealed and is no longer law (22 percent) or doesn't know enough to say whether it is still law (26 percent). Roughly half of Americans (52 percent) accurately report that the ACA is still the law of the land.

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8156.cfm
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on February 24, 2011, 02:46:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 02:32:20 PM
TPD...

God bless America.

QuoteIn the wake of the health reform repeal vote in the U.S. House and the ongoing legal challenges over the individual mandate, nearly half the country either believes that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been repealed and is no longer law (22 percent) or doesn't know enough to say whether it is still law (26 percent). Roughly half of Americans (52 percent) accurately report that the ACA is still the law of the land.

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8156.cfm

Are those significant numbers?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 24, 2011, 06:11:27 PM
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/24/2011022400582.html

QuoteN.Korean Forces Crack Down on Protesters in Border Town

Hundreds of people clashed with security forces in the North Korean town of Sinuiju on the border with China on Friday, a source in the Stalinist country said Wednesday.

The military was deployed to quell the demonstration, leaving some protesters wounded.

The source said police officers cracking down on traders in a market in Sinuiju after the public holidays marking leader Kim Jong-il's birthday beat one of them unconscious. The victim's family protested and many other traders went along to support them.

When it looked as though other people might join the traders, security agents and military troops moved in. Rumor has it that four or five people were killed in the resulting clashes, but no details of civilian casualties are known.

The security forces were reportedly on emergency alert in the area after the incident. A defector from Sinuiju said, "Since Feb. 15, I've had difficulties communicating with my contact in Sinuiju. I called him at a pre-arranged time but his mobile phone was turned off."

The source said while the protest was sparked by the crackdown in the market, it was an eruption of long pent-up discontent.

The regime had promised to dole out special rations to Sinuiju residents ahead of Kim's birthday on Feb. 16 but reportedly failed to keep the promise. People were also angry that the regime was once again trying to interfere with their attempts to earn a living in the market.

Meanwhile, the online newspaper Daily NK reported on Wednesday that the regime created a special mobilization force to prevent any demonstrations similar to the recent uprisings in the Middle East.

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/25/2011022500370.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on February 24, 2011, 06:19:11 PM
Honest question to all:

Is it unpatriotic to want to change your country? Can you not simultaneously love your country and want to implement/adapt new ideas?

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BBM on February 24, 2011, 06:26:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 24, 2011, 12:07:51 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/24/948968/-Map-of-Chicago-mayoral-election-results-by-precinct

QuoteThe map below, put together by mapping guru jeffmd, shows the results of last night's elections by precinct. Blue is for Emanuel (who won 2,087 precincts), red for Chico (410), orange for del Valle (47). Oh, and green for Carol Moseley Braun, but you can't tell with her, since she won exactly one precinct. There were also 11 ties. (The dashed line toward the top represents Rahm's old congressional district, IL-05, now held by Dem Mike Quigley.)

(http://i.imgur.com/ZqODk.png)

I found the braun dsitrict.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on February 24, 2011, 06:27:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 24, 2011, 06:19:11 PM
Honest question to all:

Is it unpatriotic to want to change your country? Can you not simultaneously love your country and want to implement/adapt new ideas?



Depends. Are they your new ideas or mine?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 07:29:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 24, 2011, 06:19:11 PM
Honest question to all:

Is it unpatriotic to want to change your country? Can you not simultaneously love your country and want to implement/adapt new ideas?



No.  Yes, you can.  Though there are a lot of people who would say otherwise.  Many of those people also believe in a mysterious sky creature too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 24, 2011, 07:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 24, 2011, 06:19:11 PM
Honest question to all:

Is it unpatriotic to want to change your country? Can you not simultaneously love your country and want to implement/adapt new ideas?



It's unpatriotic to not give a shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 08:10:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 24, 2011, 07:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 24, 2011, 06:19:11 PM
Honest question to all:

Is it unpatriotic to want to change your country? Can you not simultaneously love your country and want to implement/adapt new ideas?



It's unpatriotic to not give a shit.

I think it's far too simplistic to sit back and say that because this country is so great (which it undoubtedly is) that to change it - or want to change it - is heresy.  Many people like to cite the Founders for so many things, both rightly and wrongly, but I think one thing that we can credit them with is the foundation of a country that has change and evolution as part of its ethos.  The country was founded by people who wanted to improve not just their lives, but the lives of others.  They wrote a seminal document - the Declaration - that purposefully makes this country's goals practically unobtainable because they wanted future generations to strive towards them - almost without end.  They signed on to a document that espoused the universal rights of every man, let castigated so many to slavery.  They were pragamatists because they realized that addressing the problem would rip the country apart (which it did anyway) but because they wanted to let future generations debate these issues.  Look at the 8th amendment to the Constitution.  It's purely a matter of interpretation.  They put the 9th and 10th amendments in there because they wanted to allow other generations to breathe life into the document, not be bound by their edicts. 

So, in short, I think it's one of the most noble acts of patriotism to want to change your country.  And loving it, whilst attempting to do so, is not a vice. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on February 24, 2011, 09:40:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 08:10:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 24, 2011, 07:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 24, 2011, 06:19:11 PM
Honest question to all:

Is it unpatriotic to want to change your country? Can you not simultaneously love your country and want to implement/adapt new ideas?



It's unpatriotic to not give a shit.

I think it's far too simplistic to sit back and say that because this country is so great (which it undoubtedly is) that to change it - or want to change it - is heresy.  Many people like to cite the Founders for so many things, both rightly and wrongly, but I think one thing that we can credit them with is the foundation of a country that has change and evolution as part of its ethos.  The country was founded by people who wanted to improve not just their lives, but the lives of others.  They wrote a seminal document - the Declaration - that purposefully makes this country's goals practically unobtainable because they wanted future generations to strive towards them - almost without end.  They signed on to a document that espoused the universal rights of every man, let castigated so many to slavery.  They were pragamatists because they realized that addressing the problem would rip the country apart (which it did anyway) but because they wanted to let future generations debate these issues.  Look at the 8th amendment to the Constitution.  It's purely a matter of interpretation.  They put the 9th and 10th amendments in there because they wanted to allow other generations to breathe life into the document, not be bound by their edicts. 

So, in short, I think it's one of the most noble acts of patriotism to want to change your country.  And loving it, whilst attempting to do so, is not a vice. 

They also were elected to SERVE.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 25, 2011, 12:02:24 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 08:10:37 PM

Many people like to cite the Founders for so many things, both rightly and wrongly, but I think one thing that we can credit them with is the foundation of a country that has change and evolution as part of its ethos.

Let us not forget drainage.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 25, 2011, 12:45:50 AM
Quote from: BBM on February 24, 2011, 06:26:12 PM
I found the braun dsitrict.

I was hoping to "place it in Wyoming," but a depth-first search was aggravating enough. She won the 14th precinct of the Third Ward. Any more, I cannot say.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Indolent Reader on February 25, 2011, 09:56:03 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 24, 2011, 09:40:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 24, 2011, 08:10:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 24, 2011, 07:32:02 PM
Quote from: Slaky on February 24, 2011, 06:19:11 PM
Honest question to all:

Is it unpatriotic to want to change your country? Can you not simultaneously love your country and want to implement/adapt new ideas?



It's unpatriotic to not give a shit.

I think it's far too simplistic to sit back and say that because this country is so great (which it undoubtedly is) that to change it - or want to change it - is heresy.  Many people like to cite the Founders for so many things, both rightly and wrongly, but I think one thing that we can credit them with is the foundation of a country that has change and evolution as part of its ethos.  The country was founded by people who wanted to improve not just their lives, but the lives of others.  They wrote a seminal document - the Declaration - that purposefully makes this country's goals practically unobtainable because they wanted future generations to strive towards them - almost without end.  They signed on to a document that espoused the universal rights of every man, let castigated so many to slavery.  They were pragamatists because they realized that addressing the problem would rip the country apart (which it did anyway) but because they wanted to let future generations debate these issues.  Look at the 8th amendment to the Constitution.  It's purely a matter of interpretation.  They put the 9th and 10th amendments in there because they wanted to allow other generations to breathe life into the document, not be bound by their edicts. 

So, in short, I think it's one of the most noble acts of patriotism to want to change your country.  And loving it, whilst attempting to do so, is not a vice. 

They also were elected to SERVE.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."

-Bubba
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 28, 2011, 08:22:57 PM
Those fucking atheist bastards at the ACLU...http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/feb/25/aclu-virginia-defends-floyd-co-high-school-christi-ar-867856/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 28, 2011, 08:27:27 PM
DPD, but the Onion hits it on the head again:

Quote"It was just awful—they smashed through our living room window, one of them said 'I've had my eye on you, Roger,' and then they dragged my husband off kicking and screaming," said Cleveland-area homemaker Rita Ellington, one of the latest victims whose defenseless marriage was overrun by the hordes of battle-ready gays that had been clambering at the gates of matrimony since the DOMA went into effect in 1996.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/marauding-gay-hordes-drag-thousands-of-helpless-ci,19325/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 01, 2011, 08:32:31 AM

Gentlemen, I give you King of the Mardi Gras (http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/02/man_booked_with_masturbating_a.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 03, 2011, 10:27:17 AM
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/03/02/docs-reveal-tsa-plan-to-body-scan-pedestrians-train-passengers/

QuoteGiving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport checkpoints. Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.

The non-profit Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Wednesday published documents it obtained from the Department of Homeland Security showing that from 2006 to 2008 the agency planned a study of of new anti-terrorism technologies that EPIC believes raise serious privacy concerns. The projects range from what the DHS describes as "a walk through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest" to "covert inspection of moving subjects" employing the same backscatter imaging technology currently used in American airports.

...

In August of last year, Joe Reiss, the vice president of marketing of security contractor American Sciences & Engineering told me in an interview (http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/) that the company had sold more than 500 of its backscatter x-ray vans to governments around the world, including some deployed in the U.S. Those vans are capable of scanning people, the inside of cars and even  the internals of some buildings while rolling down public streets. The company claims that its systems' "primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents," and that "the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person." But Reiss admitted that the van scans do penetrate clothing, and EPIC president Marc Rotenberg called them "one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
The title of the piece says it all. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2440734)  There is so much RIGHT in here I don't know where to begin.  I'll try, though:

QuoteThere are many people who say "Tax the Rich!" as if it's some sort of mantra.  But the top 1% of households (which earn $300k and up) is roughly 1.5 million households.  If we taxed all of their income (that is, a 100% tax rate) we couldn't close the budget deficit.  But we wouldn't collect any of the money either if we did that, because nobody works for free - you'd have a lot of people earning $299,000 and then going home.  What's worse is that the extra income they wouldn't earn also wouldn't get spent.  When tax rates change so does behavior.
...
We cannot fix the problems we have in this country with our federal budget without addressing entitlements.  It doesn't matter if people want to ignore entitlements or not - they must be addressed in order to balance the budget, and we must move away from people sucking on Federal transfer payments.

This isn't optional folks.  We have made promises we cannot keep.  They're mathematically-impossible to keep, irrespective of what we want to do.  We are left with accepting this and making the necessary adjustments or having them imposed upon us by the market in a disorderly fashion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 03, 2011, 11:32:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
The title of the piece says it all. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2440734)  There is so much RIGHT stuff that coincides with my own views in here I don't know where to begin.  I'll try, though:

OK'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 03, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
The title of the piece says it all. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2440734)  There is so much RIGHT in here I don't know where to begin.  I'll try, though:

QuoteThere are many people who say "Tax the Rich!" as if it's some sort of mantra.  But the top 1% of households (which earn $300k and up) is roughly 1.5 million households.  If we taxed all of their income (that is, a 100% tax rate) we couldn't close the budget deficit.  But we wouldn't collect any of the money either if we did that, because nobody works for free - you'd have a lot of people earning $299,000 and then going home.  What's worse is that the extra income they wouldn't earn also wouldn't get spent.  When tax rates change so does behavior.
...
We cannot fix the problems we have in this country with our federal budget without addressing entitlements.  It doesn't matter if people want to ignore entitlements or not - they must be addressed in order to balance the budget, and we must move away from people sucking on Federal transfer payments.

This isn't optional folks.  We have made promises we cannot keep.  They're mathematically-impossible to keep, irrespective of what we want to do.  We are left with accepting this and making the necessary adjustments or having them imposed upon us by the market in a disorderly fashion.

QuoteThe entire scam currently defined as "health insurance" must cease and be prosecuted as the felony it should be.

So - single payer then?

Also, has anyone proposed taxing 100% of someone's income? Nice work taking down that strawman, Karl.

I don't think anyone has suggested that deficits can be closed solely by taxing the wealthy. If they have, they're dumb. But dismissing any sort of tax increase with a wave of the hand strikes me as equally dumb.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 03, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 03, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
The title of the piece says it all. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2440734)  There is so much RIGHT in here I don't know where to begin.  I'll try, though:

QuoteThere are many people who say "Tax the Rich!" as if it's some sort of mantra.  But the top 1% of households (which earn $300k and up) is roughly 1.5 million households.  If we taxed all of their income (that is, a 100% tax rate) we couldn't close the budget deficit.  But we wouldn't collect any of the money either if we did that, because nobody works for free - you'd have a lot of people earning $299,000 and then going home.  What's worse is that the extra income they wouldn't earn also wouldn't get spent.  When tax rates change so does behavior.
...
We cannot fix the problems we have in this country with our federal budget without addressing entitlements.  It doesn't matter if people want to ignore entitlements or not - they must be addressed in order to balance the budget, and we must move away from people sucking on Federal transfer payments.

This isn't optional folks.  We have made promises we cannot keep.  They're mathematically-impossible to keep, irrespective of what we want to do.  We are left with accepting this and making the necessary adjustments or having them imposed upon us by the market in a disorderly fashion.

QuoteThe entire scam currently defined as "health insurance" must cease and be prosecuted as the felony it should be.

So - single payer then?

Also, has anyone proposed taxing 100% of someone's income? Nice work taking down that strawman, Karl.

I don't think anyone has suggested that deficits can be closed solely by taxing the wealthy. If they have, they're dumb. But dismissing any sort of tax increase with a wave of the hand strikes me as equally dumb.

I think some kind of tax increase is coming, whether it's on consumption or some kind vice, but the main thrust of the article is right.  At no point in this country's history, even when the rates were as high as 70%, did revenue exceed 25%.  There is going to have to be some kind of grand bargain made to close the budget deficit, absent a strong external factor.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 03, 2011, 11:32:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
The title of the piece says it all. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2440734)  There is so much RIGHT stuff that coincides with my own views in here I don't know where to begin.  I'll try, though:

OK'd.

My views = simple math.  Do you have an actual counterargument, with, like, numbers?  Some scenario in which interest expense doesn't double, or entitlement spending doesn't grow to even more ridiculous size, or some way that you can tax more than 100% of someone's income?  Or are you just stickpoking me?  (I guess these are not mutually exclusive.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 03, 2011, 12:06:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 03, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 03, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
The title of the piece says it all. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2440734)  There is so much RIGHT in here I don't know where to begin.  I'll try, though:

QuoteThere are many people who say "Tax the Rich!" as if it's some sort of mantra.  But the top 1% of households (which earn $300k and up) is roughly 1.5 million households.  If we taxed all of their income (that is, a 100% tax rate) we couldn't close the budget deficit.  But we wouldn't collect any of the money either if we did that, because nobody works for free - you'd have a lot of people earning $299,000 and then going home.  What's worse is that the extra income they wouldn't earn also wouldn't get spent.  When tax rates change so does behavior.
...
We cannot fix the problems we have in this country with our federal budget without addressing entitlements.  It doesn't matter if people want to ignore entitlements or not - they must be addressed in order to balance the budget, and we must move away from people sucking on Federal transfer payments.

This isn't optional folks.  We have made promises we cannot keep.  They're mathematically-impossible to keep, irrespective of what we want to do.  We are left with accepting this and making the necessary adjustments or having them imposed upon us by the market in a disorderly fashion.

QuoteThe entire scam currently defined as "health insurance" must cease and be prosecuted as the felony it should be.

So - single payer then?

Also, has anyone proposed taxing 100% of someone's income? Nice work taking down that strawman, Karl.

I don't think anyone has suggested that deficits can be closed solely by taxing the wealthy. If they have, they're dumb. But dismissing any sort of tax increase with a wave of the hand strikes me as equally dumb.

I think some kind of tax increase is coming, whether it's on consumption or some kind vice, but the main thrust of the article is right.  At no point in this country's history, even when the rates were as high as 70%, did revenue exceed 25%.  There is going to have to be some kind of grand bargain made to close the budget deficit, absent a strong external factor.

Imagine if they cut off tax exempt status to politically active religious organizations or cut off Federal subsidies to people or individuals who rechannel it into political organizations?

We'd all be farting through silk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 03, 2011, 11:55:50 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 03, 2011, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
The title of the piece says it all. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2440734)  There is so much RIGHT in here I don't know where to begin.  I'll try, though:

QuoteThere are many people who say "Tax the Rich!" as if it's some sort of mantra.  But the top 1% of households (which earn $300k and up) is roughly 1.5 million households.  If we taxed all of their income (that is, a 100% tax rate) we couldn't close the budget deficit.  But we wouldn't collect any of the money either if we did that, because nobody works for free - you'd have a lot of people earning $299,000 and then going home.  What's worse is that the extra income they wouldn't earn also wouldn't get spent.  When tax rates change so does behavior.
...
We cannot fix the problems we have in this country with our federal budget without addressing entitlements.  It doesn't matter if people want to ignore entitlements or not - they must be addressed in order to balance the budget, and we must move away from people sucking on Federal transfer payments.

This isn't optional folks.  We have made promises we cannot keep.  They're mathematically-impossible to keep, irrespective of what we want to do.  We are left with accepting this and making the necessary adjustments or having them imposed upon us by the market in a disorderly fashion.

QuoteThe entire scam currently defined as "health insurance" must cease and be prosecuted as the felony it should be.

So - single payer then?

Also, has anyone proposed taxing 100% of someone's income? Nice work taking down that strawman, Karl.

I don't think anyone has suggested that deficits can be closed solely by taxing the wealthy. If they have, they're dumb. But dismissing any sort of tax increase with a wave of the hand strikes me as equally dumb.

I think some kind of tax increase is coming, whether it's on consumption or some kind vice, but the main thrust of the article is right.  At no point in this country's history, even when the rates were as high as 70%, did revenue exceed 25%.  There is going to have to be some kind of grand bargain made to close the budget deficit, absent a strong external factor.

Gil makes a very good point - that tax revenues higher than 25% of GDP just aren't going to happen.  My main point, and the article's main point, is that spending is *the* problem that needs to be addressed.  Piddling with tax policy is not going to solve anything (unless we're suggesting growing GDP through a flatter, less-loopholed, clearer income tax so that tax revenue can grow without increasing its bite size out of GDP).  Spending has to come down.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 03, 2011, 12:40:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:57:47 AM
Or are you just stickpoking me?  (I guess these are not mutually exclusive.)

I don't do much else nowadays.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:43:18 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 03, 2011, 12:40:27 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 11:57:47 AM
Or are you just stickpoking me?  (I guess these are not mutually exclusive.)

I don't do much else nowadays.

You got me. 

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAnndxCY2C1mbU1z-mxQHz3mGHZJazYtZ86uQEkwpqWfXpVCdh&t=1)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 03, 2011, 01:44:18 PM
Fucking assholes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 03, 2011, 02:51:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

If only Social Security were this nation's most pressing fiscal problem...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on March 03, 2011, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 03, 2011, 01:44:18 PM
Fucking assholes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM).
`

That made me sick to my stomach.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 03, 2011, 03:33:49 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 03, 2011, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 03, 2011, 01:44:18 PM
Fucking assholes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM).
`

That made me sick to my stomach.

Horrifying.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 03, 2011, 04:14:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 03, 2011, 03:33:49 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 03, 2011, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 03, 2011, 01:44:18 PM
Fucking assholes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM).
`

That made me sick to my stomach.

Horrifying.

What a bunch of Chads.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 03, 2011, 04:44:36 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 03, 2011, 04:14:58 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 03, 2011, 03:33:49 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 03, 2011, 02:56:33 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 03, 2011, 01:44:18 PM
Fucking assholes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM).
`

That made me sick to my stomach.

Horrifying.

What a bunch of Chads.

God bless America. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess. 

DPD.  I think this quote that is sometimes attributed (http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) to Alexander Tytler seems relevant.

QuoteA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 04, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess. 

DPD.  I think this quote that is sometimes attributed (http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) to Alexander Tytler seems relevant.

QuoteA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

I guess America IS pretty awesome if we're already 45 years past our expiration date. So who's gonna be the dictator? My money's on Gery Chico.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 04, 2011, 09:55:31 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess. 

DPD.  I think this quote that is sometimes attributed (http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) to Alexander Tytler seems relevant.

QuoteA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

I guess America IS pretty awesome if we're already 45 years past our expiration date. So who's gonna be the dictator? My money's on Gery Chico.

Charlie Sheen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 04, 2011, 10:04:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess. 

DPD.  I think this quote that is sometimes attributed (http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) to Alexander Tytler seems relevant.

QuoteA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

I guess America IS pretty awesome if we're already 45 years past our expiration date. So who's gonna be the dictator? My money's on Gery Chico.

45 years?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 04, 2011, 10:11:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 04, 2011, 10:04:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess. 

DPD.  I think this quote that is sometimes attributed (http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) to Alexander Tytler seems relevant.

QuoteA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

I guess America IS pretty awesome if we're already 45 years past our expiration date. So who's gonna be the dictator? My money's on Gery Chico.

45 years?

I'm a moron.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 04, 2011, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 10:11:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 04, 2011, 10:04:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess.  

DPD.  I think this quote that is sometimes attributed (http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) to Alexander Tytler seems relevant.

QuoteA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

I guess America IS pretty awesome if we're already 45 years past our expiration date. So who's gonna be the dictator? My money's on Gery Chico.

45 years?

I'm a moron.

You were just measuring the age of our glorious Republic back to the repeal of the odious Stamp Act.

A momentous victory, to be sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 04, 2011, 10:22:23 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 04, 2011, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 10:11:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 04, 2011, 10:04:28 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess.  

DPD.  I think this quote that is sometimes attributed (http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) to Alexander Tytler seems relevant.

QuoteA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

I guess America IS pretty awesome if we're already 45 years past our expiration date. So who's gonna be the dictator? My money's on Gery Chico.

45 years?

I'm a moron.

You were just measuring the age of our glorious Republic back to the repeal of the odious Stamp Act.

A momentous victory, to be sure.

My America ended on April 9, 1865...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 04, 2011, 10:57:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:14:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 09:08:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2011, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 03, 2011, 12:09:32 PM
Spending has to come down.

Sure. Who's gonna vote for that?  No one, not even Tea Partiers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704728004576176741120691736.html).

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

Sooner or later we're just going to have to elect people who want to serve, I guess. 

DPD.  I think this quote that is sometimes attributed (http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) to Alexander Tytler seems relevant.

QuoteA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorshipa divine-right absolutist monarchy. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

You rang?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 04, 2011, 10:59:12 AM
REAL TALK (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/washington_is_bad_at_scheming.html) from Ezra Klein:

QuoteThat's the main thing I've learned working as a reporter and political observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly carrying out complicated plans. Partisans are very good at recognizing disarray and incompetence on their side of the aisle, but they tend to think the other side is intimidatingly capable and unburdened by scruples or normal human vulnerabilities. And there's so much press interest in Svengali political consultants like Karl Rove or David Plouffe, all of whom get built up in the press as infallible tacticians, that the place just looks a lot more sophisticated than it really is.

But I tend to be shocked at how sophisticated it isn't. Communication between various political actors -- a crucial ingredient in any serious plan -- is surprisingly informal and inadequate. Members of Congress and their staffs don't really have access to secret, efficient networks of information. Instead, they read Roll Call and the Hill and The Washington Post and keep their televisions tuned to cable news, turning up the volume when a colleague involved in a bill they're interested in appears on the screen. Then everyone sits around and speculates about what they just heard. Most every political reporter can back me up when I say that it's extremely common for key players on both sides of the aisle to ask you what you're hearing or how you'd rate the chances of their bill -- and this typically happens when you're sitting down to ask them the very same questions. It's terribly disappointing and, I'm convinced, 100 percent genuine.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 12:03:59 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 10:59:12 AM
REAL TALK (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/washington_is_bad_at_scheming.html) from Ezra Klein:

QuoteThat's the main thing I've learned working as a reporter and political observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly carrying out complicated plans. Partisans are very good at recognizing disarray and incompetence on their side of the aisle, but they tend to think the other side is intimidatingly capable and unburdened by scruples or normal human vulnerabilities. And there's so much press interest in Svengali political consultants like Karl Rove or David Plouffe, all of whom get built up in the press as infallible tacticians, that the place just looks a lot more sophisticated than it really is.

But I tend to be shocked at how sophisticated it isn't. Communication between various political actors -- a crucial ingredient in any serious plan -- is surprisingly informal and inadequate. Members of Congress and their staffs don't really have access to secret, efficient networks of information. Instead, they read Roll Call and the Hill and The Washington Post and keep their televisions tuned to cable news, turning up the volume when a colleague involved in a bill they're interested in appears on the screen. Then everyone sits around and speculates about what they just heard. Most every political reporter can back me up when I say that it's extremely common for key players on both sides of the aisle to ask you what you're hearing or how you'd rate the chances of their bill -- and this typically happens when you're sitting down to ask them the very same questions. It's terribly disappointing and, I'm convinced, 100 percent genuine.

That sounds correct and awful at the same time.  All the more reason to *not* have them wield so much power.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 04, 2011, 12:29:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 04, 2011, 12:03:59 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 04, 2011, 10:59:12 AM
REAL TALK (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/washington_is_bad_at_scheming.html) from Ezra Klein:

QuoteThat's the main thing I've learned working as a reporter and political observer in Washington: No one can carry out complicated plans. All parties and groups are fractious and bumbling. But everyone always thinks everyone else is efficiently and ruthlessly carrying out complicated plans. Partisans are very good at recognizing disarray and incompetence on their side of the aisle, but they tend to think the other side is intimidatingly capable and unburdened by scruples or normal human vulnerabilities. And there's so much press interest in Svengali political consultants like Karl Rove or David Plouffe, all of whom get built up in the press as infallible tacticians, that the place just looks a lot more sophisticated than it really is.

But I tend to be shocked at how sophisticated it isn't. Communication between various political actors -- a crucial ingredient in any serious plan -- is surprisingly informal and inadequate. Members of Congress and their staffs don't really have access to secret, efficient networks of information. Instead, they read Roll Call and the Hill and The Washington Post and keep their televisions tuned to cable news, turning up the volume when a colleague involved in a bill they're interested in appears on the screen. Then everyone sits around and speculates about what they just heard. Most every political reporter can back me up when I say that it's extremely common for key players on both sides of the aisle to ask you what you're hearing or how you'd rate the chances of their bill -- and this typically happens when you're sitting down to ask them the very same questions. It's terribly disappointing and, I'm convinced, 100 percent genuine.

That sounds correct and awful at the same time.  All the more reason to *not* have them wield so much power.

Obviously that kind of power should be kept in Wall Street investment bank boardrooms, where they've demonstrated that they can handle it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 07, 2011, 09:06:39 AM
Wow, I wonder why...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030602662.html

QuoteNew Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group. "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."

Douche.

QuoteStill, the sponsor of the measure, state Rep. Gregory Sorg, addressing a packed public hearing room late last month, focused his ire directly at the college set.

Average taxpayers in college towns, he said, are having their votes "diluted or entirely canceled by those of a huge, largely monolithic demographic group . . . composed of people with a dearth of experience and a plethora of the easy self-confidence that only ignorance and inexperience can produce."

Their "youthful idealism," he added, "is focused on remaking the world, with themselves in charge, of course, rather than with the mundane humdrum of local government."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 07, 2011, 08:20:24 PM
This doesn't sound good.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20110305/ISSUE01/303059975/crains-investigation-illinois-prepaid-tuition-plan-struggles-as-college-costs-soar#ixzz1FowgbkrW
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 08, 2011, 10:29:14 AM
And, the distinguished member from Illinois wants to add the right to free unicorns and rainbows to the Constitution as well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdPrA0b1UM&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 08, 2011, 10:44:44 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 08, 2011, 10:29:14 AM
And, the distinguished member from Illinois wants to add the right to free unicorns and rainbows to the Constitution as well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdPrA0b1UM&feature=player_embedded)

Every child in America could use an international airport, Mr. Burns.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 08, 2011, 11:07:44 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 08, 2011, 10:29:14 AM
And, the distinguished member from Illinois wants to add the right to free unicorns and rainbows to the Constitution as well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdPrA0b1UM&feature=player_embedded)

Please tell me that he didn't go to public schools.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 08, 2011, 11:39:31 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 08, 2011, 11:07:44 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 08, 2011, 10:29:14 AM
And, the distinguished member from Illinois wants to add the right to free unicorns and rainbows to the Constitution as well. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdPrA0b1UM&feature=player_embedded)

Please tell me that he didn't go to public schools.

I'd be willing to bet that Jesse Junior did not go to public schools.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's.  Running like scared little bitches in Wisconsin when they lose elections. Really the best you can do is flee the state and are shocked when they vote and your not present? WTF did you think was gonna happen the Tea Party and the GOP was gonna throw up their hands and go awwwwwww those crafty little liberals got us again.....lets compromise!

QuoteState Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin's 73rd assembly district.  He was on America's Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin.  Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others.  The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?  The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions.  But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn't want to be part of a union could find other work.

Get that? You'll be forced to donate to a party that you don't support, and you'll like it!

Nice scam you guys got going on, too bad its about to come crashing down.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tony on March 09, 2011, 10:59:28 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's.  Running like scared little bitches in Wisconsin when they lose elections. Really the best you can do is flee the state and are shocked when they vote and your not present? WTF did you think was gonna happen the Tea Party and the GOP was gonna throw up their hands and go awwwwwww those crafty little liberals got us again.....lets compromise!

QuoteState Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin's 73rd assembly district.  He was on America's Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin.  Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others.  The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?  The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions.  But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn't want to be part of a union could find other work.

Get that? You'll be forced to donate to a party that you don't support, and you'll like it!

Nice scam you guys got going on, too bad its about to come crashing down.

Boobies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 09, 2011, 11:24:05 PM
(http://www.idontlikeyouinthatway.com/pictures/20110308/Kate%20Upton%20Outtakes/t/kate-upton-outtakes-0thumb.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Lance Dicksons Arm on March 09, 2011, 11:26:37 PM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/03/police-miguel-cabrera-threatened-to-kill-all-of-you-in-restaurant-before-arrest-/1
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on March 09, 2011, 11:37:31 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's.  Running like scared little bitches in Wisconsin when they lose elections. Really the best you can do is flee the state and are shocked when they vote and your not present? WTF did you think was gonna happen the Tea Party and the GOP was gonna throw up their hands and go awwwwwww those crafty little liberals got us again.....lets compromise!

QuoteState Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin's 73rd assembly district.  He was on America's Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin.  Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others.  The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?  The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions.  But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn't want to be part of a union could find other work.

Get that? You'll be forced to donate to a party that you don't support, and you'll like it!

Nice scam you guys got going on, too bad its about to come crashing down.

Let me guess...


It's your birthday?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 10, 2011, 12:40:55 AM
(http://www.iww.org/graphics/agitators/modern/Drooker/GSDrookEngsm.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 10, 2011, 07:27:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's.  Running like scared little bitches in Wisconsin when they lose elections. Really the best you can do is flee the state and are shocked when they vote and your not present? WTF did you think was gonna happen the Tea Party and the GOP was gonna throw up their hands and go awwwwwww those crafty little liberals got us again.....lets compromise!

QuoteState Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin's 73rd assembly district.  He was on America's Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin.  Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others.  The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?  The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions.  But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn't want to be part of a union could find other work.

Get that? You'll be forced to donate to a party that you don't support, and you'll like it!

Nice scam you guys got going on, too bad its about to come crashing down.

Read the Pew numbers...congratulations on losing the Rust Belt for a generation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 10, 2011, 07:40:32 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's

The Dem's what?  I need closure on this anecdote.

Quotetoo bad its about to come crashing down.

Its what is about to coming crashing down? I need closure on this anecdote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on March 10, 2011, 08:23:50 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 07:40:32 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's

The Dem's what?  I need closure on this anecdote.

Quotetoo bad its about to come crashing down.

Its what is about to coming crashing down? I need closure on this anecdote.

Obviously, you're not CONNECTING THE DOTS!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 10, 2011, 08:44:29 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 07:40:32 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's

The Dem's what?  I need closure on this anecdote.

Quotetoo bad its about to come crashing down.

Its what is about to coming crashing down? I need closure on this anecdote.

The closure was that after Mike stopped typing he went back to masturbating.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 08:52:30 AM
Is it a coincidence that both of the fictional characters on this board (MikeC and BC) end with C?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 10, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 08:52:30 AM
Is it a coincidence that both of the fictional characters on this board (MikeC and BC) end with C?

Doc also ends in a C.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 09:06:42 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 10, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 08:52:30 AM
Is it a coincidence that both of the fictional characters on this board (MikeC and BC) end with C?

Doc also ends in a C.

The day when Dolan finally confesses to all this is going to be a glorious one indeed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 10, 2011, 09:23:24 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 10, 2011, 12:40:55 AM
(http://www.iww.org/graphics/agitators/modern/Drooker/GSDrookEngsm.jpg)

(http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee209/jbdiablo/wobblies.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 10, 2011, 07:27:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's.  Running like scared little bitches in Wisconsin when they lose elections. Really the best you can do is flee the state and are shocked when they vote and your not present? WTF did you think was gonna happen the Tea Party and the GOP was gonna throw up their hands and go awwwwwww those crafty little liberals got us again.....lets compromise!

QuoteState Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin's 73rd assembly district.  He was on America's Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin.  Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others.  The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?  The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions.  But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn't want to be part of a union could find other work.

Get that? You'll be forced to donate to a party that you don't support, and you'll like it!

Nice scam you guys got going on, too bad its about to come crashing down.

Read the Pew numbers...congratulations on losing the Rust Belt for a generation.

It's certainly made Mitch Daniels unelectable in Indiana. Hell, Scott Walker said he was going to do this and he not only got elected, but they gave him a Republican statehouse.

The automakers were ultimately done in by unsustainable defined benefits given to their employees. I don't blame the unions for that. They bargained for the best possible deal, and the private corporations gave it to them. Oops.

Management should drive as hard a bargain as the unions drive. In the private sector, weak management loses profitability (hard-headed management loses good employees).

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting? Federal employees can't bargain for their benefits. It's a good thing too, because the feds will likely be asked to fund different states' pensions.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 09:55:18 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
It's certainly made Mitch Daniels unelectable in Indiana. Hell, Scott Walker said he was going to do this and he not only got elected, but they gave him a Republican statehouse.

The automakers were ultimately done in by unsustainable defined benefits given to their employees. I don't blame the unions for that. They bargained for the best possible deal, and the private corporations gave it to them. Oops.

Management should drive as hard a bargain as the unions drive. In the private sector, weak management loses profitability (hard-headed management loses good employees).

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting? Federal employees can't bargain for their benefits. It's a good thing too, because the feds will likely be asked to fund different states' pensions.

I believe he said he was going to do this after eh got elected.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2011, 09:59:13 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 10, 2011, 07:27:10 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 09, 2011, 10:23:39 PM
Ohhh man what a last couple of weeks for the Dem's.  Running like scared little bitches in Wisconsin when they lose elections. Really the best you can do is flee the state and are shocked when they vote and your not present? WTF did you think was gonna happen the Tea Party and the GOP was gonna throw up their hands and go awwwwwww those crafty little liberals got us again.....lets compromise!

QuoteState Rep. Nick Milroy is the Democratic state representative from Wisconsin's 73rd assembly district.  He was on America's Radio News with anchors Chris Salcedo and Lori Lundin.  Salcedo pointed out that union membership was split by their votes in 2010, 49% for Democrats and 47% for Republicans, nearly an even split. But unions donated 93% of their total contributions to Democrats in 2010, and 7% to Republicans or others.  The question was asked if the assemblyman could understand why Republicans were not in favor of having tax payer funded dues go to fund Democrat campaigns?  The assemblyman contended that public employees can opt out of the unions.  But when pressed about how even those that opt out must pay union dues, the assemblyman suggested that those people that didn't want to be part of a union could find other work.

Get that? You'll be forced to donate to a party that you don't support, and you'll like it!

Nice scam you guys got going on, too bad its about to come crashing down.

Read the Pew numbers...congratulations on losing the Rust Belt for a generation.

It's certainly made Mitch Daniels unelectable in Indiana. Hell, Scott Walker said he was going to do this and he not only got elected, but they gave him a Republican statehouse.

The automakers were ultimately done in by unsustainable defined benefits given to their employees. I don't blame the unions for that. They bargained for the best possible deal, and the private corporations gave it to them. Oops.

Management should drive as hard a bargain as the unions drive. In the private sector, weak management loses profitability (hard-headed management loses good employees).

Now, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting? Federal employees can't bargain for their benefits. It's a good thing too, because the feds will likely be asked to fund different states' pensions.

I think Mitch had problems with the right-flank before this; however, that said, this doesn't help.  Collective bargaining rights are polling around a consistent 60%.

However, I don't recall Walker campaigning on rolling back collective bargaining rights.  I certainly remember him campaigning on the pension and health insurance issues, but not the collective bargaining aspect.

That said, there are two possibilities now that this thing has passed.  Either we assume arguendo that the collective bargaining aspects of the bill were fiscal issues, in which case the WI legislature just "passed" an illegal bill, or Walker has been lying the entire time and the collective bargaining rights were merely just an attempt to weaken the public sector unions, not fiscal measures to balance the state's books.

Should be interesting going forward.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

QuoteOnly 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

Very Yellonesque.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 10, 2011, 10:43:44 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

QuoteOnly 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

I went to public school in South Carolina and, just as sure as Jesus made America 6000 years ago for white gentiles to create a New Jerusalem, I did just fine on the SAT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 10:48:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

QuoteOnly 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

But teachers would still be able to collectively bargain for wages and such. As for Mitch, collective bargaining for state workers went away at the start of 2005, and he won re-election in 2008 (http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1409) -- even when the state went for Obama. Daniels' legislature is now trying to make Indiana a right to work state, and that has union hackles up.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2011, 09:59:13 AM

That said, there are two possibilities now that this thing has passed.  Either we assume arguendo that the collective bargaining aspects of the bill were fiscal issues, in which case the WI legislature just "passed" an illegal bill, or Walker has been lying the entire time and the collective bargaining rights were merely just an attempt to weaken the public sector unions, not fiscal measures to balance the state's books.

Should be interesting going forward.

Yes, it is a fiscal issue, but it's not a fiscal bill. A bill that incorporates concessions from state workers is a fiscal bill. The scaling back of CB rights for state employees is insurance to keep the state from sliding back into a budget crisis.

What would be interesting is to see if the unions would initiate a wildcat strike. Sure, the state could fire them all, but would they be willing to? Of course, that entails a certain amount of risk for the union. Unions abhor risk. Risk is for non-union private sector suckers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:48:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

Very Yellonesque.

If I were Yellon, I would have also explained that I didn't include a photo in my post out of respect for Luis Salazar's family.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 11:04:12 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:48:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 10:34:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

Very Yellonesque.

If I were Yellon, I would have also explained that I didn't include a photo in my post out of respect for Luis Salazar's family.

Very true.

(http://www.friedmanarchives.com/NYC/images/Salad%20Bar%20replenishment%20PICT5347.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 10, 2011, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

On a related note, any guesses on how many billions are spent on both sides in 2012?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 12:19:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 12:19:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 01:04:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 12:19:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

You restrict what governments have the ability to offer any group. In the case of collective bargaining with elected officials, there is a bit of a conflict of interest in the negotiation, no?

Simply put, every worker in the world should have one thing in mind when negotiating compensation, be it individually or collectively: How can I maximize my compensation for the minimal amount of output required? That's the goal of every union. (If it's not the goal, the union bosses should be savagely attacked by their members.)  Management should be interested in getting the maximum (both in quantity and quality) production for minimal compensation. How each side values its tradeoffs is one thing, but when management decides leaving money on the table isn't so bad, the union is going to win the negotiations going away.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 01:06:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 01:04:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 12:19:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

You restrict what governments have the ability to offer any group. In the case of collective bargaining with elected officials, there is a bit of a conflict of interest in the negotiation, no?

Simply put, every worker in the world should have one thing in mind when negotiating compensation, be it individually or collectively: How can I maximize my compensation for the minimal amount of output required? That's the goal of every union. (If it's not the goal, the union bosses should be savagely attacked by their members.)  Management should be interested in getting the maximum (both in quantity and quality) production for minimal compensation. How each side values its tradeoffs is one thing, but when management decides leaving money on the table isn't so bad, the union is going to win the negotiations going away.

So how do you limit the influence of corporate donors?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 10, 2011, 01:13:36 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 01:06:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 01:04:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 12:19:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

You restrict what governments have the ability to offer any group. In the case of collective bargaining with elected officials, there is a bit of a conflict of interest in the negotiation, no?

Simply put, every worker in the world should have one thing in mind when negotiating compensation, be it individually or collectively: How can I maximize my compensation for the minimal amount of output required? That's the goal of every union. (If it's not the goal, the union bosses should be savagely attacked by their members.)  Management should be interested in getting the maximum (both in quantity and quality) production for minimal compensation. How each side values its tradeoffs is one thing, but when management decides leaving money on the table isn't so bad, the union is going to win the negotiations going away.

So how do you limit the influence of corporate donors?

One recognizes that money does not equal speech and go from there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 10, 2011, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 12:19:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

By selling public assets to them in a no-bid process, of course.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 10, 2011, 01:29:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

QuoteOnly 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

Garbage.  The data is over 10 years old (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/states/USCHARTsat.html); if you compile it for the most recent school year - 2010 - there is no pattern.  Even if the pattern did hold over time, which it doesn't, there are much more important factors determining ACT/SAT scores, such as socio-economic background and simply the rate of test-taking.  If more people take the test (as a percentage of the total school population cohort) then the scores go lower.

Heck, ACT and SAT the College Board both caution against comparing scores by state because the comparisons are so faulty.  And, the post that the Economist linked to (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/but-i-thought-union-busting-solved-all-educational-problems) has since been amended to say the study is crap.

EDIT: I forgot that the SAT is not eponymously named.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 10, 2011, 01:29:17 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 10, 2011, 10:29:57 AM
This has been making the rounds a bit and while correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's still worth pointing out:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions

QuoteOnly 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

Garbage.  The data is over 10 years old (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/states/USCHARTsat.html); if you compile it for the most recent school year - 2010 - there is no pattern.  Even if the pattern did hold over time, which it doesn't, there are much more important factors determining ACT/SAT scores, such as socio-economic background and simply the rate of test-taking.  If more people take the test (as a percentage of the total school population cohort) then the scores go lower.

Heck, ACT and SAT the College Board both caution against comparing scores by state because the comparisons are so faulty.  And, the post that the Economist linked to (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/02/but-i-thought-union-busting-solved-all-educational-problems) has since been amended to say the study is crap.

EDIT: I forgot that the SAT is not eponymously named.


Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 10, 2011, 02:10:10 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 10, 2011, 01:18:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:23:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 12:19:41 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 09:50:15 AMNow, when a union sits down in the public sector with appointees of elected officials who often just received union support, in whose interest is the public sector management acting?

So you're in favor of publicly financed elections (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/the_conservatives_case_for_cam.html). I agree.

QuoteI've been listening to the conservative arguments against public-employee unions for the last few weeks, and it's left me with one big question: Why aren't more conservatives ferocious supporters of serious campaign-finance reform?

As David Brooks puts it, the problem with public-sector unions is that they "help choose those they negotiate with. Through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout, they have enormous influence over who gets elected to bargain with them, especially in state and local races." Then they negotiate with these same leaders — or representatives of these same leaders — for pay, pensions, etc.

But the same goes for corporations. The income of many corporations — Boeing is a good example — depend on government contracts. Tax policy is also important when it comes to setting take-home pay. Then there are rules, regulations, bailouts, backstops, and all the other ways that the government helps structure and shape the economy. And "through gigantic campaign contributions and overall clout," corporations "have enormous influence over who gets to bargain with them." And in the aggregate, of course, the business community spends much more than the unions — in 2010, business groups spent $1.3 billion, while unions spent $93 million.

Given that disparity, it's not at all clear to me why I should worry more about the money unions spend on elections than the money corporations spend on elections. But more to the point, I'd like to reduce both: The AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party joined forces against the DISCLOSE Act. But the DISCLOSE Act was a good bill! And the Fair Elections Now Act is a better one. It's curious that the alarm conservatives feel when they look at the nexus of moneyed interests and government power doesn't translate into support for the sort of laws that might weaken that link.

No, I'm more interested in blunting the influence of money in elections by reducing the power of governments to use the state treasury as a candy store to reward donors.

Let's assume the removal of collective bargaining rights limits the influence of the $93 million donors. How do you propose to limit the influence of the $1.3 billion donors?

By selling public assets to them in a no-bid process, of course.

I laughed because it's so sadly true.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 10, 2011, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

THIS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 02:19:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 10, 2011, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

THIS.

All those single parents should gay marry.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 10, 2011, 02:25:30 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 10, 2011, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

THIS.

Correlation, causation... It's all good!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

Yes. And Walker didn't deny that he was going to do this when his opponent suggested as much.

As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

Yes. And Walker didn't deny that he was going to do this when his opponent suggested as much.

As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

So what do we do about those no-bid contracts?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

Yes. And Walker didn't deny that he was going to do this when his opponent suggested as much.

As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

So what do we do about those no-bid contracts?

You try and eliminate them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 02:53:34 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:34:27 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they endorsed Walker worked.

Yes. And Walker didn't deny that he was going to do this when his opponent suggested as much.

As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

So what do we do about those no-bid contracts?

You try and eliminate them.

So it's agreed then. Public financing of elections, since that's the only way to truly remove the incentive politicians have to serve special interests.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:59:27 PM
But should there be public financing of elections and I decide to invest my billions in a "media company" that prints and disseminate information slanted in favor of my candidates, would I be breaking the law?

Are you willing to throw people in jail for expressing their preference for a candidate?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 10, 2011, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they four out of the 314 police and firefighter unions endorsed Walker while the other 300 endorsed the other guy worked.

I guess it doesn't take a lot buy him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 10, 2011, 03:20:14 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 10, 2011, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they four out of the 314 police and firefighter unions endorsed Walker while the other 300 endorsed the other guy worked.

I guess it doesn't take a lot buy him.


Is this bad math or did the other ten throw their vote away on a third party?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 10, 2011, 03:21:13 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 03:20:14 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 10, 2011, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 02:21:28 PM
I went to school in SC and had an habitually absent father and I scored well above the national average on the SAT. But I only exist anecdotally.

In the abstract.

Also, @Teej, I thought you were discussing Walker, not Daniels.  Daniels certainly did run on ending public unions.  Walker's argument would carry more weight with me if he would say that he was getting ruid of the fire and police unions as well.  I guess that they four out of the 314 police and firefighter unions endorsed Walker while the other 300 endorsed the other guy worked.

I guess it doesn't take a lot buy him.


Is this bad math or did the other ten throw their vote away on a third party?

They voted "present".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:59:27 PM
But should there be public financing of elections and I decide to invest my billions in a "media company" that prints and disseminate information slanted in favor of my candidates, would I be breaking the law?

Are you willing to throw people in jail for expressing their preference for a candidate?

We don't have to throw them in jail. We could just say that all media moguls who spend over x dollars have to live in Indiana.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 10, 2011, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:59:27 PM
But should there be public financing of elections and I decide to invest my billions in a "media company" that prints and disseminate information slanted in favor of my candidates, would I be breaking the law?

Are you willing to throw people in jail for expressing their preference for a candidate?

We don't have to throw them in jail. We could just say that all media moguls who spend over x dollars have to live in Indiana.

Pretty sure that's considered cruel and unusual punishment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 10, 2011, 03:40:40 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:59:27 PM
But should there be public financing of elections and I decide to invest my billions in a "media company" that prints and disseminate information slanted in favor of my candidates, would I be breaking the law?

Are you willing to throw people in jail for expressing their preference for a candidate?

We don't have to throw them in jail. We could just say that all media moguls who spend over x dollars have to live in Indiana.

Pretty sure that's considered cruel and unusual punishment.

THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 10, 2011, 03:41:20 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:59:27 PM
But should there be public financing of elections and I decide to invest my billions in a "media company" that prints and disseminate information slanted in favor of my candidates, would I be breaking the law?

Are you willing to throw people in jail for expressing their preference for a candidate?

We don't have to throw them in jail. We could just say that all media moguls who spend over x dollars have to live in Indiana.

Pretty sure that's considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Speaking of cruel and unusual, who's up for putting Peter King (the congressman, not the SI writer) in the firebarn? That guy is a vile piece of xenophobic dogshit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 03:42:52 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:34:27 PM
As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

I believe I mentioned as far back as 2+ years ago that this guy is a guy in 2012 that I would be able to vote for.  Seems to have something lacking in most politicians: Integrity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 10, 2011, 05:18:19 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 03:42:52 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:34:27 PM
As for Daniels, ending collective bargaining in the public sector was the first thing he did as governor.

I believe I mentioned as far back as 2+ years ago that this guy is a guy in 2012 that I would be able to vote for.  Seems to have something lacking in most politicians: Integrity.

He wants to SERVE?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 10, 2011, 05:18:51 PM
DPD
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 03:41:20 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 10, 2011, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 10, 2011, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 10, 2011, 02:59:27 PM
But should there be public financing of elections and I decide to invest my billions in a "media company" that prints and disseminate information slanted in favor of my candidates, would I be breaking the law?

Are you willing to throw people in jail for expressing their preference for a candidate?

We don't have to throw them in jail. We could just say that all media moguls who spend over x dollars have to live in Indiana.

Pretty sure that's considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Speaking of cruel and unusual, who's up for putting Peter King (the congressman, not the SI writer) in the firebarn? That guy is a vile piece of xenophobic dogshit.

We can stack him next to Snork and Carlos Silva.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

Its the central tenet to the manifesto sent out by Michelle Rhee and a collection of big-city superintendents that "As President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents' income -- it is the quality of their teacher." 

At the policymaking level, no one is talking about socio-economics.  And it sucks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 14, 2011, 09:50:06 PM
Yikes. This cannot be good. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?_r=1&src=tptw)

QuoteJapan faced the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident Tuesday morning, as an explosion at the most crippled of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station damaged its crucial steel containment structure, emergency workers were withdrawn from the plant, and much larger emissions of radioactive materials appeared immiment, according to official statements and industry executives informed about the developments.

Japanese Prime Minsiter Naoto Kan made a televised address to the nation at 11 a.m. Tokyo time to discuss the latest developments in the crisis.

The sharp deterioration came after government officials said the containment structure of the No. 2 reactor, the most seriously damaged of three reactors at the Daichi plant, had suffered damage during an explosion shortly after 6 a.m. on Tuesday.

They initially suggested that the damage was limited and that emergency operations aimed at cooling the nuclear fuel at three stricken reactors with seawater would continue. But industry executives said that in fact the situation had spiraled out of control and that all plant workers needed to leave the plant to avoid excessive exposure to radioactive leaks.

If all workers do in fact leave the plant, the nuclear fuel in all three reactors is likely to melt down, which would lead to wholesale releases of radioactive material — by far the largest accident of its kind since the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago.

Reports of an imminent worsening of the problem came after a frantic day and night of rescue efforts focused largely on the No. 2 reactor. There, a malfunctioning valve prevented workers from manually venting the containment vessel to release pressure and allow fresh seawater to be injected into it. That meant that the extraordinary remedy emergency workers have been using to keep the nuclear fuel from overheating no longer worked.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2011, 09:56:24 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

Its the central tenet to the manifesto sent out by Michelle Rhee and a collection of big-city superintendents that "As President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents' income -- it is the quality of their teacher." 

At the policymaking level, no one is talking about socio-economics.  And it sucks.

Frankly, most of the big policy decisions are made by your local school board. They are talking about this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on March 15, 2011, 08:35:05 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2011, 09:56:24 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 10, 2011, 01:58:53 PM
Quote from: fiveouts on March 10, 2011, 01:36:59 PM

Most important thing you wrote and the single fact that everyone in a public position is afraid to discuss. 

Maybe the high profile people, but in public meetings I've attended and participated in, no one has shied away from stating that the single most correlating factor in academic achievement is if the student has married parents.

That's certainly socio-economic.

Its the central tenet to the manifesto sent out by Michelle Rhee and a collection of big-city superintendents that "As President Obama has emphasized, the single most important factor determining whether students succeed in school is not the color of their skin or their ZIP code or even their parents' income -- it is the quality of their teacher." 

At the policymaking level, no one is talking about socio-economics.  And it sucks.

Frankly, most of the big policy decisions are made by your local school board. They are talking about this.

As a resident of Chicago, I respectfully disagree.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 15, 2011, 08:28:54 PM
If all of those Constitution-loving Tea Party Libertarians are looking for more Obama administration actions to get all lathered up about, this would be as good a place to start as any...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/opinion/15tue3.html

QuotePrivate Manning is in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. For one hour a day, he is allowed to walk around a room in shackles. He is forced to remove all his clothes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html) every night. And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.

Military officials say, without explanation, that these precautions are necessary to prevent Private Manning from injuring himself. They have put him on "prevention of injury" watch, yet his lawyers say there is no indication that he is suicidal and the military has not placed him on a suicide watch. (He apparently made a sarcastic comment about suicide.)

Forced nudity is a classic humiliation technique. During the early years of the Bush administration's war on terror, C.I.A. interrogators regularly stripped prisoners to break down barriers of resistance, increase compliance and extract information. One C.I.A. report from 2004 said that nudity, along with sleep deprivation and dietary manipulation, was used to create a mind-set in which the prisoner "learns to perceive and value his personal welfare, comfort and immediate needs more than the information he is protecting."

Private Manning is not an enemy combatant, and there is no indication that the military is trying to extract information from him. Many military and government officials remain furious at the huge dump of classified materials to WikiLeaks. But if this treatment is someone's way of expressing that emotion, it would be useful to revisit the presumption of innocence and the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, committed the classic mistake of a Washington mouthpiece by telling the truth about Private Manning to a small group (including a blogger): that the military's treatment of Private Manning was "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." He resigned (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/us/politics/14crowley.html) on Sunday.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 16, 2011, 08:56:38 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 15, 2011, 08:28:54 PM
If all of those Constitution-loving Tea Party Libertarians are looking for more Obama administration actions to get all lathered up about, this would be as good a place to start as any...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/opinion/15tue3.html

QuotePrivate Manning is in solitary confinement at the Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va. For one hour a day, he is allowed to walk around a room in shackles. He is forced to remove all his clothes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/05manning.html) every night. And every morning he is required to stand outside his cell, naked, until he passes inspection and is given his clothes back.

Military officials say, without explanation, that these precautions are necessary to prevent Private Manning from injuring himself. They have put him on "prevention of injury" watch, yet his lawyers say there is no indication that he is suicidal and the military has not placed him on a suicide watch. (He apparently made a sarcastic comment about suicide.)

Forced nudity is a classic humiliation technique. During the early years of the Bush administration's war on terror, C.I.A. interrogators regularly stripped prisoners to break down barriers of resistance, increase compliance and extract information. One C.I.A. report from 2004 said that nudity, along with sleep deprivation and dietary manipulation, was used to create a mind-set in which the prisoner "learns to perceive and value his personal welfare, comfort and immediate needs more than the information he is protecting."

Private Manning is not an enemy combatant, and there is no indication that the military is trying to extract information from him. Many military and government officials remain furious at the huge dump of classified materials to WikiLeaks. But if this treatment is someone's way of expressing that emotion, it would be useful to revisit the presumption of innocence and the Constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, committed the classic mistake of a Washington mouthpiece by telling the truth about Private Manning to a small group (including a blogger): that the military's treatment of Private Manning was "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid." He resigned (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/us/politics/14crowley.html) on Sunday.

Nuclear power is completely safe. You're overreacting. Wait, what were we talking about?

This (http://twitter.com/#!/interfluidity/status/47985813258117120):

QuoteOddly, Manning's treatment helps to justify his actions ex post. Is a govt that would do this a govt we should trust to act in secret?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2011, 10:26:04 AM
Then again, some school board candidates are not talking, but yelling (http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110315/news/703159753).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 16, 2011, 02:14:09 PM
On experts (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/15/an-expert-in-one-fie.html):

QuoteThere's a popular blog post making the rounds this week, written by an MIT scientist, called "Why I am not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors." I saw it over the weekend, and decided not to post it here because, while it offered some good insight on how the systems of a nuclear power plant work, it also contained some information of which I was skeptical. Plus, once I actually read the thing closely, I noticed that the MIT scientist was not an MIT nuclear scientist, but, rather, a guy who studies risk management in corporations.

That distinction matters. One of the things I've become more vocal about, over the past couple of years, is the fact that an expert in one subject is not the same thing as An Expert. Scientists spend years of their lives studying specific phenomena. But, outside of their field, they might not know more about a given subject than you or I do.

When you ask an expert in a specific subject to take on the role An Expert, they're likely to make mistakes. They might also have a very different perspective on what the facts mean, and very different biases, compared to someone who studies the specific subject. This is why asking policy analysts to explain nuclear physics is a bad idea*.

It's not that these people have nothing to add to the conversation. In fact, in a crisis like this, it's really valuable to have the guys who study policy, history, and regulation come in and talk about policy, history, and regulation. But, if you want the most accurate explanation of, and perspective on, nuclear physics, you're really better off talking to a nuclear physicist.


And that's precisely what MIT has now done with that "Why I'm Not Worried" essay. On Monday, the essay was turned over to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, which set a team of field-specific experts to editing it. The essay has now been re-posted at a new website, and it's been changed. The stuff many people liked about it—a clear step-by-step explanation of what happened during the early hours of the Fukushima nuclear crisis—is still there. But it's now been vetted for accuracy by people who are far more likely to know what is accurate and what isn't.

One of the most obvious changes the nuclear scientists made: the title. Turns out, the facts that lead a risk management expert to not worry about the problems at the Fukushima nuclear plants are interpreted rather differently by nuclear energy experts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 16, 2011, 02:18:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2011, 02:14:09 PM
On experts (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/15/an-expert-in-one-fie.html):

QuoteThere's a popular blog post making the rounds this week, written by an MIT scientist, called "Why I am not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors." I saw it over the weekend, and decided not to post it here because, while it offered some good insight on how the systems of a nuclear power plant work, it also contained some information of which I was skeptical. Plus, once I actually read the thing closely, I noticed that the MIT scientist was not an MIT nuclear scientist, but, rather, a guy who studies risk management in corporations.

That distinction matters. One of the things I've become more vocal about, over the past couple of years, is the fact that an expert in one subject is not the same thing as An Expert. Scientists spend years of their lives studying specific phenomena. But, outside of their field, they might not know more about a given subject than you or I do.

When you ask an expert in a specific subject to take on the role An Expert, they're likely to make mistakes. They might also have a very different perspective on what the facts mean, and very different biases, compared to someone who studies the specific subject. This is why asking policy analysts to explain nuclear physics is a bad idea*.

It's not that these people have nothing to add to the conversation. In fact, in a crisis like this, it's really valuable to have the guys who study policy, history, and regulation come in and talk about policy, history, and regulation. But, if you want the most accurate explanation of, and perspective on, nuclear physics, you're really better off talking to a nuclear physicist.


And that's precisely what MIT has now done with that "Why I'm Not Worried" essay. On Monday, the essay was turned over to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, which set a team of field-specific experts to editing it. The essay has now been re-posted at a new website, and it's been changed. The stuff many people liked about it—a clear step-by-step explanation of what happened during the early hours of the Fukushima nuclear crisis—is still there. But it's now been vetted for accuracy by people who are far more likely to know what is accurate and what isn't.

One of the most obvious changes the nuclear scientists made: the title. Turns out, the facts that lead a risk management expert to not worry about the problems at the Fukushima nuclear plants are interpreted rather differently by nuclear energy experts.

We get it.  You can't stop peeing your pants at the prospect of Japan's nuclear reactors going *BLAMMO*.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 16, 2011, 02:30:06 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 16, 2011, 02:18:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2011, 02:14:09 PM
On experts (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/15/an-expert-in-one-fie.html):

QuoteThere's a popular blog post making the rounds this week, written by an MIT scientist, called "Why I am not worried about Japan's nuclear reactors." I saw it over the weekend, and decided not to post it here because, while it offered some good insight on how the systems of a nuclear power plant work, it also contained some information of which I was skeptical. Plus, once I actually read the thing closely, I noticed that the MIT scientist was not an MIT nuclear scientist, but, rather, a guy who studies risk management in corporations.

That distinction matters. One of the things I've become more vocal about, over the past couple of years, is the fact that an expert in one subject is not the same thing as An Expert. Scientists spend years of their lives studying specific phenomena. But, outside of their field, they might not know more about a given subject than you or I do.

When you ask an expert in a specific subject to take on the role An Expert, they're likely to make mistakes. They might also have a very different perspective on what the facts mean, and very different biases, compared to someone who studies the specific subject. This is why asking policy analysts to explain nuclear physics is a bad idea*.

It's not that these people have nothing to add to the conversation. In fact, in a crisis like this, it's really valuable to have the guys who study policy, history, and regulation come in and talk about policy, history, and regulation. But, if you want the most accurate explanation of, and perspective on, nuclear physics, you're really better off talking to a nuclear physicist.


And that's precisely what MIT has now done with that "Why I'm Not Worried" essay. On Monday, the essay was turned over to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, which set a team of field-specific experts to editing it. The essay has now been re-posted at a new website, and it's been changed. The stuff many people liked about it—a clear step-by-step explanation of what happened during the early hours of the Fukushima nuclear crisis—is still there. But it's now been vetted for accuracy by people who are far more likely to know what is accurate and what isn't.

One of the most obvious changes the nuclear scientists made: the title. Turns out, the facts that lead a risk management expert to not worry about the problems at the Fukushima nuclear plants are interpreted rather differently by nuclear energy experts.

We get it.  You can't stop peeing your pants at the prospect of Japan's nuclear reactors going *BLAMMO*.

I'm almost out of pants. Pretty soon I'll be peeing your pants.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 16, 2011, 04:42:55 PM
My youngest son lives in Tokyo.  Two months ago, shortly after the birth of their son,  he and his wife made reservations to come here this Friday to introduce us to our new grandson.  They planned to stay nine days.  I talked to him on Skype last night.  Tokyo felt the quake, but there was no damage to speak of.  He says that they are having constant aftershocks of 5.0 and higher.  The market shelves are bare.  They have rolling blackouts.  The transportation infrastructure is untrustworthy, especially the trains, which is unheard of in Japan.  Some bus lines have been cancelled.  Many businesses have told their employees to stay home.  The radiation levels are increasing.  My daughter in law wants to leave for the airport 24 hours early, check in and then stay overnight at a hotel to make sure that they can get on the plane.  They have asked us if they can stay with us at least a month.  They took the words out of our mouths.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 16, 2011, 05:06:11 PM

If those engineers get out of the power plant alive, everyone in the world should line up to blow them.

Behind me.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 16, 2011, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 16, 2011, 05:06:11 PM

If those engineers get out of the power plant alive, everyone in the world should line up to blow them.

Behind me.



Crabs can film it.  No ghey stuff, though.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 17, 2011, 08:10:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 16, 2011, 05:06:11 PM

If those engineers get out of the power plant alive, everyone in the world should line up to blow them.

Behind me.



It's tragic and heroic what those men are doing. I can't even imagine what must be going through their minds.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2011, 08:15:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 17, 2011, 08:10:36 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 16, 2011, 05:06:11 PM

If those engineers get out of the power plant alive, everyone in the world should line up to blow them.

Behind me.



It's tragic and heroic what those men are doing. I can't even imagine what must be going through their minds.

Gamma rays.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on March 17, 2011, 03:50:39 PM
Question......since Obama is on day 31 of waiting for UN Approval on strikes against Libyan loyalists.....do you think Bush would give two shits about what the UN thought and tried to help the rebels finally be free of this madman?

I don't think Qaddafi would have let out a mouse fart for fear of being in the Bush Administrations cross hairs. No such fear exists with the current White House.

Quote"Where are the Americans?" That's the sixty-four-dollar question. Chaos in Egypt: "Where are the Americans?" Gaddafi in Libya: "Where are the Americans?" Devastation in Japan: "Where are the Americans?" I am in London for a few days. At a dinner party last night, that was once again the question: "Where are the Americans?" On Tuesday, U.S. debt jumped $72 billion — in one day. What are the Americans doing about it? President Obama's secretary of the Treasury insisted that Congress raise the debt limit so that the government could borrow more. "Where are the Americans?" President Obama has managed the impossible-seeming feat of making a president of France appear decisive and effective.  Nicolas Sarkozy was the first Western leader to recognize the Libyan opposition. "Where are the Americans?"

The most dangerous thing in the world is having an incompetent, and indecisive American President.

Good luck in Rio, god knows there is nothing important going on in the world.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2011, 03:55:57 PM
(http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/d/d4/d47c335a_kelly-brook.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 05:13:34 PM
Quote from: MikeC on March 17, 2011, 03:50:39 PM
Question......since Obama is on day 31 of waiting for UN Approval on strikes against Libyan loyalists.....do you think Bush would give two shits about what the UN thought and tried to help the rebels finally be free of this madman?

I don't think Qaddafi would have let out a mouse fart for fear of being in the Bush Administrations cross hairs. No such fear exists with the current White House.

Quote"Where are the Americans?" That's the sixty-four-dollar question. Chaos in Egypt: "Where are the Americans?" Gaddafi in Libya: "Where are the Americans?" Devastation in Japan: "Where are the Americans?" I am in London for a few days. At a dinner party last night, that was once again the question: "Where are the Americans?" On Tuesday, U.S. debt jumped $72 billion — in one day. What are the Americans doing about it? President Obama's secretary of the Treasury insisted that Congress raise the debt limit so that the government could borrow more. "Where are the Americans?" President Obama has managed the impossible-seeming feat of making a president of France appear decisive and effective.  Nicolas Sarkozy was the first Western leader to recognize the Libyan opposition. "Where are the Americans?"

The most dangerous thing in the world is having an incompetent, and indecisive American President.

Good luck in Rio, god knows there is nothing important going on in the world.

I cannot believe that even you can possibly be this retarded.

If this no-fly-no-drive-no-handjobs zone fails, do we have to go in on the ground with troops?  What if we aren't successful?  Do we allow Quaddafi to continue to remain?  It seems we've been cool with his presence with the past 30 years.  Even McCain visited him two summers ago.

What if this no-fatchicks-zone succeeds?  Do we have to support the rebels?  Do we have to rebuild Libya?  Are we going to take sides in a civil war? 

Oh and here are two giant fucking questions, dumbshit: HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST?  WHAT CUTS/TAXES WILL YOU SUPPORT TO FUND IT??

You really are a right-wing autobot.  Get Malkin's cock out of your ass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 17, 2011, 05:34:53 PM
"The most dangerous thing in the world is having an incompetent, and indecisive American President."

No, the most dangerous thing is to have a decisive, incompetent American president.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 17, 2011, 05:52:57 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 17, 2011, 05:34:53 PM
"The most dangerous thing in the world is having an incompetent, and indecisive American President."

No, the most dangerous thing is to have a decisive, incompetent American president.



THI x 1000000000
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
ONE MORE WAR!  ONE MORE WAR!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/17/501364/main20044448.shtml

And to think, Obama didn't even need to ask Congress or address the American people.  Super.

QuoteThe U.N. Security Council authorized its member states to take all "necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi's forces in a vote early Thursday evening that also established a no-fly zone over the country in turmoil.

QuoteFrench Prime Minister Francois Fillon said if the resolution was approved, France would support military action against Qaddafi within hours. The U.S. said it was preparing for action. Several Arab nations were expected to provide backup. The United States already has warships positioned near Libya.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2011, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
And to think, Obama didn't even need to ask Congress or address the American people.  Super.

I don't think Truman needed it for Korea.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2011, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
And to think, Obama didn't even need to ask Congress or address the American people.  Super.

I don't think Truman needed it for Korea.

And look at how well that turned out.

Well, TEC met Korean hookers, so I guess that's a net positive.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 17, 2011, 07:04:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2011, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
And to think, Obama didn't even need to ask Congress or address the American people.  Super.

I don't think Truman needed it for Korea.

And look at how well that turned out.

Well, TEC met Korean, Fillipina, and Russian hookers, so I guess that's a net positive.

Variety'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2011, 07:46:32 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2011, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
And to think, Obama didn't even need to ask Congress or address the American people.  Super.

I don't think Truman needed it for Korea.

And look at how well that turned out.

Well, TEC met Korean hookers, so I guess that's a net positive.

I wasn't advocating it, just stating that Truman did it and that led to TEC's penicillin shots.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 17, 2011, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
ONE MORE WAR!  ONE MORE WAR!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/17/501364/main20044448.shtml

And to think, Obama didn't even need to ask Congress or address the American people.  Super.

QuoteThe U.N. Security Council authorized its member states to take all "necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi's forces in a vote early Thursday evening that also established a no-fly zone over the country in turmoil.

QuoteFrench Prime Minister Francois Fillon said if the resolution was approved, France would support military action against Qaddafi within hours. The U.S. said it was preparing for action. Several Arab nations were expected to provide backup. The United States already has warships positioned near Libya.

What's important to remember is that Bush would of done this like 31 days ago, man.

With an assist from Palau.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2011, 07:06:45 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 17, 2011, 03:50:39 PM
Question......since Obama is on day 31 of waiting for UN Approval on strikes against Libyan loyalists.....do you think Bush would give two shits about what the UN thought and tried to help the rebels finally be free of this madman?


Because Bush not giving a shit about the International community and going it alone worked out so fucking swimmingly.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Waco Kid on March 18, 2011, 07:23:36 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 17, 2011, 05:13:34 PM
Oh and here are two giant fucking questions, dumbshit: HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST?  WHAT CUTS/TAXES WILL YOU SUPPORT TO FUND IT??

Who cares what it will cost? Would George Bush worry about huge deficits associated with yet another war? Of course not, we will just have China finance it.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 18, 2011, 08:31:37 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 17, 2011, 07:46:57 PM
What's important to remember is that Bush would of done this like 31 days ago, man.

And with a vote of Congress.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html



ORLY (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/10/exp.arena.wisconsin.death.threats.cnn?iref=allsearch)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 18, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html



ORLY (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/10/exp.arena.wisconsin.death.threats.cnn?iref=allsearch)?

CNN? That's not a major news network. Nice try.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 18, 2011, 09:32:54 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 07:06:45 AM
Quote from: MikeC on March 17, 2011, 03:50:39 PM
Question......since Obama is on day 31 of waiting for UN Approval on strikes against Libyan loyalists.....do you think Bush would give two shits about what the UN thought and tried to help the rebels finally be free of this madman?


Because Bush not giving a shit about the International community and going it alone worked out so fucking swimmingly.

I used to think as MikeC does but I've come to understand that college basketball is more important than dead people. At least it's easier to get right. Obama got 14 out of 16 right yesterday, or at least he and his pal from Duke did. Whatevs. He knows more than I do. I support him 87.5 percent. GoBama.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2011, 10:10:42 AM

Maybe everyone should be running TO Japan (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347#).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 18, 2011, 10:21:46 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 10:10:42 AM

Maybe everyone should be running TO Japan (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42347#).

I love that she can unironically quote the New York Times when it fits her batshit narrative. 

The woman is insanity distilled.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 18, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html



ORLY (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/10/exp.arena.wisconsin.death.threats.cnn?iref=allsearch)?

CNN? That's not a major news network. Nice try.

One story on one network with no followup.  Very impressive.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 18, 2011, 12:01:14 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 18, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html



ORLY (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/10/exp.arena.wisconsin.death.threats.cnn?iref=allsearch)?

CNN? That's not a major news network. Nice try.

One story on one network with no followup.  Very impressive.

I see Morph is POINTING THE FENGER.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2011, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 18, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html



ORLY (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/10/exp.arena.wisconsin.death.threats.cnn?iref=allsearch)?

CNN? That's not a major news network. Nice try.

One story on one network with no followup.  Very impressive.

One example on one blog from a guy who works with Brietbart. C'mon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 12:56:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 18, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html



ORLY (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/10/exp.arena.wisconsin.death.threats.cnn?iref=allsearch)?

CNN? That's not a major news network. Nice try.

One story on one network with no followup.  Very impressive.

One example on one blog from a guy who works with Brietbart. C'mon.

Your characterization of the author is misleading at best.  Typical, though.

I anxiously await links to CBS, ABC, MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=11881780&q=death%20threats&p=1&st=2&sm=user), the New York Times... Good luck.  They'd all be falling over themselves to cover it if it were Democrats getting threats from Tea Partiers.  You know it, and I know it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2011, 12:57:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 12:56:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 18, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html



ORLY (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/10/exp.arena.wisconsin.death.threats.cnn?iref=allsearch)?

CNN? That's not a major news network. Nice try.

One story on one network with no followup.  Very impressive.

One example on one blog from a guy who works with Brietbart. C'mon.

Your characterization of the author is misleading at best.  Typical, though.

No, I actually read the fucking article. He says he works with Breitbart.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 01:00:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 12:57:23 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 12:56:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 12:39:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 18, 2011, 09:31:23 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 09:05:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 08:49:45 AM
I know everyone's all lathered up about the US not doing enough or doing too much in Libya... and rightly so, since it seems there's been little actual debate on the issue (Gil asks some rather important questions, for example).  However, here's a story you probably haven't seen covered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/shame-ignoring-death-thre_b_835805.html



ORLY (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/10/exp.arena.wisconsin.death.threats.cnn?iref=allsearch)?

CNN? That's not a major news network. Nice try.

One story on one network with no followup.  Very impressive.

One example on one blog from a guy who works with Brietbart. C'mon.

Your characterization of the author is misleading at best.  Typical, though.

No, I actually read the fucking article. He says he works with Breitbart.

Yes, and so did I.

QuoteI'm in an odd position. In the last few months, I've had one foot in the left wing news stream and one foot in the right. My media duality began when conservative publisher Andrew Breitbart hired me to work with him on the Pigford 'black farmers' settlement story. I'm a pro-choice, pro-single payer, anti-war, pro-gay rights independent liberal with years of work in print and film backing those positions. Breitbart hired me to bring a different perspective to the non-partisan issue of corruption in Pigford.

But since he has done some work for Breitbart he should be completely discredited.  Shoah.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2011, 01:32:15 PM
The point you're missing (or ignoring) here is...

he's claiming there's been no media coverage. It took me a 2 second search on CNN's site to pull up that clip.

So then, you moved the goalposts (1 story, no followup), so I moved them (Worked for Brietbart), we can continue that all day, but nobody here wants their time wasted.

But since you asked:

CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html?tag=mncol;lst;1)

I'll give you ABC, only because their site is an abomination that only links to AP. Which is covering the story pretty extensively.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42036689/ns/local_news-milwaukee_wi/42046566)

The Times gave me good results, but it was behind a paywall, and I'm a cheapskate.

Essentially the article was written by someone who, at worst, was lying or at best, needs to learn how to operate a search bar.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 01:32:15 PM
The point you're missing (or ignoring) here is...

he's claiming there's been no media coverage. It took me a 2 second search on CNN's site to pull up that clip.

So then, you moved the goalposts (1 story, no followup), so I moved them (Worked for Brietbart), we can continue that all day, but nobody here wants their time wasted.

But since you asked:

CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html?tag=mncol;lst;1)

I'll give you ABC, only because their site is an abomination that only links to AP. Which is covering the story pretty extensively.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42036689/ns/local_news-milwaukee_wi/42046566)

The Times gave me good results, but it was behind a paywall, and I'm a cheapskate.

Essentially the article was written by someone who, at worst, was lying or at best, needs to learn how to operate a search bar.



Or, they looked at print, television, and radio instead of the Internets and blog posts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 01:32:15 PM
The point you're missing (or ignoring) here is...

he's claiming there's been no media coverage. It took me a 2 second search on CNN's site to pull up that clip.

So then, you moved the goalposts (1 story, no followup), so I moved them (Worked for Brietbart), we can continue that all day, but nobody here wants their time wasted.

But since you asked:

CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html?tag=mncol;lst;1)

I'll give you ABC, only because their site is an abomination that only links to AP. Which is covering the story pretty extensively.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42036689/ns/local_news-milwaukee_wi/42046566)

The Times gave me good results, but it was behind a paywall, and I'm a cheapskate.

Essentially the article was written by someone who, at worst, was lying or at best, needs to learn how to operate a search bar.



Or, they looked at print, television, and radio instead of the Internets and blog posts.

or...

Quote
Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it's stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn't exaggerating -- proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you've never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly et al have said about anything, you can't in any good conscience say that they don't have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.


At this point we're just beating a dead Sarah Jessica Parker. Let's get back to how much the Cubs will suck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 02:03:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 01:32:15 PM
The point you're missing (or ignoring) here is...

he's claiming there's been no media coverage. It took me a 2 second search on CNN's site to pull up that clip.

So then, you moved the goalposts (1 story, no followup), so I moved them (Worked for Brietbart), we can continue that all day, but nobody here wants their time wasted.

But since you asked:

CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html?tag=mncol;lst;1)

I'll give you ABC, only because their site is an abomination that only links to AP. Which is covering the story pretty extensively.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42036689/ns/local_news-milwaukee_wi/42046566)

The Times gave me good results, but it was behind a paywall, and I'm a cheapskate.

Essentially the article was written by someone who, at worst, was lying or at best, needs to learn how to operate a search bar.



Or, they looked at print, television, and radio instead of the Internets and blog posts.

or...

Quote
Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it's stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn't exaggerating -- proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you've never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly et al have said about anything, you can't in any good conscience say that they don't have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.


At this point we're just beating a dead Sarah Jessica Parker. Let's get back to how much the Cubs will suck.

Castillo time... it's gonna happen
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 18, 2011, 02:08:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 02:03:34 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 18, 2011, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 18, 2011, 01:32:15 PM
The point you're missing (or ignoring) here is...

he's claiming there's been no media coverage. It took me a 2 second search on CNN's site to pull up that clip.

So then, you moved the goalposts (1 story, no followup), so I moved them (Worked for Brietbart), we can continue that all day, but nobody here wants their time wasted.

But since you asked:

CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041660-503544.html?tag=mncol;lst;1)

I'll give you ABC, only because their site is an abomination that only links to AP. Which is covering the story pretty extensively.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42036689/ns/local_news-milwaukee_wi/42046566)

The Times gave me good results, but it was behind a paywall, and I'm a cheapskate.

Essentially the article was written by someone who, at worst, was lying or at best, needs to learn how to operate a search bar.



Or, they looked at print, television, and radio instead of the Internets and blog posts.

or...

Quote
Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it's stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn't exaggerating -- proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you've never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly et al have said about anything, you can't in any good conscience say that they don't have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.


At this point we're just beating a dead Sarah Jessica Parker. Let's get back to how much the Cubs will suck.

Castillo time... it's gonna happen

We're gonna need a lot of Malort.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 22, 2011, 12:19:57 PM
Not much to argue with here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-mideast-useful-and-non-useful-tyrants/2011/03/21/ABeWu38_story.html).

QuoteWhy is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia — also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter — are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gaddafi is not.

QuoteGaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn't going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn't about justice, it's about power.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 12:41:46 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 22, 2011, 12:19:57 PM
Not much to argue with here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-mideast-useful-and-non-useful-tyrants/2011/03/21/ABeWu38_story.html).

QuoteWhy is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia — also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter — are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gaddafi is not.

QuoteGaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn't going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn't about justice, it's about power.

While I don't necessarily believe that another war was the right decision (I'm just going to go ahead and note MikeC's conspicuous absence from the thread since the war began), I can accept the argument that intervention in Libya was warranted over say Côte d'Ivoire or Rwanda.  Geographically, Libya is sandwiched between two Arab states that have recently thrown out long-standing (and US supported, but that's another matter) leaders.  If the policy of the United States government is to foment this nascent Arab revolution, it cannot allow the progress to be stopped by Qaddafi.  Think of the moral hazard if every Arab dictator believes that in order to forestall a revolution, all he needs to do is brutalize his people for a certain period of time, receive the inevitable lukewarm Western condemnation, and then go about his business?

I don't think anyone knows exactly the motivation and disposition of the rebels in Libya towards the United States, but I feel that with the US seemingly taking a reduced role in this war and engaging nevertheless, it sends a strong signal going forward for revolutions elsewhere.

I could also be wrong, who knows.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2011, 01:12:28 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 12:41:46 PM
(I'm just going to go ahead and note MikeC's conspicuous absence from the thread since the war began)

His "Time to post!" clock doesn't go off for another week.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 22, 2011, 02:39:15 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.

Hey, if LFork winds up with a pumpernickel bun in her oven, I'm giving that little bastard a basketball when he comes out.

It'll be my new retirement plan.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

I'll go with, "What is Both," Alex.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

I'll go with, "What is Both," Alex.

You can't choose both in this context.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 22, 2011, 03:11:11 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?


It's bad law because it's unenforceable.

If you do not think abortion is the killing of another human being, I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with it. If I could be convinced that it wasn't killing a human being, I think any reason to have an abortion (the baby was due around the Super Bowl and I wanted to keep the weekend free, just in case the Bears made it; I want a kid with blond hair; I was planning on going to Las Vegas later that year) should be a valid enough issue.

If you believe that abortion is the killing of another human being, I think you'd want a very narrow set of criteria that would justify it (the mother's health jeopardized by bringing baby to term, for example).

If you don't see abortion as anything beyond a medical procedure to remove "tissue mass," why would anyone care if it's rare?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 22, 2011, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2011, 03:11:11 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?


It's bad law because it's unenforceable.

If you do not think abortion is the killing of another human being, I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with it. If I could be convinced that it wasn't killing a human being, I think any reason to have an abortion (the baby was due around the Super Bowl and I wanted to keep the weekend free, just in case the Bears made it; I want a kid with blond hair; I was planning on going to Las Vegas later that year) should be a valid enough issue.

If you believe that abortion is the killing of another human being, I think you'd want a very narrow set of criteria that would justify it (the mother's health jeopardized by bringing baby to term, for example).

If you don't see abortion as anything beyond a medical procedure to remove "tissue mass," why would anyone care if it's rare?

Yes.  The idea that the reason ("She's having an abortion because the baby's gonna be colored!") is as important or more important than the action itself ("She's having an abortion!") makes for bad law.  See: hate crime laws.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2011, 03:46:25 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 22, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?

I'll go with, "What is Both," Alex.

You can't choose both in this context.

Oleg can't hate the law for both reasons?

I think it's a stupid law for the reasons Morph and Teej outlined.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 04:58:30 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 22, 2011, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 22, 2011, 03:11:11 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?


It's bad law because it's unenforceable.

If you do not think abortion is the killing of another human being, I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with it. If I could be convinced that it wasn't killing a human being, I think any reason to have an abortion (the baby was due around the Super Bowl and I wanted to keep the weekend free, just in case the Bears made it; I want a kid with blond hair; I was planning on going to Las Vegas later that year) should be a valid enough issue.

If you believe that abortion is the killing of another human being, I think you'd want a very narrow set of criteria that would justify it (the mother's health jeopardized by bringing baby to term, for example).

If you don't see abortion as anything beyond a medical procedure to remove "tissue mass," why would anyone care if it's rare?

Yes.  The idea that the reason ("She's having an abortion because the baby's gonna be colored!") is as important or more important than the action itself ("She's having an abortion!") makes for bad law.  See: hate crime laws.

THIS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 05:02:12 PM
I found this quote in a separate article to be more damning of Arizona than the bone-headed law itself.

Quote"This legislation really is needed," said Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix. "Sex-selection abortions are happening in this country, and it is time we address it head-on."

Truly, the honorable state senator has found the cure for all of Arizona's ailments.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 05:12:46 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?


I think the issue is that conservative legislators want to appear to be tough on abortion without having to do the heavy lifting of passing a law that challenges the 14th amendment right and subsequently defending it in court.

To me this just raises the question of why pro-lifers (which is just as silly and stupid as saying pro-choicers) vote for Republicans on abortion-related issues.  Since Roe, there have been 5 GOP presidents, spanning 24 years or so in the White House, and yet, abortion remains.  Has it become just a hobbyhorse Republicans ride when they want to rile the base?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 22, 2011, 05:19:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 05:12:46 PM
Quote from: PenPho on March 22, 2011, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 22, 2011, 01:32:56 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 22, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Arizona (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/arizona-legislators-abortion_n_838975.html).  The gift that keeps on giving.

HuffPo?  Least surprising something something something.

Okay, despite my general policy of not posting in this thread, I'll bite (for the record, this is the first I've heard of this, despite being an Arizona resident).

I'm wondering what your specific problem is with this law...is it simply the idea that any government intervention in a woman's womb is wrong or that this individual rationale is bad?

Seems like the the potential fear is that women are going to start aborting fetuses if they feel like it's the wrong gender (the article states that there is no evidence to support that this is actually happening in the U.S) or race (I don't understand this part at all, but I'm not that good with letters and words) and the government is saying "that's not a valid reason to have an abortion and we should punish people who abort fetuses based on that rationale."

I mean, personal abortion stance aside, these would clearly be bad reasons to have an abortion, right? Even if they're not really happening?

So, just wondering if the issue is any regulation regarding abortion or just the problem with reactionary legislation that seems to have little basis in fact?


I think the issue is that conservative legislators want to appear to be tough on abortion without having to do the heavy lifting of passing a law that challenges the 14th amendment right and subsequently defending it in court.

To me this just raises the question of why pro-lifers (which is just as silly and stupid as saying pro-choicers) vote for Republicans on abortion-related issues.  Since Roe, there have been 5 GOP presidents, spanning 24 years or so in the White House, and yet, abortion remains.  Has it become just a hobbyhorse Republicans ride when they want to rile the base?

Become?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on March 22, 2011, 06:02:48 PM
I just heard an ad on WSCR today for this website: http://illinoisisbroke.com/

Here I find out that I shouldn't be paying state income taxes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 22, 2011, 06:14:26 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 22, 2011, 06:02:48 PM
I just heard an ad on WSCR today for this website: http://illinoisisbroke.com/

Here I find out that I shouldn't be paying state income taxes.

QuoteIllinois has 13 Million residents. Only 5% – or about 700,000 of them - are enrolled in the State's pension programs. That means the remaining 95% must pay higher taxes to pay for retirement benefits for that are far more generous than their own and that benefit just 5% of the population. Does that seem fair to you?

Does that seem like a fundamental misrepresentation of what a pension is to you?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 22, 2011, 06:28:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 22, 2011, 06:14:26 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 22, 2011, 06:02:48 PM
I just heard an ad on WSCR today for this website: http://illinoisisbroke.com/

Here I find out that I shouldn't be paying state income taxes.

QuoteIllinois has 13 Million residents. Only 5% – or about 700,000 of them - are enrolled in the State's pension programs. That means the remaining 95% must pay higher taxes to pay for retirement benefits for that are far more generous than their own and that benefit just 5% of the population. Does that seem fair to you?

Does that seem like a fundamental misrepresentation of what a pension is to you?

And a lot of my taxes pay for roads that I will never use and bridges that I will never cross and schools that my kids don't attend, and...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 22, 2011, 06:36:05 PM
Quote from: CBStew on March 22, 2011, 06:28:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 22, 2011, 06:14:26 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 22, 2011, 06:02:48 PM
I just heard an ad on WSCR today for this website: http://illinoisisbroke.com/

Here I find out that I shouldn't be paying state income taxes.

QuoteIllinois has 13 Million residents. Only 5% – or about 700,000 of them - are enrolled in the State's pension programs. That means the remaining 95% must pay higher taxes to pay for retirement benefits for that are far more generous than their own and that benefit just 5% of the population. Does that seem fair to you?

Does that seem like a fundamental misrepresentation of what a pension is to you?

And a lot of my taxes pay for roads that I will never use and bridges that I will never cross and schools that my kids don't attend, and...

Those fat cats in Springfield are using MY TAXES to pay the salaries of people WHO AREN'T EVEN ME.

Does that seem fair to you?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 23, 2011, 07:39:51 AM
Praise Jesus (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8026078)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on March 23, 2011, 07:53:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 23, 2011, 07:39:51 AM

[rul=http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8026078]Praise Jesus[/url]

Great link for your datase.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 23, 2011, 08:05:47 AM
Quote from: BH on March 23, 2011, 07:53:04 AM
Quote from: Fork on March 23, 2011, 07:39:51 AM

[rul=http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8026078]Praise Jesus[/url]

Great link for your datase.

Fixed. Now I have to find that fucker who made decaf for the first pot of the day.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2011, 09:32:00 AM
That stinkin' Obama.  He doesn't even respect his staff!!  I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!

(http://www.zadan.nl/pics/presidential-prank/presidentialprank.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 24, 2011, 09:57:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2011, 09:32:00 AM
That stinkin' Obama.  He doesn't even respect his staff!!  I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!

(http://www.zadan.nl/pics/presidential-prank/presidentialprank.jpg)

The guy on the right appears to have lost so much weight that he's floating in mid-air.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2011, 10:44:26 AM
Unrelated: http://blogs.govexec.com/fedblog/2011/03/locked_out_of_the_white_house.php
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 24, 2011, 10:56:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 24, 2011, 09:57:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2011, 09:32:00 AM
That stinkin' Obama.  He doesn't even respect his staff!!  I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!

(http://www.zadan.nl/pics/presidential-prank/presidentialprank.jpg)

The guy on the right appears to have lost so much weight that he's floating in mid-air.

If ever something needed something Big, this is that something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2011, 05:12:02 PM
I ask you, Desipio, is this guy worse than MikeC?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/bryan_fischer_muslims_have_no_first_amendment_righ.php?ref=fpblg#
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 07:07:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 24, 2011, 05:12:02 PM
I ask you, Desipio, is this guy worse than MikeC?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/bryan_fischer_muslims_have_no_first_amendment_righ.php?ref=fpblg#

He doesn't have awesome boobies next to his posts. So yes he is worse than MikeC.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2011, 07:50:49 PM
Let the insanity ensue...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/cnn-exclusive-michele-bachmann-to-form-exploratory-committee-in-june-possibly-earlier/

QuoteWashington (CNN) – CNN has exclusively learned that Rep. Michele Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee. The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time.

But a source close to the congresswoman said that Bachmann could form the exploratory committee even earlier than June so that she could participate in early Republican presidential debates.

"She's been telling everyone early summer," the source told CNN regarding Bachmann's planned June filing and announcement. But the source said that nothing is static.

"If you [debate sponsors] come to us and say, 'To be in our debates, you have to have an exploratory committee,' then we'll say, 'Okay, fine...I'll go file the forms.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2289347/pagenum/all/

QuotePollster and political guru Frank Luntz flew to Iowa last month to conduct a survey for Fox News. Twenty-six Republicans, likely to vote in the next caucuses, were shown video clips of 11 politicians who might run for president. They twisted dials, scored from 0 to 100, to rate the candidates. One of the clear winners was Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

"There's a very strong message that the people want us to hear," said Bachmann-on-video. "No.1, it is get rid of the big spending, which leads to big deficits, which kills jobs. And then No. 2, we don't want the federal government to control private industry or own private industry."

The Iowans couldn't twist their dials fast enough.

Newt came out on top...

(http://i.imgur.com/xEJfD.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 24, 2011, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2011, 07:50:49 PM
Let the insanity ensue...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/cnn-exclusive-michele-bachmann-to-form-exploratory-committee-in-june-possibly-earlier/

QuoteWashington (CNN) – CNN has exclusively learned that Rep. Michele Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee. The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time.

But a source close to the congresswoman said that Bachmann could form the exploratory committee even earlier than June so that she could participate in early Republican presidential debates.

"She's been telling everyone early summer," the source told CNN regarding Bachmann's planned June filing and announcement. But the source said that nothing is static.

"If you [debate sponsors] come to us and say, 'To be in our debates, you have to have an exploratory committee,' then we'll say, 'Okay, fine...I'll go file the forms.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2289347/pagenum/all/

QuotePollster and political guru Frank Luntz flew to Iowa last month to conduct a survey for Fox News. Twenty-six Republicans, likely to vote in the next caucuses, were shown video clips of 11 politicians who might run for president. They twisted dials, scored from 0 to 100, to rate the candidates. One of the clear winners was Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

"There's a very strong message that the people want us to hear," said Bachmann-on-video. "No.1, it is get rid of the big spending, which leads to big deficits, which kills jobs. And then No. 2, we don't want the federal government to control private industry or own private industry."

The Iowans couldn't twist their dials fast enough.

Newt came out on top...

(http://i.imgur.com/xEJfD.jpg)

The one who chose Bachmann also reported that their knobs tasted funny.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2011, 09:40:58 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 24, 2011, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2011, 07:50:49 PM
Let the insanity ensue...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/cnn-exclusive-michele-bachmann-to-form-exploratory-committee-in-june-possibly-earlier/

QuoteWashington (CNN) – CNN has exclusively learned that Rep. Michele Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee. The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time.

But a source close to the congresswoman said that Bachmann could form the exploratory committee even earlier than June so that she could participate in early Republican presidential debates.

"She's been telling everyone early summer," the source told CNN regarding Bachmann's planned June filing and announcement. But the source said that nothing is static.

"If you [debate sponsors] come to us and say, 'To be in our debates, you have to have an exploratory committee,' then we'll say, 'Okay, fine...I'll go file the forms.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2289347/pagenum/all/

QuotePollster and political guru Frank Luntz flew to Iowa last month to conduct a survey for Fox News. Twenty-six Republicans, likely to vote in the next caucuses, were shown video clips of 11 politicians who might run for president. They twisted dials, scored from 0 to 100, to rate the candidates. One of the clear winners was Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

"There's a very strong message that the people want us to hear," said Bachmann-on-video. "No.1, it is get rid of the big spending, which leads to big deficits, which kills jobs. And then No. 2, we don't want the federal government to control private industry or own private industry."

The Iowans couldn't twist their dials fast enough.

Newt came out on top...

(http://i.imgur.com/xEJfD.jpg)

The one who chose Bachmann also reported that their knobs tasted funny.

Now Romney will have no choice but to Rastafy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2011, 07:50:49 PM
Let the insanity ensue...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/cnn-exclusive-michele-bachmann-to-form-exploratory-committee-in-june-possibly-earlier/

QuoteWashington (CNN) – CNN has exclusively learned that Rep. Michele Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee. The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time.

But a source close to the congresswoman said that Bachmann could form the exploratory committee even earlier than June so that she could participate in early Republican presidential debates.

"She's been telling everyone early summer," the source told CNN regarding Bachmann's planned June filing and announcement. But the source said that nothing is static.

"If you [debate sponsors] come to us and say, 'To be in our debates, you have to have an exploratory committee,' then we'll say, 'Okay, fine...I'll go file the forms.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2289347/pagenum/all/

QuotePollster and political guru Frank Luntz flew to Iowa last month to conduct a survey for Fox News. Twenty-six Republicans, likely to vote in the next caucuses, were shown video clips of 11 politicians who might run for president. They twisted dials, scored from 0 to 100, to rate the candidates. One of the clear winners was Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

"There's a very strong message that the people want us to hear," said Bachmann-on-video. "No.1, it is get rid of the big spending, which leads to big deficits, which kills jobs. And then No. 2, we don't want the federal government to control private industry or own private industry."

The Iowans couldn't twist their dials fast enough.

Newt came out on top...

(http://i.imgur.com/xEJfD.jpg)

I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 24, 2011, 09:52:11 PM
Iowans don't want the government involved in their ethanol subsidies!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 24, 2011, 11:27:03 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/5JCSM.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 24, 2011, 11:31:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 24, 2011, 11:27:03 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/5JCSM.jpg)

My eyes searched, and when they spotted the mirror, I laughed like an idjit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 25, 2011, 08:26:24 AM
Interesting point of view from a green-type. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima)  And by "interesting" I mean, of course, "something that supports my point of view."

QuoteYou will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Bonus: it links to xkcd, which can only be a positive.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 25, 2011, 08:37:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 25, 2011, 08:26:24 AM
Interesting point of view from a green-type. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima)  And by "interesting" I mean, of course, "something that supports my point of view."

QuoteYou will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Bonus: it links to xkcd, which can only be a positive.

That is definitely good news - let's hope it stays this way. I'm not sure if these guys are brave, dumb, or a little of both, but what a crazy story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/nuclear-samurai-fukushima-japan-reactor

QuoteShingo Kanno, who had been hired to do construction work, was released from his duties at Fukushima soon after the declaration of a nuclear emergency. As the crisis at the plant worsened, and the Japanese government widened the evacuation zone, he moved his wife and his infant daughter to his in-laws, where they would be safer.

He also helped evacuate his extended family from their home town of Minamisoma, which is within the 30km exclusion zone, to the sports centre and other shelters. Then, his relatives say, Kanno got a call from the plant asking him to go back to work.

His whole family took turns getting on the phone to tell him not to go. They reminded him that he was a farmer, not a nuclear engineer, that he did not have the skills for such a sophisticated crisis. They said he should think of his responsibilities to his parents and his baby daughter.

"I told him: 'You have a family now. You shouldn't be thinking about the company – you should be thinking about your own family,'" said Masao Kanno.

But on Friday Shingo Kanno went back anyway. The family have not heard from him since.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 26, 2011, 12:26:03 AM
Oh, for fuck's sake (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118677754.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
I genuinely don't know what to say about this article; chilling stuff: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=1
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 28, 2011, 01:47:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 25, 2011, 08:37:01 AM
That is definitely good news - let's hope it stays this way. I'm not sure if these guys are brave, dumb, or a little of both, but what a crazy story.

Surely you're familiar with the "demon core (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/index.html)"?

(http://members.tripod.com/~Arnold_Dion/Daghlian/stone.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on March 28, 2011, 04:23:07 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
I genuinely don't know what to say about this article; chilling stuff: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=1

Yeah, you know that death penalty discussion?  I'm prepared to make an exception for anybody who can pose for celebratory photographs with the body of the child they just killed.  I swear to God, I can't remember the last time anything made me this angry.  Fuck those pricks, I hope they rot in hell.

Fuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 28, 2011, 07:50:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 28, 2011, 04:23:07 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
I genuinely don't know what to say about this article; chilling stuff: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=1

Yeah, you know that death penalty discussion?  I'm prepared to make an exception for anybody who can pose for celebratory photographs with the body of the child they just killed.  I swear to God, I can't remember the last time anything made me this angry.  Fuck those pricks, I hope they rot in hell.

Fuck.

PTSD is a motherfucker. I can't know what these guys went through to make them that sick but I doubt it can be adequately covered in the lede sentence with "six months of hard (||) soldiering" (Parentheses are mine.)

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on March 28, 2011, 07:51:35 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 28, 2011, 04:23:07 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
I genuinely don't know what to say about this article; chilling stuff: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=1

Yeah, you know that death penalty discussion?  I'm prepared to make an exception for anybody who can pose for celebratory photographs with the body of the child they just killed.  I swear to God, I can't remember the last time anything made me this angry.  Fuck those pricks, I hope they rot in hell.

Fuck.

Tell me about it.  I can't believe that Stoner dude was such a bitch and snitched.  Kill 'em all while we're over there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 28, 2011, 08:01:28 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on March 28, 2011, 01:47:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 25, 2011, 08:37:01 AM
That is definitely good news - let's hope it stays this way. I'm not sure if these guys are brave, dumb, or a little of both, but what a crazy story.

Surely you're familiar with the "demon core (http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/index.html)"?

(http://members.tripod.com/~Arnold_Dion/Daghlian/stone.gif)

And Doctor Manhattan was born.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
QuoteA 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158884/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/

QuoteThomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman's life, according to court documents.

ORLY?

QuoteThough the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 28, 2011, 09:54:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
QuoteA 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158884/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/

QuoteThomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman's life, according to court documents.

ORLY?

QuoteThough the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.

So was "I stoned him because he was gay" supposed to be his cover story for "I murdered him for his money"? Who was the shitty lawyer that didn't tell him that both were horrible?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 28, 2011, 09:55:59 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2011, 09:54:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
QuoteA 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158884/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/

QuoteThomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman's life, according to court documents.

ORLY?

QuoteThough the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.

So was "I stoned him because he was gay" supposed to be his cover story for "I murdered him for his money"? Who was the shitty lawyer that didn't tell him that both were horrible?

Anti-Semite.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 28, 2011, 09:57:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2011, 09:54:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
QuoteA 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158884/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/

QuoteThomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman's life, according to court documents.

ORLY?

QuoteThough the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.

So was "I stoned him because he was gay" supposed to be his cover story for "I murdered him for his money"? Who was the shitty lawyer that didn't tell him that both were horrible?

*slaps Gil*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on March 28, 2011, 10:10:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2011, 09:54:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
QuoteA 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158884/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/

QuoteThomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman's life, according to court documents.

ORLY?

QuoteThough the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.

So was "I stoned him because he was gay" supposed to be his cover story for "I murdered him for his money"? Who was the shitty lawyer that didn't tell him that both were horrible?

The bible told him to do it. Leaders are elected because they act on the bible's literal interpretations. He's obviously innocent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 28, 2011, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 28, 2011, 07:50:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 28, 2011, 04:23:07 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
I genuinely don't know what to say about this article; chilling stuff: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=1

Yeah, you know that death penalty discussion?  I'm prepared to make an exception for anybody who can pose for celebratory photographs with the body of the child they just killed.  I swear to God, I can't remember the last time anything made me this angry.  Fuck those pricks, I hope they rot in hell.

Fuck.

PTSD is a motherfucker. I can't know what these guys went through to make them that sick but I doubt it can be adequately covered in the lede sentence with "six months of hard (||) soldiering" (Parentheses are mine.)



This ain't PTSD.  These guys are just fucking monsters.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 10:31:51 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 28, 2011, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 28, 2011, 07:50:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 28, 2011, 04:23:07 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
I genuinely don't know what to say about this article; chilling stuff: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=1

Yeah, you know that death penalty discussion?  I'm prepared to make an exception for anybody who can pose for celebratory photographs with the body of the child they just killed.  I swear to God, I can't remember the last time anything made me this angry.  Fuck those pricks, I hope they rot in hell.

Fuck.

PTSD is a motherfucker. I can't know what these guys went through to make them that sick but I doubt it can be adequately covered in the lede sentence with "six months of hard (||) soldiering" (Parentheses are mine.)



This ain't PTSD.  These guys are just fucking monsters.

I completely agree with TEC here.  Calling this PTSD does two things: (1) it demeans the people who actually have PTSD and (2) it glosses over what these horrible people did in the name of the United States.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 28, 2011, 10:42:36 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 10:31:51 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 28, 2011, 10:21:04 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 28, 2011, 07:50:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 28, 2011, 04:23:07 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 01:09:15 AM
I genuinely don't know what to say about this article; chilling stuff: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327?page=1

Yeah, you know that death penalty discussion?  I'm prepared to make an exception for anybody who can pose for celebratory photographs with the body of the child they just killed.  I swear to God, I can't remember the last time anything made me this angry.  Fuck those pricks, I hope they rot in hell.

Fuck.

PTSD is a motherfucker. I can't know what these guys went through to make them that sick but I doubt it can be adequately covered in the lede sentence with "six months of hard (||) soldiering" (Parentheses are mine.)



This ain't PTSD.  These guys are just fucking monsters.

I completely agree with TEC here.  Calling this PTSD does two things: (1) it demeans the people who actually have PTSD and (2) it glosses over what these horrible people did in the name of the United States.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 28, 2011, 01:51:24 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 28, 2011, 09:57:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2011, 09:54:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
QuoteA 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158884/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/

QuoteThomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman's life, according to court documents.

ORLY?

QuoteThough the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.

So was "I stoned him because he was gay" supposed to be his cover story for "I murdered him for his money"? Who was the shitty lawyer that didn't tell him that both were horrible?

*slaps Gil*

Intrepid Reader: Oleg

What's wrong with being stoned?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 28, 2011, 02:09:56 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 28, 2011, 01:51:24 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 28, 2011, 09:57:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2011, 09:54:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
QuoteA 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158884/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/

QuoteThomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman's life, according to court documents.

ORLY?

QuoteThough the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.

So was "I stoned him because he was gay" supposed to be his cover story for "I murdered him for his money"? Who was the shitty lawyer that didn't tell him that both were horrible?

*slaps Gil*

Intrepid Reader: Oleg

What's wrong with being stoned?

Que Bob Dylan?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 28, 2011, 05:50:47 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 28, 2011, 02:09:56 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 28, 2011, 01:51:24 PM
Quote from: Fork on March 28, 2011, 09:57:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 28, 2011, 09:54:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 28, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
QuoteA 28-year-old man has been charged with murder after telling police that he stoned a 70-year-old man to death for making homosexual advances toward him, authorities say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42158884/ns/local_news-philadelphia_pa/

QuoteThomas reportedly told authorities that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned to death. When Seidman allegedly made homosexual advances toward him over a period of time, Thomas said he received a message in his prayers that he must end Seidman's life, according to court documents.

ORLY?

QuoteThough the relationship is still unknown, Thomas was the sole executor of Seidman's will and knew how much money was in Seidman's bank accounts, police say.

So was "I stoned him because he was gay" supposed to be his cover story for "I murdered him for his money"? Who was the shitty lawyer that didn't tell him that both were horrible?

*slaps Gil*

Intrepid Reader: Oleg

What's wrong with being stoned?

Que Bob Dylan?

Or Willie Nelson's latest prosecutor (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/willie_nelsons_pot_charge_could_be_resolved_for_a_song_literally).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 29, 2011, 08:32:33 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Yeah, up until this Donald Trump was always the guy I turned to for an informed opinion in troubled times. Huh?

Anywho, the plot thickens...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/29/where-was-donald-trump-born.aspx

QuoteThe Smoking Gun points out the not-so-obvious: This is not a "long-form birth certificate," the proof of citizenship that birthers demand from Barack Obama. It's a copy of the certificate from the hospital that features contemporary signatures from physicians. How's this different from the certification of live birth that Barack Obama provided on FightTheSmears.com in 2008? Obama's certification was a state document (there was a long, tedious, and unsuccessful effort to prove that it was forged), but didn't contain contemporary signatures or a baby's footprint. Trump's certificate is from the hospital, not the state, so it's not really an official document.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 29, 2011, 09:41:46 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 29, 2011, 08:32:33 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Yeah, up until this Donald Trump was always the guy I turned to for an informed opinion in troubled times. Huh?

The important thing to remember is that Huey is neither a meatball nor a contrarian.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 29, 2011, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Can't you tell a wig from a flamboyant orange comb-over?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 30, 2011, 08:37:56 AM
TARPfail and HAMPfail. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30barofsky.html?_r=1&hp)

QuoteThough there is no question that the country benefited by avoiding a meltdown of the financial system, this cannot be the only yardstick by which TARP's legacy is measured. The legislation that created TARP, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, had far broader goals, including protecting home values and preserving homeownership.

These Main Street-oriented goals were not, as the Treasury Department is now suggesting, mere window dressing that needed only to be taken "into account." Rather, they were a central part of the compromise with reluctant members of Congress to cast a vote that in many cases proved to be political suicide.

The act's emphasis on preserving homeownership was particularly vital to passage. Congress was told that TARP would be used to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, and, to obtain the necessary votes, Treasury promised that it would modify those mortgages to assist struggling homeowners. Indeed, the act expressly directs the department to do just that.

But it has done little to abide by this legislative bargain. Almost immediately, as permitted by the broad language of the act, Treasury's plan for TARP shifted from the purchase of mortgages to the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation's largest financial institutions, a shift that came with the express promise that it would restore lending.

Treasury, however, provided the money to banks with no effective policy or effort to compel the extension of credit. There were no strings attached: no requirement or even incentive to increase lending to home buyers, and against our strong recommendation, not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds. It was only in April of last year, in response to recommendations from our office, that Treasury asked banks to provide that information, well after the largest banks had already repaid their loans. It was therefore no surprise that lending did not increase but rather continued to decline well into the recovery.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 30, 2011, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2011, 08:37:56 AM
TARPfail and HAMPfail. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30barofsky.html?_r=1&hp)

QuoteThough there is no question that the country benefited by avoiding a meltdown of the financial system, this cannot be the only yardstick by which TARP's legacy is measured. The legislation that created TARP, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, had far broader goals, including protecting home values and preserving homeownership.

These Main Street-oriented goals were not, as the Treasury Department is now suggesting, mere window dressing that needed only to be taken "into account." Rather, they were a central part of the compromise with reluctant members of Congress to cast a vote that in many cases proved to be political suicide.

The act's emphasis on preserving homeownership was particularly vital to passage. Congress was told that TARP would be used to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, and, to obtain the necessary votes, Treasury promised that it would modify those mortgages to assist struggling homeowners. Indeed, the act expressly directs the department to do just that.

But it has done little to abide by this legislative bargain. Almost immediately, as permitted by the broad language of the act, Treasury's plan for TARP shifted from the purchase of mortgages to the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation's largest financial institutions, a shift that came with the express promise that it would restore lending.

Treasury, however, provided the money to banks with no effective policy or effort to compel the extension of credit. There were no strings attached: no requirement or even incentive to increase lending to home buyers, and against our strong recommendation, not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds. It was only in April of last year, in response to recommendations from our office, that Treasury asked banks to provide that information, well after the largest banks had already repaid their loans. It was therefore no surprise that lending did not increase but rather continued to decline well into the recovery.

Where's the money, Chuck?  Where is it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 30, 2011, 08:56:37 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 30, 2011, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2011, 08:37:56 AM
TARPfail and HAMPfail. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30barofsky.html?_r=1&hp)

QuoteThough there is no question that the country benefited by avoiding a meltdown of the financial system, this cannot be the only yardstick by which TARP's legacy is measured. The legislation that created TARP, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, had far broader goals, including protecting home values and preserving homeownership.

These Main Street-oriented goals were not, as the Treasury Department is now suggesting, mere window dressing that needed only to be taken "into account." Rather, they were a central part of the compromise with reluctant members of Congress to cast a vote that in many cases proved to be political suicide.

The act's emphasis on preserving homeownership was particularly vital to passage. Congress was told that TARP would be used to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, and, to obtain the necessary votes, Treasury promised that it would modify those mortgages to assist struggling homeowners. Indeed, the act expressly directs the department to do just that.

But it has done little to abide by this legislative bargain. Almost immediately, as permitted by the broad language of the act, Treasury's plan for TARP shifted from the purchase of mortgages to the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation's largest financial institutions, a shift that came with the express promise that it would restore lending.

Treasury, however, provided the money to banks with no effective policy or effort to compel the extension of credit. There were no strings attached: no requirement or even incentive to increase lending to home buyers, and against our strong recommendation, not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds. It was only in April of last year, in response to recommendations from our office, that Treasury asked banks to provide that information, well after the largest banks had already repaid their loans. It was therefore no surprise that lending did not increase but rather continued to decline well into the recovery.

Where's the money, Chuck?  Where is it?

In the bottomless subterranean vaults of the Elders of Zion. Duh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 30, 2011, 09:01:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 30, 2011, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 30, 2011, 08:37:56 AM
TARPfail and HAMPfail. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/opinion/30barofsky.html?_r=1&hp)

QuoteThough there is no question that the country benefited by avoiding a meltdown of the financial system, this cannot be the only yardstick by which TARP's legacy is measured. The legislation that created TARP, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, had far broader goals, including protecting home values and preserving homeownership.

These Main Street-oriented goals were not, as the Treasury Department is now suggesting, mere window dressing that needed only to be taken "into account." Rather, they were a central part of the compromise with reluctant members of Congress to cast a vote that in many cases proved to be political suicide.

The act's emphasis on preserving homeownership was particularly vital to passage. Congress was told that TARP would be used to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, and, to obtain the necessary votes, Treasury promised that it would modify those mortgages to assist struggling homeowners. Indeed, the act expressly directs the department to do just that.

But it has done little to abide by this legislative bargain. Almost immediately, as permitted by the broad language of the act, Treasury's plan for TARP shifted from the purchase of mortgages to the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation's largest financial institutions, a shift that came with the express promise that it would restore lending.

Treasury, however, provided the money to banks with no effective policy or effort to compel the extension of credit. There were no strings attached: no requirement or even incentive to increase lending to home buyers, and against our strong recommendation, not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds. It was only in April of last year, in response to recommendations from our office, that Treasury asked banks to provide that information, well after the largest banks had already repaid their loans. It was therefore no surprise that lending did not increase but rather continued to decline well into the recovery.

Where's the money, Chuck?  Where is it?
Don't ask me!
This bank is TARP Free!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 30, 2011, 09:06:58 AM
God bless America (and Delaware too): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ZZHGO5sXw&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 30, 2011, 09:29:37 AM

Some outside-the-box thinking (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/29/santorum-blames-abortion-culture-for-problems-with-social-security/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 30, 2011, 09:34:58 AM
Sports.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on March 30, 2011, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 30, 2011, 09:06:58 AM
God bless America (and Delaware too): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ZZHGO5sXw&feature=player_embedded

Gil bringing the politics AND Sports in one post.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 30, 2011, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 30, 2011, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 30, 2011, 09:06:58 AM
God bless America (and Delaware too): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ZZHGO5sXw&feature=player_embedded

Gil bringing the politics AND Sports in one post.



There can be no compromise. You are either WITH sports or AGAINST sports.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 31, 2011, 08:34:36 AM
The nutbags put one of these up in my town:
(http://laist.com/attachments/lindsayrebecca/familyradio-may21-billboard.jpg)

Better start repenting now, assholes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 31, 2011, 08:38:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 31, 2011, 08:34:36 AM
The nutbags put one of these up in my town:
(http://laist.com/attachments/lindsayrebecca/familyradio-may21-billboard.jpg)

Better start repenting now, assholes.

Do you think God will wait until the Cubs-Red Sox game is over before sending us to hell?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on March 31, 2011, 08:41:07 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 31, 2011, 08:38:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 31, 2011, 08:34:36 AM
The nutbags put one of these up in my town:
(http://laist.com/attachments/lindsayrebecca/familyradio-may21-billboard.jpg)

Better start repenting now, assholes.

Do you think God will wait until the Cubs-Red Sox game is over before sending us to hell?

I'll still be a week into my post-graduation binge, so I don't think I'll notice either way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 31, 2011, 08:41:55 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 31, 2011, 08:34:36 AM
Better start repenting now, assholes.

How cool would it be to have The Rapture occur during the "Live Open Forum!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on March 31, 2011, 08:49:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 31, 2011, 08:34:36 AM
The nutbags put one of these up in my town:
(http://laist.com/attachments/lindsayrebecca/familyradio-may21-billboard.jpg)

Better start repenting now, assholes.

THE BIBLE GUARANTEES* IT, or your money back!


*Guarantee void in Tennessee
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 31, 2011, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 31, 2011, 08:49:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 31, 2011, 08:34:36 AM
The nutbags put one of these up in my town:
(http://laist.com/attachments/lindsayrebecca/familyradio-may21-billboard.jpg)

Better start repenting now, assholes.

THE BIBLE GUARANTEES* IT, or your money back!


*Guarantee void in Tennessee

So what Jonah 3:8 says is,  "But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence."

It is easy to see how God guaranteed the END in that passage.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 01, 2011, 07:08:38 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 31, 2011, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: CT III on March 31, 2011, 08:49:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 31, 2011, 08:34:36 AM
The nutbags put one of these up in my town:
(http://laist.com/attachments/lindsayrebecca/familyradio-may21-billboard.jpg)

Better start repenting now, assholes.

THE BIBLE GUARANTEES* IT, or your money back!


*Guarantee void in Tennessee

So what Jonah 3:8 says is,  "But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence."

It is easy to see how God guaranteed the END in that passage.



A pig's an animal, right?

I figure God's just gonna poke his head out like Porky Pig and say, "That's all, folks!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 01, 2011, 11:46:46 AM
So Jonah,  you want me to dress my Chihuahua in sackcloth instead of his regular pink outfit? 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 04, 2011, 08:35:20 AM
Potential game-changer...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html

QuoteWith revolutionary fervor sweeping the Middle East, Israel is under mounting pressure to make a far-reaching offer to the Palestinians or face a United Nations vote welcoming the State of Palestine as a member whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Authority has been steadily building support for such a resolution in September, a move that could place Israel into a diplomatic vise. Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow United Nations member, land it has controlled and settled for more than four decades and some of which it expects to keep in any two-state solution.

...

Efforts are still under way to restart peace talks but if, as expected, negotiations do not resume, come September the Palestinian Authority seems set to go ahead with plans to ask the General Assembly to accept it as a member. Diplomats involved in the issue say most countries — more than 100 — are expected to vote yes, meaning it will pass. (There are no vetoes in the General Assembly so the United States cannot save Israel as it often has in the Security Council.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
Potential game-changers are everywhere! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576231010618488684.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 04, 2011, 09:11:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
Potential game-changers are everywhere! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576231010618488684.html)

Un-paywall'd: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576231010618488684.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2011, 09:54:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
Potential game-changers are everywhere! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576231010618488684.html)

Fiscal policy to alter the business cycle?  Yeah, that'll work...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 10:19:37 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2011, 09:54:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
Potential game-changers are everywhere! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576231010618488684.html)

Fiscal policy to alter the business cycle?  Yeah, that'll work...

They are advocating using fiscal policy to make a permanent level and/or trajectory shift, rather than trying to address business cycle peaks and troughs individually.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 10:19:37 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2011, 09:54:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
Potential game-changers are everywhere! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576231010618488684.html)

Fiscal policy to alter the business cycle?  Yeah, that'll work...

They are advocating using fiscal policy to make a permanent level and/or trajectory shift, rather than trying to address business cycle peaks and troughs individually.

They are also, if I read this right, basically calling for the Congress to do very little other than chart a course.  No significant budgetary changes from year to year.  I love that idea.  It will never happen.  And we all know why.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 11:04:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 10:19:37 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2011, 09:54:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
Potential game-changers are everywhere! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576231010618488684.html)

Fiscal policy to alter the business cycle?  Yeah, that'll work...

They are advocating using fiscal policy to make a permanent level and/or trajectory shift, rather than trying to address business cycle peaks and troughs individually.

They are also, if I read this right, basically calling for the Congress to do very little other than chart a course.  No significant budgetary changes from year to year.  I love that idea.  It will never happen.  And we all know why.

Something something want to SERVE?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 04, 2011, 11:18:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 11:04:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2011, 10:47:06 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 10:19:37 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2011, 09:54:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 04, 2011, 08:58:12 AM
Potential game-changers are everywhere! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471904576231010618488684.html)

Fiscal policy to alter the business cycle?  Yeah, that'll work...

They are advocating using fiscal policy to make a permanent level and/or trajectory shift, rather than trying to address business cycle peaks and troughs individually.

They are also, if I read this right, basically calling for the Congress to do very little other than chart a course.  No significant budgetary changes from year to year.  I love that idea.  It will never happen.  And we all know why.

Something something want to SERVE?

Something something lobbyists something
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on April 04, 2011, 10:16:04 PM
At least somebody got the address right.

The last sentence made my day (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/04/04/2011-04-04_bloody_pigs_foot_hate_mail_sent_to_gop_rep_peter_king_who_led_hearings_on_muslim.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 05, 2011, 08:49:23 AM
Bipartisanship in Oregon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZi4JxbTwPo)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 05, 2011, 09:46:33 AM
Climatefreude! (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story)

QuoteA team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 05, 2011, 09:49:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 05, 2011, 09:46:33 AM
Climatefreude! (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story)

QuoteA team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

QuoteAnthony Watts, a former TV weatherman who runs the skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat.com...

It's a pun.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2011, 01:15:32 PM
Don't touch my ethanol subsidy! - Grover Norquist (http://www.economist.com/node/18529711?story_id=18529711)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 08, 2011, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 07, 2011, 01:15:32 PM
Don't touch my ethanol subsidy! - Grover Norquist (http://www.economist.com/node/18529711?story_id=18529711)

Norquist has become a strange one. Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2011, 09:13:51 PM
First a facebook case and now Twitter: http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3i9a8bcd22809763fe10a32aaf39e8a0c8
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 08, 2011, 10:05:46 PM
No shutdown: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/budget-deal-reached-boehner-says/

So I've seen it both ways: the Democrats only care about abortion and they're willing to sell out the troops so that women can have them OR the Republicans are willing to stop the government because they care more about what women they'll never meet choose to do with their own bodies than helping run the country.

Here's what I've learned: this country is fucking lame.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Shooter on April 08, 2011, 10:35:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 08, 2011, 10:05:46 PM
No shutdown: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/budget-deal-reached-boehner-says/

So I've seen it both ways: the Democrats only care about abortion and they're willing to sell out the troops so that women can have them OR the Republicans are willing to stop the government because they care more about what women they'll never meet choose to do with their own bodies than helping run the country.

Here's what I've learned: this country is fucking lame consistently elects shitheads to public office at every level.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 08, 2011, 10:41:52 PM
Quote from: Shooter on April 08, 2011, 10:35:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 08, 2011, 10:05:46 PM
No shutdown: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/budget-deal-reached-boehner-says/

So I've seen it both ways: the Democrats only care about abortion and they're willing to sell out the troops so that women can have them OR the Republicans are willing to stop the government because they care more about what women they'll never meet choose to do with their own bodies than helping run the country.

Here's what I've learned: this country is fucking lame consistently elects shitheads to public office at every level.

Fixed.

That works too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 08, 2011, 10:46:27 PM

Shit, I'm still trying to figure out how Republicans call Obama's Health Care Reform plan Socialism, and the Democrats call Ryan's Medicare Reform evil, when they're pretty damn near the same thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 13, 2011, 08:43:05 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

Because big government infringed on their property rights.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

The problem with the Civil War is that it was one of the few conflicts in which we allowed the history to be largely written by the losers. Jefferson Davis had written his memoirs and the myth of the Lost Cause was out long before anyone else presented a conflicting view. Southern historians dominated for years. Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY." Which is funny, if one ever reads South Carolina's justification for seceding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union), considering the entire thing (after a historical background of the Constitution that makes the case for secession being legal) revolves around slavery.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 13, 2011, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

The problem with the Civil War is that it was one of the few conflicts in which we allowed the history to be largely written by the losers. Jefferson Davis had written his memoirs and the myth of the Lost Cause was out long before anyone else presented a conflicting view. Southern historians dominated for years. Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY." Which is funny, if one ever reads South Carolina's justification for seceding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union), considering the entire thing (after a historical background of the Constitution that makes the case for secession being legal) revolves around slavery.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/arts/15stampp.html

I took 12 units of Civil War and Reconstruction history from Kenneth M. Stampp at Cal.  He spent a lot of time teaching us about the Revisionists.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 13, 2011, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY."

Most of us here didn't go to high school in Iowa.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 13, 2011, 09:24:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 13, 2011, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY."

Most of us here didn't go to high school in Iowa.

I was taught the War of Northern Aggression was caused by Lincoln being an evil robot clone created by a time-traveling Barack Obama.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on April 13, 2011, 09:32:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 13, 2011, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

The problem with the Civil War is that it was one of the few conflicts in which we allowed the history to be largely written by the losers. Jefferson Davis had written his memoirs and the myth of the Lost Cause was out long before anyone else presented a conflicting view. Southern historians dominated for years. Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY." Which is funny, if one ever reads South Carolina's justification for seceding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union), considering the entire thing (after a historical background of the Constitution that makes the case for secession being legal) revolves around slavery.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/arts/15stampp.html

I took 12 units of Civil War and Reconstruction history from Kenneth M. Stampp at Cal.  He spent a lot of time teaching us about the Revisionists.


That's awesome, Stew. I've read his book. The man did the study of history a great service. Sad that it never occurred to anyone before him that the slaves might have a slightly different view of slavery than the slaveowners.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 13, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 09:32:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 13, 2011, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

The problem with the Civil War is that it was one of the few conflicts in which we allowed the history to be largely written by the losers. Jefferson Davis had written his memoirs and the myth of the Lost Cause was out long before anyone else presented a conflicting view. Southern historians dominated for years. Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY." Which is funny, if one ever reads South Carolina's justification for seceding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union), considering the entire thing (after a historical background of the Constitution that makes the case for secession being legal) revolves around slavery.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/arts/15stampp.html

I took 12 units of Civil War and Reconstruction history from Kenneth M. Stampp at Cal.  He spent a lot of time teaching us about the Revisionists.


That's awesome, Stew. I've read his book. The man did the study of history a great service. Sad that it never occurred to anyone before him that the slaves might have a slightly different view of slavery than the slaveowners.

[Spills mint julep on white suit, pince-nez popping out of eyes] WHAAAAT?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 13, 2011, 10:12:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 13, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 09:32:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 13, 2011, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

The problem with the Civil War is that it was one of the few conflicts in which we allowed the history to be largely written by the losers. Jefferson Davis had written his memoirs and the myth of the Lost Cause was out long before anyone else presented a conflicting view. Southern historians dominated for years. Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY." Which is funny, if one ever reads South Carolina's justification for seceding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union), considering the entire thing (after a historical background of the Constitution that makes the case for secession being legal) revolves around slavery.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/arts/15stampp.html

I took 12 units of Civil War and Reconstruction history from Kenneth M. Stampp at Cal.  He spent a lot of time teaching us about the Revisionists.


That's awesome, Stew. I've read his book. The man did the study of history a great service. Sad that it never occurred to anyone before him that the slaves might have a slightly different view of slavery than the slaveowners.

[Spills mint julep on white suit, pince-nez popping out of eyes] WHAAAAT?

#BayouMovie
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 13, 2011, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 13, 2011, 10:12:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 13, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 09:32:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 13, 2011, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

The problem with the Civil War is that it was one of the few conflicts in which we allowed the history to be largely written by the losers. Jefferson Davis had written his memoirs and the myth of the Lost Cause was out long before anyone else presented a conflicting view. Southern historians dominated for years. Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY." Which is funny, if one ever reads South Carolina's justification for seceding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union), considering the entire thing (after a historical background of the Constitution that makes the case for secession being legal) revolves around slavery.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/arts/15stampp.html

I took 12 units of Civil War and Reconstruction history from Kenneth M. Stampp at Cal.  He spent a lot of time teaching us about the Revisionists.


That's awesome, Stew. I've read his book. The man did the study of history a great service. Sad that it never occurred to anyone before him that the slaves might have a slightly different view of slavery than the slaveowners.

[Spills mint julep on white suit, pince-nez popping out of eyes] WHAAAAT?

#BayouMovie

#FuckYeah
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 13, 2011, 10:46:13 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 13, 2011, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 13, 2011, 10:12:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 13, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 09:32:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 13, 2011, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

The problem with the Civil War is that it was one of the few conflicts in which we allowed the history to be largely written by the losers. Jefferson Davis had written his memoirs and the myth of the Lost Cause was out long before anyone else presented a conflicting view. Southern historians dominated for years. Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY." Which is funny, if one ever reads South Carolina's justification for seceding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union), considering the entire thing (after a historical background of the Constitution that makes the case for secession being legal) revolves around slavery.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/arts/15stampp.html

I took 12 units of Civil War and Reconstruction history from Kenneth M. Stampp at Cal.  He spent a lot of time teaching us about the Revisionists.


That's awesome, Stew. I've read his book. The man did the study of history a great service. Sad that it never occurred to anyone before him that the slaves might have a slightly different view of slavery than the slaveowners.

[Spills mint julep on white suit, pince-nez popping out of eyes] WHAAAAT?

#BayouMovie

#FuckYeah

(http://fuckyeahnouns.com/images/civil+war)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 13, 2011, 10:49:12 AM
(http://fuckyeahnouns.com/images/it%27s+silent+in+here)

By the way, H/T Chuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 13, 2011, 11:01:03 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 13, 2011, 10:26:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 13, 2011, 10:12:52 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 13, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 09:32:19 AM
Quote from: CBStew on April 13, 2011, 09:15:36 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 13, 2011, 08:47:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 13, 2011, 08:39:54 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 13, 2011, 08:33:52 AM
The South: Still Butthurt Over the War of Northern Aggression (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/).

QuoteIn the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

Why do they hate America?

The problem with the Civil War is that it was one of the few conflicts in which we allowed the history to be largely written by the losers. Jefferson Davis had written his memoirs and the myth of the Lost Cause was out long before anyone else presented a conflicting view. Southern historians dominated for years. Hell, even though the "Dunning School" has supposedly been discarded, I was taught (and I'm sure many of you were, too) that "THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY ORIGINALLY." Which is funny, if one ever reads South Carolina's justification for seceding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union), considering the entire thing (after a historical background of the Constitution that makes the case for secession being legal) revolves around slavery.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/arts/15stampp.html

I took 12 units of Civil War and Reconstruction history from Kenneth M. Stampp at Cal.  He spent a lot of time teaching us about the Revisionists.


That's awesome, Stew. I've read his book. The man did the study of history a great service. Sad that it never occurred to anyone before him that the slaves might have a slightly different view of slavery than the slaveowners.

[Spills mint julep on white suit, pince-nez popping out of eyes] WHAAAAT?

#BayouMovie

#FuckYeah

(http://i.imgur.com/Vj9vX.png)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 13, 2011, 11:03:42 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 13, 2011, 10:49:12 AM
By the way, H/T Chuck.

You should come by the Shoutbox sometime...

(http://i.imgur.com/zN0vh.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 14, 2011, 09:33:41 AM
And Trump continues his fall from grace (http://twitter.com/#!/benpolitico/statuses/58535873184145408). Where is the sensible moderate we all knew and loved?

QuoteTrump: "I have a great relationship with the blacks."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 14, 2011, 09:37:16 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 14, 2011, 09:33:41 AM
And Trump continues his fall from grace (http://twitter.com/#!/benpolitico/statuses/58535873184145408). Where is the sensible moderate we all knew and loved?

QuoteTrump: "I have a great relationship with the blacks."

Ah, the Blacks. Michael Ian Black and his family, I presume.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 14, 2011, 09:47:39 AM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/27/arts/smoove1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on April 14, 2011, 09:59:07 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 14, 2011, 09:47:39 AM
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/27/arts/smoove1.jpg)

Win.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 14, 2011, 10:11:18 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 14, 2011, 09:37:16 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 14, 2011, 09:33:41 AM
And Trump continues his fall from grace (http://twitter.com/#!/benpolitico/statuses/58535873184145408). Where is the sensible moderate we all knew and loved?

QuoteTrump: "I have a great relationship with the blacks."

Ah, the Blacks. Michael Ian Black and his family, I presume.

Yeah, because he's probably great with jews too...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 14, 2011, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 14, 2011, 09:33:41 AM
And Trump continues his fall from grace (http://twitter.com/#!/benpolitico/statuses/58535873184145408). Where is the sensible moderate we all knew and loved?

QuoteTrump: "I have a great relationship with the blacks."

I have yet to hear a doorman complain.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on April 14, 2011, 07:27:13 PM
This article mostly makes sense to me, but I'd invite Morph to tell me why it's wrong:

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Quote from: Eli on April 14, 2011, 07:27:13 PM
This article mostly makes sense to me, but I'd invite Morph to tell me why it's wrong:

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382

Intrepid Reader: Morph
Something something income mobility (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf).


Related:

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/07/06/can-mobility-offset-an-increase-in-inequality/
http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/07/13/rising-inequality-has-not-been-offset-by-mobility/

(I suppose the URL slug of the latter is a bit of a spoiler for the question in that of the former.)

More still:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/kopczuk-saez-songSSA07short.pdf
http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Egsolon/workingpapers/trends.pdf
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/PEW_EMP_UPS_AND_DOWNS.pdf
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/PEW_EMP_AMERICAN_DREAM.pdf
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2009/wp0907.htm

My general take-away from skimming the above (for the most part reading introductions and then scrolling to conclusions) is that intergenerational income mobility in the US:

a) has not substantially increased or decreased over the past several decades (even as income inequality has increased dramatically)
b) is relatively low compared to that seen in countries such as Canada, Germany, France and those socialists in the Nordics

I also gather that our intergenerational income mobility is hampered in no small part by inequality in educational opportunity due to inequalities in income...

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/05/education_and_i.html
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/goldin/files/GoldinKatz_Brookings.pdf
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 15, 2011, 07:38:24 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 12:49:55 AM
Quote from: Eli on April 14, 2011, 07:27:13 PM
This article mostly makes sense to me, but I'd invite Morph to tell me why it's wrong:

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382

Intrepid Reader: Morph
Something something income mobility (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf).


Related:

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/07/06/can-mobility-offset-an-increase-in-inequality/
http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/07/13/rising-inequality-has-not-been-offset-by-mobility/

(I suppose the URL slug of the latter is a bit of a spoiler for the question in that of the former.)

More still:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/kopczuk-saez-songSSA07short.pdf
http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Egsolon/workingpapers/trends.pdf
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/PEW_EMP_UPS_AND_DOWNS.pdf
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/PEW_EMP_AMERICAN_DREAM.pdf
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/wp/wp2009/wp0907.htm

My general take-away from skimming the above (for the most part reading introductions and then scrolling to conclusions) is that intergenerational income mobility in the US:

a) has not substantially increased or decreased over the past several decades (even as income inequality has increased dramatically)
b) is relatively low compared to that seen in countries such as Canada, Germany, France and those socialists in the Nordics

I also gather that our intergenerational income mobility is hampered in no small part by inequality in educational opportunity due to inequalities in income...

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/05/education_and_i.html
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/goldin/files/GoldinKatz_Brookings.pdf

Thrill is still asshurt over not winning the caddy scholarship.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 10:35:36 AM
Obama takes a cue from the West Wing and "accidentally" leaves his mic on...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/obama-uncensored.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 10:54:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on April 14, 2011, 07:27:13 PM
This article mostly makes sense to me, but I'd invite Morph to tell me why it's wrong:

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382

Well, for starters, it confuses "wealth" and "income" as most class warrior articles do.  And it does the same old cross-sectional "The top quintile of wage earners in 1975 earned x% of income, while the bottom earned y%, and in 2005 it was x1% and y1%" which is a horribly flawed comparison, since people don't stay in the same income brackets over time.  Moreover, such a framework carries the fatally flawed assumption that income is some sort of pie that we can just divide up, free of consequences intended and unintended.

Sowell (http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/income-confusion.html) has written entire books on this subject, but I think this article sums up some of his major arguments pretty well.

Tank's links to "Consider the Evidence" below contain the same general flaw - that somehow the starting point is that "income inequality" is a problem to be offset by something else (in this case income mobility).  The broader question , I suppose, is: what is the correct or optimal distribution of incomes over tax brackets in a single year?  There is no right answer to that question, and moreover attempts to coerce it from above (which is really the point, isn't it?) will have consequences far beyond its intentions.  If you shrink the pie but divide it more "evenly" or "fairly" then is the society better off?  Depends on how much you shrink the pie in your efforts to force what you consider equality.

And don't get me started on the corporate tax rate, a major reason why corporations shift their business and jobs elsewhere.  The U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg)  You want to create jobs through fiscal policy?  Lowering the corporate tax rate is one of the surest ways to do it, as it will make the US more competitive versus other countries as far as where businesses locate their operations.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 15, 2011, 11:13:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 10:54:16 AM
You want to create jobs through fiscal policy?

NO!

I want the government to pick services to provide and fund them.  Government jobs creation is a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:15:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 15, 2011, 11:13:22 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 10:54:16 AM
You want to create jobs through fiscal policy?

NO!

I want the government to pick services to provide and fund them.  Government jobs creation is a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM!!!!

Governments can't create jobs.  They can get out of the way, though.  That's what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 10:54:16 AM
And don't get me started on the corporate tax rate, a major reason why corporations shift their business and jobs elsewhere.  The U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg)  You want to create jobs through fiscal policy?  Lowering the corporate tax rate is one of the surest ways to do it, as it will make the US more competitive versus other countries as far as where businesses locate their operations.

And yet...

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument

QuoteThe background paper reports that the United States has the second highest combined (federal and state) statutory corporate income tax rate among the 30 member countries of the OECD. At 39 percent, the U.S. combined statutory corporate tax rate is reported to be 8 percentage points higher than the OECD average. More recent data collected by the OECD show that the OECD average corporate tax rate has fallen to 28.4 percent in 2006, almost 11 percentage points below the U.S. tax rate. This gap continues to widen. Legislation has been enacted further reducing corporate tax rates in Germany (from 38.9 percent to 29.8 percent), the United Kingdom (from 30 percent to 28 percent), and Denmark (from 28 percent to 25 percent).

Although the United States has the second highest statutory corporate tax, the background paper reports that U.S. corporate income tax revenue (federal and state) as a percentage of GDP paradoxically is much lower than the OECD average — 2.2 percent in the United States versus an OECD average of 3.4 percent — over the 2000-2005 period. In short, the OECD data present a conundrum — the United States has the second highest combined statutory corporate tax rate among OECD countries, yet is tied with Hungary in raising the fourth lowest amount of combined corporate income tax revenue relative to GDP in 2004.

...

A second explanation is that high statutory tax rates encourage U.S. corporations to structure their investments with an eye to tax efficiency. For example, high corporate tax rates encourage increased usage of debt finance and discourage sale of appreciated corporate assets and repatriation of foreign subsidiary profits. As a result of these types of behavioral responses, the experience in OECD countries is that corporate income tax revenue does not rise in proportion to increases in the statutory tax rate. Using data on corporate tax rates and collections over the 1980-2005 period, a recent study by Alex Brill and Kevin Hassett finds that the revenue- maximizing central government corporate tax rate in the OECD is now about 26 percent. In other words, an increase in the average OECD corporate tax rate above 26 percent would be expected to reduce, rather than increase, total OECD member corporate tax revenue.

There is a third explanation that has received relatively little attention, yet may be the single-most important answer to the corporate tax conundrum. In the United States, federal and state business and tax laws provide firms with considerable flexibility in the legal form of organization. Rather than organize as regular corporations subject to two levels of tax (at the corporation and the shareholder levels), businesses may organize as S corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies that are not subject to entity-level tax. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, the share of taxable business income earned through passthrough entities (including sole proprietorships) has increased by 75 percent from 29 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2004 (see table). There is a large body of empirical evidence that confirms that corporate income tax rates that are high relative to individual income tax rates reduce the share of U.S. business activity conducted in corporate form.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 10:54:16 AM
And don't get me started on the corporate tax rate, a major reason why corporations shift their business and jobs elsewhere.  The U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg)  You want to create jobs through fiscal policy?  Lowering the corporate tax rate is one of the surest ways to do it, as it will make the US more competitive versus other countries as far as where businesses locate their operations.

And yet...

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument

QuoteThe background paper reports that the United States has the second highest combined (federal and state) statutory corporate income tax rate among the 30 member countries of the OECD. At 39 percent, the U.S. combined statutory corporate tax rate is reported to be 8 percentage points higher than the OECD average. More recent data collected by the OECD show that the OECD average corporate tax rate has fallen to 28.4 percent in 2006, almost 11 percentage points below the U.S. tax rate. This gap continues to widen. Legislation has been enacted further reducing corporate tax rates in Germany (from 38.9 percent to 29.8 percent), the United Kingdom (from 30 percent to 28 percent), and Denmark (from 28 percent to 25 percent).

Although the United States has the second highest statutory corporate tax, the background paper reports that U.S. corporate income tax revenue (federal and state) as a percentage of GDP paradoxically is much lower than the OECD average — 2.2 percent in the United States versus an OECD average of 3.4 percent — over the 2000-2005 period. In short, the OECD data present a conundrum — the United States has the second highest combined statutory corporate tax rate among OECD countries, yet is tied with Hungary in raising the fourth lowest amount of combined corporate income tax revenue relative to GDP in 2004.

...

A second explanation is that high statutory tax rates encourage U.S. corporations to structure their investments with an eye to tax efficiency. For example, high corporate tax rates encourage increased usage of debt finance and discourage sale of appreciated corporate assets and repatriation of foreign subsidiary profits. As a result of these types of behavioral responses, the experience in OECD countries is that corporate income tax revenue does not rise in proportion to increases in the statutory tax rate. Using data on corporate tax rates and collections over the 1980-2005 period, a recent study by Alex Brill and Kevin Hassett finds that the revenue- maximizing central government corporate tax rate in the OECD is now about 26 percent. In other words, an increase in the average OECD corporate tax rate above 26 percent would be expected to reduce, rather than increase, total OECD member corporate tax revenue.

There is a third explanation that has received relatively little attention, yet may be the single-most important answer to the corporate tax conundrum. In the United States, federal and state business and tax laws provide firms with considerable flexibility in the legal form of organization. Rather than organize as regular corporations subject to two levels of tax (at the corporation and the shareholder levels), businesses may organize as S corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies that are not subject to entity-level tax. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, the share of taxable business income earned through passthrough entities (including sole proprietorships) has increased by 75 percent from 29 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2004 (see table). There is a large body of empirical evidence that confirms that corporate income tax rates that are high relative to individual income tax rates reduce the share of U.S. business activity conducted in corporate form.

I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 10:54:16 AM
And don't get me started on the corporate tax rate, a major reason why corporations shift their business and jobs elsewhere.  The U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg)  You want to create jobs through fiscal policy?  Lowering the corporate tax rate is one of the surest ways to do it, as it will make the US more competitive versus other countries as far as where businesses locate their operations.

And yet...

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument

QuoteThe background paper reports that the United States has the second highest combined (federal and state) statutory corporate income tax rate among the 30 member countries of the OECD. At 39 percent, the U.S. combined statutory corporate tax rate is reported to be 8 percentage points higher than the OECD average. More recent data collected by the OECD show that the OECD average corporate tax rate has fallen to 28.4 percent in 2006, almost 11 percentage points below the U.S. tax rate. This gap continues to widen. Legislation has been enacted further reducing corporate tax rates in Germany (from 38.9 percent to 29.8 percent), the United Kingdom (from 30 percent to 28 percent), and Denmark (from 28 percent to 25 percent).

Although the United States has the second highest statutory corporate tax, the background paper reports that U.S. corporate income tax revenue (federal and state) as a percentage of GDP paradoxically is much lower than the OECD average — 2.2 percent in the United States versus an OECD average of 3.4 percent — over the 2000-2005 period. In short, the OECD data present a conundrum — the United States has the second highest combined statutory corporate tax rate among OECD countries, yet is tied with Hungary in raising the fourth lowest amount of combined corporate income tax revenue relative to GDP in 2004.

...

A second explanation is that high statutory tax rates encourage U.S. corporations to structure their investments with an eye to tax efficiency. For example, high corporate tax rates encourage increased usage of debt finance and discourage sale of appreciated corporate assets and repatriation of foreign subsidiary profits. As a result of these types of behavioral responses, the experience in OECD countries is that corporate income tax revenue does not rise in proportion to increases in the statutory tax rate. Using data on corporate tax rates and collections over the 1980-2005 period, a recent study by Alex Brill and Kevin Hassett finds that the revenue- maximizing central government corporate tax rate in the OECD is now about 26 percent. In other words, an increase in the average OECD corporate tax rate above 26 percent would be expected to reduce, rather than increase, total OECD member corporate tax revenue.

There is a third explanation that has received relatively little attention, yet may be the single-most important answer to the corporate tax conundrum. In the United States, federal and state business and tax laws provide firms with considerable flexibility in the legal form of organization. Rather than organize as regular corporations subject to two levels of tax (at the corporation and the shareholder levels), businesses may organize as S corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies that are not subject to entity-level tax. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, the share of taxable business income earned through passthrough entities (including sole proprietorships) has increased by 75 percent from 29 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2004 (see table). There is a large body of empirical evidence that confirms that corporate income tax rates that are high relative to individual income tax rates reduce the share of U.S. business activity conducted in corporate form.

The third explanation, that people respond to incentives by avoiding taxes through the form of business organization chosen, does make some sense to me.  However, it's also a fact that corporations choose where to locate their investments on an after-tax basis, and the US features not only high statutory rates, but also high effective rates. (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/february/race-to-the-top-of-the-laffer-curve)  And I'd bet this is the larger effect.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 15, 2011, 11:42:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
high statutory rates

Yeti got nervous for a second there...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on April 15, 2011, 11:43:35 AM
Morph and Chuck,

Both of you know that the tax rates in the US are a canard.  Effective tax rates are what should matter (I dont think many Fortune 400 companies are paying effective tax rates of 29% or 20%).  What the US probably should do is go to a unitary tax system like Canada and most of Western Europe has gone to, which eliminates the 'shell game' to some degree, but I do not imiagine that happening anytime soon.

Morph, we'll agree to differ on whether tax regimes 'should' promote income equality or inequality, but they always do.  I'm more a political scientiest and historian than economist, so maybe I look at this differently, but highly unequal income levels have never been compatable with stable democracies (or, ironically, good condtions for long term economic development).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:46:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM

I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

No, no, no.  You want to raise revenue, then flatten the tax structure and get rid of loopholes and deductions.  Raising individual rates will only lead to an increase in tax avoidance, especially by the so-called "rich."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:48:35 AM
Quote from: thehawk on April 15, 2011, 11:43:35 AM
Morph and Chuck,

Both of you know that the tax rates in the US are a canard.  Effective tax rates are what should matter (I dont think many Fortune 400 companies are paying effective tax rates of 29% or 20%).  What the US probably should do is go to a unitary tax system like Canada and most of Western Europe has gone to, which eliminates the 'shell game' to some degree, but I do not imiagine that happening anytime soon.

Morph, we'll agree to differ on whether tax regimes 'should' promote income equality or inequality, but they always do.  I'm more a political scientiest and historian than economist, so maybe I look at this differently, but highly unequal income levels have never been compatable with stable democracies (or, ironically, good condtions for long term economic development).

I think I addressed your first point.  The corporate effective average tax rate in the US is also the second highest among OECD countries, and the effective marginal rate is fifth highest.  See my earlier link for details.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:50:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:46:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM

I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

No, no, no.  You want to raise revenue, then flatten the tax structure and get rid of loopholes and deductions.  Raising individual rates will only lead to an increase in tax avoidance, especially by the so-called "rich."

Sure, that'd be great and I'm in favor of it if we are talking about an ideal world. But realistically it'll never hai. Mortgage interest and the health insurance exclusion are so entrenched that I doubt we'll ever see significant changes made to them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
The third explanation, that people respond to incentives by avoiding taxes through the form of business organization chosen, does make some sense to me.  However, it's also a fact that corporations choose where to locate their investments on an after-tax basis, and the US features not only high statutory rates, but also high effective rates. (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/february/race-to-the-top-of-the-laffer-curve)  And I'd bet this is the larger effect.

http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/Are_US_corporate_ETRs_low_20100202.pdf

QuoteAlthough the United States relies more heavily on corporate taxes to finance the cost of government than the average OECD country, corporate taxes as a share of U.S. GDP are below the OECD average. The share of corporate tax revenues in GDP is not, however, a reliable indicator of effective corporate tax rates, because the portion of business income earned by companies subject to corporate tax varies among countries. The United States has a substantially larger share of businesses that are not subject to corporate-level tax, especially big businesses, than other OECD countries.17 Over 80 percent of U.S. businesses in 2004 and more than half of business income reported in 2002 were organized as pass-through entities and not subject to corporate-level tax.18 As a result, the taxes paid by U.S. corporations as a share of corporate profits (i.e., the effective tax rate) can be relatively high (as found in the literature reviewed above) while, at the same time, corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP (which includes economic activity of corporations and unincorporated businesses) are relatively low.

And this...

Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

... all sounds good to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
The third explanation, that people respond to incentives by avoiding taxes through the form of business organization chosen, does make some sense to me.  However, it's also a fact that corporations choose where to locate their investments on an after-tax basis, and the US features not only high statutory rates, but also high effective rates. (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/february/race-to-the-top-of-the-laffer-curve)  And I'd bet this is the larger effect.

http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/Are_US_corporate_ETRs_low_20100202.pdf

QuoteAlthough the United States relies more heavily on corporate taxes to finance the cost of government than the average OECD country, corporate taxes as a share of U.S. GDP are below the OECD average. The share of corporate tax revenues in GDP is not, however, a reliable indicator of effective corporate tax rates, because the portion of business income earned by companies subject to corporate tax varies among countries. The United States has a substantially larger share of businesses that are not subject to corporate-level tax, especially big businesses, than other OECD countries.17 Over 80 percent of U.S. businesses in 2004 and more than half of business income reported in 2002 were organized as pass-through entities and not subject to corporate-level tax.18 As a result, the taxes paid by U.S. corporations as a share of corporate profits (i.e., the effective tax rate) can be relatively high (as found in the literature reviewed above) while, at the same time, corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP (which includes economic activity of corporations and unincorporated businesses) are relatively low.

And this...

Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

... all sounds good to me.

Tank, your point is that high corporate tax rates lead to avoidance of corporate taxes?  Then I guess I agree.  However, are you seriously arguing that lowering the corporate tax rate in the U.S. would not lead to more multinationals engaging in economic activity based in the U.S.?  That is pretty hard to believe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:17:37 PM
DPD.  The effective corporate tax on new investment is higher in the U.S. than pretty much anywhere. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/257977-high-u-s-corporate-tax-rate-a-barrier-to-economic-growth)

(http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/3/13/saupload_corporate_tax_rates_by_country_2010.png) (http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2011/3/13/saupload_us_oecd_effective_corp_tax_rate.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
The third explanation, that people respond to incentives by avoiding taxes through the form of business organization chosen, does make some sense to me.  However, it's also a fact that corporations choose where to locate their investments on an after-tax basis, and the US features not only high statutory rates, but also high effective rates. (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/february/race-to-the-top-of-the-laffer-curve)  And I'd bet this is the larger effect.

http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/Are_US_corporate_ETRs_low_20100202.pdf

QuoteAlthough the United States relies more heavily on corporate taxes to finance the cost of government than the average OECD country, corporate taxes as a share of U.S. GDP are below the OECD average. The share of corporate tax revenues in GDP is not, however, a reliable indicator of effective corporate tax rates, because the portion of business income earned by companies subject to corporate tax varies among countries. The United States has a substantially larger share of businesses that are not subject to corporate-level tax, especially big businesses, than other OECD countries.17 Over 80 percent of U.S. businesses in 2004 and more than half of business income reported in 2002 were organized as pass-through entities and not subject to corporate-level tax.18 As a result, the taxes paid by U.S. corporations as a share of corporate profits (i.e., the effective tax rate) can be relatively high (as found in the literature reviewed above) while, at the same time, corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP (which includes economic activity of corporations and unincorporated businesses) are relatively low.

And this...

Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

... all sounds good to me.

Tank, your point is that high corporate tax rates lead to avoidance of corporate taxes?  Then I guess I agree.  However, are you seriously arguing that lowering the corporate tax rate in the U.S. would not lead to more multinationals engaging in economic activity based in the U.S.?  That is pretty hard to believe.

Where did I argue that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:27:05 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
The third explanation, that people respond to incentives by avoiding taxes through the form of business organization chosen, does make some sense to me.  However, it's also a fact that corporations choose where to locate their investments on an after-tax basis, and the US features not only high statutory rates, but also high effective rates. (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/february/race-to-the-top-of-the-laffer-curve)  And I'd bet this is the larger effect.

http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/Are_US_corporate_ETRs_low_20100202.pdf

QuoteAlthough the United States relies more heavily on corporate taxes to finance the cost of government than the average OECD country, corporate taxes as a share of U.S. GDP are below the OECD average. The share of corporate tax revenues in GDP is not, however, a reliable indicator of effective corporate tax rates, because the portion of business income earned by companies subject to corporate tax varies among countries. The United States has a substantially larger share of businesses that are not subject to corporate-level tax, especially big businesses, than other OECD countries.17 Over 80 percent of U.S. businesses in 2004 and more than half of business income reported in 2002 were organized as pass-through entities and not subject to corporate-level tax.18 As a result, the taxes paid by U.S. corporations as a share of corporate profits (i.e., the effective tax rate) can be relatively high (as found in the literature reviewed above) while, at the same time, corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP (which includes economic activity of corporations and unincorporated businesses) are relatively low.

And this...

Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

... all sounds good to me.

Tank, your point is that high corporate tax rates lead to avoidance of corporate taxes?  Then I guess I agree.  However, are you seriously arguing that lowering the corporate tax rate in the U.S. would not lead to more multinationals engaging in economic activity based in the U.S.?  That is pretty hard to believe.

Where did I argue that?

I have argued that the corporate tax rate is too high in the U.S. and that lowering it would lead to more job creation.  You responded with this stuff about corporations vs. noncorporations in the U.S.  I took that to mean that you were trying to rebut my argument somehow.  Are you not?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
Quote from: Eli on April 14, 2011, 07:27:13 PM
This article mostly makes sense to me, but I'd invite Morph to tell me why it's wrong:

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382

The more of this I read, the worse it gets.  I will first note that it does make a good point, that the poor pay more in taxes than are often ascribed to them.  Credit where credit's due.  However, the author clearly has no idea what he's talking about in point #4.  Is he arguing that someone who has invested in a hedge fund should somehow pay taxes on unrealized gains?  I get it, Paulson made NINE BILLION DOLLARS over two years AND DIDN'T PAY INCOME TAX!!!  OH, THE HUMANITY!  Well, guess what: he doesn't really have that $9B.  It's still in his hedge fund and it could drop to zero tomorrow.  If he pulls it out, then he gets taxed on it.  But why should he get taxed on an unrealized investment?  Someone who buys a stock doesn't pay taxes on the gains until he sells the stock.  This is no different.

#7 is so unreadably illogical as to defy explanation. 
QuoteDespite all the noise that America has the world's second-highest corporate tax rate, the actual taxes paid by corporations are falling because of the growing number of loopholes and companies shifting profits to tax havens like the Cayman Islands.

Um, they shift profits away from the U.S. precisely because of the high tax rate.  Next up: crime rates fall despite rising prison populations!

Corporations decide whether to make investments (i.e., new product lines, new plant, more workers) based on how much profit they will make from the investment on an after-tax basis.  If the effective tax rate is higher, the corporation finds fewer investments profitable and thus makes fewer investments.  This is the simplest of the simple.  I am amazed this got into print. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 15, 2011, 01:11:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
I am amazed this got into print. 

Phil Rogers gets his material into print, so why are you surprised?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:27:05 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:11:00 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 11:29:33 AM
The third explanation, that people respond to incentives by avoiding taxes through the form of business organization chosen, does make some sense to me.  However, it's also a fact that corporations choose where to locate their investments on an after-tax basis, and the US features not only high statutory rates, but also high effective rates. (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/february/race-to-the-top-of-the-laffer-curve)  And I'd bet this is the larger effect.

http://www.techceocouncil.org/clientuploads/reports/Are_US_corporate_ETRs_low_20100202.pdf

QuoteAlthough the United States relies more heavily on corporate taxes to finance the cost of government than the average OECD country, corporate taxes as a share of U.S. GDP are below the OECD average. The share of corporate tax revenues in GDP is not, however, a reliable indicator of effective corporate tax rates, because the portion of business income earned by companies subject to corporate tax varies among countries. The United States has a substantially larger share of businesses that are not subject to corporate-level tax, especially big businesses, than other OECD countries.17 Over 80 percent of U.S. businesses in 2004 and more than half of business income reported in 2002 were organized as pass-through entities and not subject to corporate-level tax.18 As a result, the taxes paid by U.S. corporations as a share of corporate profits (i.e., the effective tax rate) can be relatively high (as found in the literature reviewed above) while, at the same time, corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP (which includes economic activity of corporations and unincorporated businesses) are relatively low.

And this...

Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

... all sounds good to me.

Tank, your point is that high corporate tax rates lead to avoidance of corporate taxes?  Then I guess I agree.  However, are you seriously arguing that lowering the corporate tax rate in the U.S. would not lead to more multinationals engaging in economic activity based in the U.S.?  That is pretty hard to believe.

Where did I argue that?

I have argued that the corporate tax rate is too high in the U.S. and that lowering it would lead to more job creation.  You responded with this stuff about corporations vs. noncorporations in the U.S.  I took that to mean that you were trying to rebut my argument somehow.  Are you not?

I guess I'm just pointing out that the OMGHIGHESTCORPORATETAXRATEEVER is, in practice, offset to a certain extent by greater flexibility in how economic activity is taxed in this country.

That said, I'm not in principle against lowering the statutory rate. I think this is implied in my agreeing with RV's view as quoted above.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 03:06:14 PM
Related:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-ten-tax-charts/

(Via Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/tax-facts/). Morphbutthurt: engage.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 03:25:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 03:06:14 PM
Related:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-ten-tax-charts/

(Via Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/tax-facts/). Morphbutthurt: engage.)

Krugman stopped being relevant to economic discussion once W was elected, at the latest.  And the CBPP : blah blah ridiculous comparisons of statistical brackets that say nothing about what actually happened to real people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
DPD.  Damnit, I should know better.

(http://i.imgur.com/wGmTk.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 03:25:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 03:06:14 PM
Related:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-ten-tax-charts/

(Via Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/tax-facts/). Morphbutthurt: engage.)

Krugman stopped being relevant to economic discussion once W was elected, at the latest.  And the CBPP : blah blah ridiculous comparisons of statistical brackets that say nothing about what actually happened to real people.

At least you're not given to resorting to ad hominems or anything.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 03:39:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 03:25:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 15, 2011, 03:06:14 PM
Related:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/top-ten-tax-charts/

(Via Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/tax-facts/). Morphbutthurt: engage.)

Krugman stopped being relevant to economic discussion once W was elected, at the latest.  And the CBPP : blah blah ridiculous comparisons of statistical brackets that say nothing about what actually happened to real people.

At least you're not given to resorting to ad hominems or anything.

If it works for Krugman...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on April 15, 2011, 03:41:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
DPD.  Damnit, I should know better.

(http://i.imgur.com/wGmTk.jpg)

Leave Gil out of this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 03:45:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on April 15, 2011, 03:41:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 03:30:33 PM
DPD.  Damnit, I should know better.

(http://i.imgur.com/wGmTk.jpg)

Leave Gil out of this.

Game.  Changed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 15, 2011, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
  I get it, Paulson made NINE BILLION DOLLARS over two years AND DIDN'T PAY INCOME TAX!!!  OH, THE HUMANITY!  Well, guess what: he doesn't really have that $9B.  It's still in his hedge fund and it could drop to zero tomorrow.  If he pulls it out, then he gets taxed on it.  But why should he get taxed on an unrealized investment?  Someone who buys a stock doesn't pay taxes on the gains until he sells the stock.  This is no different.


I hate it when you are right.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on April 15, 2011, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: CBStew on April 15, 2011, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
  I get it, Paulson made NINE BILLION DOLLARS over two years AND DIDN'T PAY INCOME TAX!!!  OH, THE HUMANITY!  Well, guess what: he doesn't really have that $9B.  It's still in his hedge fund and it could drop to zero tomorrow.  If he pulls it out, then he gets taxed on it.  But why should he get taxed on an unrealized investment?  Someone who buys a stock doesn't pay taxes on the gains until he sells the stock.  This is no different.


I hate it when you are right.

Of course when he does pull it out, he gets taxed at 15% instead of 35% as his 'carry' is considered capital gain, so he 'saved' a cool 1.8 Billion (and Morph, I bet you he would had made the trades to earn a measly 6B instead of 7.8
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 16, 2011, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on April 15, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
Quote from: Eli on April 14, 2011, 07:27:13 PM
This article mostly makes sense to me, but I'd invite Morph to tell me why it's wrong:

http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/9-things-the-rich-dont-want-you-to-know-about-taxes/Story?oid=3971382

The more of this I read, the worse it gets.  I will first note that it does make a good point, that the poor pay more in taxes than are often ascribed to them.  Credit where credit's due.  However, the author clearly has no idea what he's talking about in point #4.  Is he arguing that someone who has invested in a hedge fund should somehow pay taxes on unrealized gains?  I get it, Paulson made NINE BILLION DOLLARS over two years AND DIDN'T PAY INCOME TAX!!!  OH, THE HUMANITY!  Well, guess what: he doesn't really have that $9B.  It's still in his hedge fund and it could drop to zero tomorrow.  If he pulls it out, then he gets taxed on it.  But why should he get taxed on an unrealized investment?  Someone who buys a stock doesn't pay taxes on the gains until he sells the stock.  This is no different.

#7 is so unreadably illogical as to defy explanation. 
QuoteDespite all the noise that America has the world's second-highest corporate tax rate, the actual taxes paid by corporations are falling because of the growing number of loopholes and companies shifting profits to tax havens like the Cayman Islands.

Um, they shift profits away from the U.S. precisely because of the high tax rate.  Next up: crime rates fall despite rising prison populations!

Corporations decide whether to make investments (i.e., new product lines, new plant, more workers) based on how much profit they will make from the investment on an after-tax basis.  If the effective tax rate is higher, the corporation finds fewer investments profitable and thus makes fewer investments.  This is the simplest of the simple.  I am amazed this got into print. 

Of course, with loopholes big enough to sail the Titanic through, you could cut the rate down to 1% and it wouldn't matter, because it's still not as good as 0.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on April 18, 2011, 06:40:10 PM
Arizona, leading the league in intolerance.  (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/04/jan_brewer_makes_it_official_a.php)

Quote
It's official: the state of Arizona would "prefer" you not be a gay if you want to adopt a kid.

Governor Jan Brewer today signed a bill into law that makes it as difficult as humanly possible for gay people to adopt children in Arizona.

The new law doesn't necessarily say homosexuals can't adopt kids -- but it states that Arizona would prefer that married couples be given higher consideration for adoptions than non-married people, if all other factors are equal.

In other words, since homosexuals aren't allowed to tie the knot in Arizona -- yet -- they would lose out to heterosexual married couples every time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 19, 2011, 12:18:24 PM

Birthers even too crazy for Jan Brewer (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/18/arizona.president.bill.veto/index.html?hpt=T2).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 19, 2011, 01:54:29 PM
Quote from: Fork on April 19, 2011, 12:18:24 PM

Birthers even too crazy for Jan Brewer (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/18/arizona.president.bill.veto/index.html?hpt=T2).

"As a former Secretary of State, I do not support designating one person as a gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically-motivated decisions," the governor wrote in a letter addressed to the Arizona House speaker.

  I understand that the legislation would have accepted a certificate of circumcision as an alternative.  Female candidates for president were gearing up for an equal protection challenge to the legislation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 25, 2011, 09:44:24 AM
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/74774683/pocket-guide-to-hells-haymarket-reenactment-0

QuoteTo honor the 125th anniversary of the Haymarket Affair, a full-scale Reenactment will be staged on the original site, near the corner of Randolph and Desplaines. We will remember the 16 men and countless others, workers and police, who were present that day but whose identities will never be known. Organized by Paul Durica's Pocket Guide to Hell in partnership with the Illinois Labor History Society, Version Festival, and the Haymarket Pub and Brewery, the Haymarket Reenactment will draw groups from across the city to commemorate the past and to celebrate work being done in the present.

Like a Civil War reenactment, the Haymarket Reenactment will have period props, costumes, and people playing specific roles -- all right in the center of the city. Tim Samuelson (cultural historian) and Alma Washington (actress and activist) will help tell the story for the spectators, who will also play the people gathered around the speakers' wagon that night in May. Jon Langford will sing "Annie Laurie" as Albert Parsons did, the night before he was executed. Music will be provided by Environmental Encroachment, the magic circus marching band, and Haymarket Pub and Brewery will host the afterparty.

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=216565131692413
http://pocketguidetohell.tumblr.com/post/4461776418/paul-durica-of-pocket-guide-to-hell-tours-in

(http://i.imgur.com/hNNgw.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 25, 2011, 10:52:44 AM
But if they're forced to shop at Goodwill, won't that just leave them with more money to buy t-bones and Cadillacs?

http://news.michiganradio.org/post/plan-would-require-foster-children-shop-clothing-thrift-stores
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 25, 2011, 11:17:38 AM
DPD, but I wanted to warn any Desipiot with a Casio F91W to get rid of it ASAP or you may end up at Gitmo with the other Casio Supervillains

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/04/wikileaks-the-uses-of-guantanamo.html#ixzz1KXmeYl6s
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 25, 2011, 05:13:00 PM
It's all about small government, people.  Small enough to fit into people's bedrooms. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110425/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_transgender_marriage)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 26, 2011, 10:32:51 AM
The NLRB is coming after you, Pen (and South Dakota too). (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/NY/20110426/ZNYT01/104263032/1291/news100?p=1&tc=pg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 26, 2011, 10:06:26 PM
Could someone explain to me why this (http://baselinescenario.com/2011/04/26/3-billion-banks/) is wrong?

QuoteIn a new Feature** in the Yale Law Journal, Macey, along with James P. Holdcroft, Jr., argues that banks should be broken up into pieces no bigger than $3 billion. According to Macey and Holdcroft, the basic problem is that the government cannot credibly commit not to bail out too-big-to-fail banks in a crisis. Or, more precisely, the only way it can commit not to bail out TBTF banks is to break those banks up before the crisis hits. Their proposed limit is 5 percent of the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund, which itself is 1.15 percent of total insured deposits, so the limit would work out to $3 billion as of 2010. (Actually, that limit would apply to bank liabilities, so you could have a bank of any size you wanted, as long as the rest of its capital was equity.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 26, 2011, 10:27:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 26, 2011, 10:06:26 PM
Could someone explain to me why this (http://baselinescenario.com/2011/04/26/3-billion-banks/) is wrong?

QuoteIn a new Feature** in the Yale Law Journal, Macey, along with James P. Holdcroft, Jr., argues that banks should be broken up into pieces no bigger than $3 billion. According to Macey and Holdcroft, the basic problem is that the government cannot credibly commit not to bail out too-big-to-fail banks in a crisis. Or, more precisely, the only way it can commit not to bail out TBTF banks is to break those banks up before the crisis hits. Their proposed limit is 5 percent of the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund, which itself is 1.15 percent of total insured deposits, so the limit would work out to $3 billion as of 2010. (Actually, that limit would apply to bank liabilities, so you could have a bank of any size you wanted, as long as the rest of its capital was equity.)

Because banks would either have to be not for profit or charge 20% on loans to get a decent ROE.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 27, 2011, 08:44:23 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 26, 2011, 10:27:39 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 26, 2011, 10:06:26 PM
Could someone explain to me why this (http://baselinescenario.com/2011/04/26/3-billion-banks/) is wrong?

QuoteIn a new Feature** in the Yale Law Journal, Macey, along with James P. Holdcroft, Jr., argues that banks should be broken up into pieces no bigger than $3 billion. According to Macey and Holdcroft, the basic problem is that the government cannot credibly commit not to bail out too-big-to-fail banks in a crisis. Or, more precisely, the only way it can commit not to bail out TBTF banks is to break those banks up before the crisis hits. Their proposed limit is 5 percent of the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund, which itself is 1.15 percent of total insured deposits, so the limit would work out to $3 billion as of 2010. (Actually, that limit would apply to bank liabilities, so you could have a bank of any size you wanted, as long as the rest of its capital was equity.)

Because banks would either have to be not for profit or charge 20% on loans to get a decent ROE.

Just the answer I'd expect from someone in the pocket of Big Jew.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2011, 09:02:01 AM
Another point:

Limiting banks to $3 million billion in assets would be akin to saying McDonalds is too big and that each restaurant has to be a separate company about the size of Hot Doug's.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 27, 2011, 09:02:37 AM
Keynan Muslim Atheist Socialist?  Well, yeah.  But he was born in the USA. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate)  Now can we get on to the abundant avenues of legitimate criticism and away from all this conspiracy shit?

Spoiler: Probably not.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 27, 2011, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2011, 09:02:01 AM
Another point:

Limiting banks to $3 million in assets would be akin to saying McDonalds is too big and that each restaurant has to be a separate company about the size of Hot Doug's.

It's $3 billion in liabilities, not $3 million in assets. And the point is that with the monolithic banks we have today, and the implicit permanent bailout they enjoy, their incentive is to take on more risk than the bank would without said implicit bailout. Is a hard limit like this the answer? I don't know. But something should be done to change the incentives.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 27, 2011, 09:24:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 27, 2011, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2011, 09:02:01 AM
Another point:

Limiting banks to $3 million in assets would be akin to saying McDonalds is too big and that each restaurant has to be a separate company about the size of Hot Doug's.

It's $3 billion in liabilities, not $3 million in assets. And the point is that with the monolithic banks we have today, and the implicit permanent bailout they enjoy, their incentive is to take on more risk than the bank would without said implicit bailout. Is a hard limit like this the answer? I don't know. But something should be done to change the incentives.

Rather than imposing a hard limit, perhaps we should change the role of the FDIC and the government, and better align the incentives of the banks, by having them self-insure.  Here's one possible way to do it: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb_83.pdf

QuoteThis brief by Konstas outlines a plan to reduce the risk of government losses by replacing insured deposits with uninsured deposits and eliminating some of the costs of deposit insurance.His plan proposes a self-insured (SI) depositor system that places an intermediary between the lender (saver) and borrower (bank) in the credit-flow chain. The FDIC would guarantee saver loans and allow the intermediary to borrow at the risk-free interest rate if the intermediary's bank deposit is statutorily defined outside the realm of FDIC insurance. The risk is therefore transferred to depositors (intermediaries); thus creating incentives for depositors to earn a rate of return at least equal to the cost of borrowing plus a risk premium based on the risk profile of banks.

Konstas's plan uses the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) as a financial model but replaces the Office of Finance (OF) with a Self-Insured Depositors' Financing Office (SIDFO). His plan creates additional advantages, such as maximum funding efficiency (e.g., economies of scale), and there is virtually no risk of loss for the U.S. government. The shift of guarantees from bank debt to SIDFO debt would dramatically decrease the FDIC's odds of losses from bank failures.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 27, 2011, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2011, 09:02:37 AM
Keynan Muslim Atheist Socialist?  Well, yeah.  But he was born in the USA. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate)  Now can we get on to the abundant avenues of legitimate criticism and away from all this conspiracy shit?

Spoiler: Probably not.

Huey's favorite sensible moderate...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53802.html

QuoteTrump began his trip to New Hampshire with a victory lap over Obama's release of his birth certificate.

"I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," he said. "I want to look at it, but I hope it's true so we can get onto much more important matters so the press can stop asking me questions."

He added, "I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue."

"I'm taking great credit," he said, calling it "rather amazing" that it "suddenly materializes."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 27, 2011, 09:51:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on April 27, 2011, 09:08:44 AM

It's $3 billion in liabilities, not $3 million in assets.

I know.  Typo on my part.

QuoteAnd the point is that with the monolithic banks we have today, and the implicit permanent bailout they enjoy, their incentive is to take on more risk than the bank would without said implicit bailout. Is a hard limit like this the answer? I don't know. But something should be done to change the incentives.

Perhaps.  My point was that the $3 billion limit is far too low.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 27, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 27, 2011, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2011, 09:02:37 AM
Keynan Muslim Atheist Socialist?  Well, yeah.  But he was born in the USA. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate)  Now can we get on to the abundant avenues of legitimate criticism and away from all this conspiracy shit?

Spoiler: Probably not.

Huey's favorite sensible moderate...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53802.html

QuoteTrump began his trip to New Hampshire with a victory lap over Obama's release of his birth certificate.

"I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," he said. "I want to look at it, but I hope it's true so we can get onto much more important matters so the press can stop asking me questions."

He added, "I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue."

"I'm taking great credit," he said, calling it "rather amazing" that it "suddenly materializes."

I'm awaiting comment from Luke Scott.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on April 27, 2011, 11:26:46 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 27, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 27, 2011, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2011, 09:02:37 AM
Keynan Muslim Atheist Socialist?  Well, yeah.  But he was born in the USA. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate)  Now can we get on to the abundant avenues of legitimate criticism and away from all this conspiracy shit?

Spoiler: Probably not.

Huey's favorite sensible moderate...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53802.html

QuoteTrump began his trip to New Hampshire with a victory lap over Obama's release of his birth certificate.

"I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," he said. "I want to look at it, but I hope it's true so we can get onto much more important matters so the press can stop asking me questions."

He added, "I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue."

"I'm taking great credit," he said, calling it "rather amazing" that it "suddenly materializes."

I'm awaiting comment from Luke Scott.

He's at the store, stocking up on banana chips. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=6395744)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 27, 2011, 12:21:12 PM
I am disappointed that Obama disclosed his circumcision document.  Because of gas prices I have fewer discretionary dollars to spend on entertainment.  This was free laughs. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 01, 2011, 10:13:05 PM
8 years ago today.

(http://www.newsgroper.com/files/post_images/mission_accomplished.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 02, 2011, 08:58:00 AM
Anyone looking at Osama's death through political goggles deserves to be thumbed in the donghole.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:00:47 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 02, 2011, 08:58:00 AM
Anyone looking at Osama's death through political goggles deserves to be thumbed in the donghole.

THI.

Those who just chalked up 2012 for anybody need to be reminded about how this whole 24-Hour News Cycle thing works.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 02, 2011, 09:06:59 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:00:47 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 02, 2011, 08:58:00 AM
Anyone looking at Osama's death through political goggles deserves to be thumbed in the donghole.

THI.

Those who just chalked up 2012 for anybody need to be reminded about how this whole 24-Hour News Cycle thing works.

And I think it's a tad offensive to the bad dudes who actually took out Osama to heap all the praise on Obama.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 02, 2011, 09:10:03 AM
My one political prediction from this: Leon Panetta's confirmation hearings are gonna be a breeze.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 02, 2011, 09:12:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 02, 2011, 09:06:59 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:00:47 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 02, 2011, 08:58:00 AM
Anyone looking at Osama's death through political goggles deserves to be thumbed in the donghole.

THI.

Those who just chalked up 2012 for anybody need to be reminded about how this whole 24-Hour News Cycle thing works.

And I think it's a tad offensive to the bad dudes who actually took out Osama to heap all the praise on Obama.

Once Obama took office, and announced a reprioritization toward Afghanistan and Bin Laden, the "Obama's War" talking point got quite a bit of mileage.

If people want to get pissy now because shit didn't go sideways, them's the breaks.

Perhaps they would have preferred a carrier landing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:26:03 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 02, 2011, 09:06:59 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:00:47 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 02, 2011, 08:58:00 AM
Anyone looking at Osama's death through political goggles deserves to be thumbed in the donghole.

THI.

Those who just chalked up 2012 for anybody need to be reminded about how this whole 24-Hour News Cycle thing works.

And I think it's a tad offensive to the bad dudes who actually took out Osama to heap all the praise on Obama.

Seriously.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
That said, I laughed...

(http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:36:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
That said, I laughed...

(http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg)

Really, Tank?

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7779.15
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:38:57 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:36:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
That said, I laughed...

(http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg)

Really, Tank?

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7779.15

I haven't made it that far yet.

I want to savor that thread like Kobe beef.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 02, 2011, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:38:57 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:36:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
That said, I laughed...

(http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg)

Really, Tank?

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7779.15

I haven't made it that far yet.

I want to savor that thread like Kobe's beef.

(||)'d
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:44:39 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:38:57 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:36:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
That said, I laughed...

(http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg)

Really, Tank?

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7779.15

I haven't made it that far yet.

I want to savor that thread like Kobe beef.

Well, shit... Way to ruin a perfectly good bloodlust thread, guys.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:48:22 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:44:39 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:38:57 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 02, 2011, 09:36:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 09:34:42 AM
That said, I laughed...

(http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg)

Really, Tank?

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7779.15

I haven't made it that far yet.

I want to savor that thread like Kobe beef.

Well, shit... Way to ruin a perfectly good bloodlust thread, guys.

It's almost as if the Twatheads thread didn't exist and the terrorists were allowed to win for several hours after Osama got a rocket fed to him. DID Y'ALL NOT GET THE MEMO!!!!

David Axelrod gloating on WGN a few seconds ago didn't sit well either.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 10:07:47 AM
FWIW, I lean towards the flannj/Wheezer/Gil camp inasmuch as I found the style of celebration last night a bit disquieting at times.

Much of what I saw in footage from DC struck me as little more than a bunch of college kids doing the same exact thing college kids do when their team wins (or loses) a major championship.

But, in the end, I decided that it's not my place to tell other people how to experience this.

10 years ago we were cold cocked and solemn. And, while more solemnity is what seemed proper to me last night, there's something to be said for celebratory catharsis, too.

Also: fuck that guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 10:16:27 AM
Nothing, however, excuses Gil and CFiHP for gumming up that thread with a discussion of "Star Trek: Enterprise."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on May 02, 2011, 10:26:56 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 10:07:47 AM
FWIW, I lean towards the flannj/Wheezer/Gil camp inasmuch as I found the style of celebration last night a bit disquieting at times.

Much of what I saw in footage from DC struck me as little more than a bunch of college kids doing the same exact thing college kids do when their team wins (or loses) a major championship.

But, in the end, I decided that it's not my place to tell other people how to experience this.

10 years ago we were cold cocked and solemn. And, while more solemnity is what seemed proper to me last night, there's something to be said for celebratory catharsis, too.

Also: fuck that guy.

Despite my cold water throwing, how could anybody not get a lump in their throat during the National Anthem at the United Center tonight?

(THIS to Slak in the other thread)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 02, 2011, 10:35:22 AM
Quote from: flannj on May 02, 2011, 10:26:56 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 10:07:47 AM
FWIW, I lean towards the flannj/Wheezer/Gil camp inasmuch as I found the style of celebration last night a bit disquieting at times.

Much of what I saw in footage from DC struck me as little more than a bunch of college kids doing the same exact thing college kids do when their team wins (or loses) a major championship.

But, in the end, I decided that it's not my place to tell other people how to experience this.

10 years ago we were cold cocked and solemn. And, while more solemnity is what seemed proper to me last night, there's something to be said for celebratory catharsis, too.

Also: fuck that guy.

Despite my cold water throwing, how could anybody not get a lump in their throat during the National Anthem at the United Center tonight?

(THIS to Slak in the other thread)

Especially now that it's confirmed that Jim Cornelison is going to be singing it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tony on May 02, 2011, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 10:07:47 AM
FWIW, I lean towards the flannj/Wheezer/Gil camp inasmuch as I found the style of celebration last night a bit disquieting at times.

Much of what I saw in footage from DC struck me as little more than a bunch of college kids doing the same exact thing college kids do when their team wins (or loses) a major championship.

But, in the end, I decided that it's not my place to tell other people how to experience this.

10 years ago we were cold cocked and solemn. And, while more solemnity is what seemed proper to me last night, there's something to be said for celebratory catharsis, too.

Also: fuck that guy.

I agree. I understand the desire to gather in one place and wave a flag, but the beach balls and champagne seem a little over the top. And it did seem like celebrating a win, but we didn't really win anything.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 02, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 02, 2011, 10:35:22 AM
Quote from: flannj on May 02, 2011, 10:26:56 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 10:07:47 AM
FWIW, I lean towards the flannj/Wheezer/Gil camp inasmuch as I found the style of celebration last night a bit disquieting at times.

Much of what I saw in footage from DC struck me as little more than a bunch of college kids doing the same exact thing college kids do when their team wins (or loses) a major championship.

But, in the end, I decided that it's not my place to tell other people how to experience this.

10 years ago we were cold cocked and solemn. And, while more solemnity is what seemed proper to me last night, there's something to be said for celebratory catharsis, too.

Also: fuck that guy.

Despite my cold water throwing, how could anybody not get a lump in their throat during the National Anthem at the United Center tonight?

(THIS to Slak in the other thread)

Especially now that it's confirmed that Jim Cornelison is going to be singing it.

Wow.  That's pretty cool, I must admit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 12:32:23 PM
On our internet assholes and theirs...

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/bin-laden-dead-jihadi-right-wing-reaction
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 02, 2011, 01:06:32 PM
Losers who care about tax policy may find this interesting:

http://finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/030811%20mg%20test.pdf

I've never heard of the guy giving the testimony, but he's got one hell of a beard.

(http://www.law.yale.edu/images/Faculty/graetz_michael.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on May 02, 2011, 01:43:49 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 02, 2011, 10:07:47 AM
FWIW, I lean towards the flannj/Wheezer/Gil camp inasmuch as I found the style of celebration last night a bit disquieting at times.

Much of what I saw in footage from DC struck me as little more than a bunch of college kids doing the same exact thing college kids do when their team wins (or loses) a major championship.

But, in the end, I decided that it's not my place to tell other people how to experience this.

10 years ago we were cold cocked and solemn. And, while more solemnity is what seemed proper to me last night, there's something to be said for celebratory catharsis, too.

Also: fuck that guy.

Might be worth noting that the people celebrating around the White House mostly were college aged (as GWU is a few blocks from there), so they were only 8-10 when OBL's hide n'seek game began, so it is a bit different to them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 02, 2011, 01:47:53 PM

I'm guessing at least one of those Chads used "I lost my [insert relative] on 9/11" card to score some tail.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on May 02, 2011, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 02, 2011, 01:47:53 PM

I'm guessing at least one of those Chads used "I lost my [insert relative] on 9/11 in the Spanish American War" card to score some tail.

Fork would know
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 03, 2011, 08:43:43 AM
Quote from: thehawk on May 02, 2011, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 02, 2011, 01:47:53 PM

I'm guessing at least one of those Chads used "I lost my [insert relative] on 9/11 in the Spanish American War" card to score some tail.

Fork would know

I called that move the "Rough Rider".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 03, 2011, 08:45:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 03, 2011, 08:43:43 AM
Quote from: thehawk on May 02, 2011, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 02, 2011, 01:47:53 PM

I'm guessing at least one of those Chads used "I lost my [insert relative] on 9/11 in the Spanish American War" card to score some tail.

Fork would know

I called that move the "Rough Rider".

Great. Now SKO is going to shoehorn in a CFL discussion.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 03, 2011, 08:50:22 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 03, 2011, 08:45:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 03, 2011, 08:43:43 AM
Quote from: thehawk on May 02, 2011, 07:11:09 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 02, 2011, 01:47:53 PM

I'm guessing at least one of those Chads used "I lost my [insert relative] on 9/11 in the Spanish American War" card to score some tail.

Fork would know

I called that move the "Rough Rider".

Great. Now SKO is going to shoehorn in a CFL discussion.

God damn Rough Riders. Smilin' Hank will have his revenge this year, Darian Durant!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 03, 2011, 08:58:34 AM
Don't believe these have been posted yet, a couple good rundowns from pinko rags.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/the-secret-team-that-killed-bin-laden-20110502

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html?hp
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 03, 2011, 09:15:19 AM

Before the "Obama continued Bush policy" talking point gets rolling too fast (http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-tells-reporter-getting-bin-laden.html)...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 03, 2011, 09:26:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 03, 2011, 09:15:19 AM

Before the "Obama continued Bush policy" talking point gets rolling too fast (http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-tells-reporter-getting-bin-laden.html)...

... So Obama did a backflip out of a helicopter with a Desert Eagle in both hands and put a bullet in both of OBL's eyes. He said some heartless shit to him before he dumped him off the boat too. Something like, "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by inequeties of the selfish and tyranny of evil men..."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 03, 2011, 09:58:31 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 03, 2011, 09:26:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 03, 2011, 09:15:19 AM

Before the "Obama continued Bush policy" talking point gets rolling too fast (http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2006/09/bush-tells-reporter-getting-bin-laden.html)...

... So Obama did a backflip out of a helicopter with a Desert Eagle in both hands and put a bullet in both of OBL's eyes. He said some heartless shit to him before he dumped him off the boat too. Something like, "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by inequeties of the selfish and tyranny of evil men'MERICA - FUCK YEAH!!!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
This (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile) sounds like a truly awful, awful idea.  I hope it never gets out of "draft" format.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 05, 2011, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
This (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile) sounds like a truly awful, awful idea.  I hope it never gets out of "draft" format.

That. We don't need an "alternative source of funding for surface transportation" - we already have a system in place. It's called the gas tax. If you want to raise more money for transportation, raise the gas tax. From a pigouvian standpoint the gas tax is one of the best taxes we have - it's got a built-in INCENTIVE for drivers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 05, 2011, 09:59:25 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
This (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile) sounds like a truly awful, awful idea.  I hope it never gets out of "draft" format.

Yeah, that's bad.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 10:11:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 05, 2011, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
This (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile) sounds like a truly awful, awful idea.  I hope it never gets out of "draft" format.

That. We don't need an "alternative source of funding for surface transportation" - we already have a system in place. It's called the gas tax. If you want to raise more money for transportation, raise the gas tax. From a pigouvian standpoint the gas tax is one of the best taxes we have - it's got a built-in INCENTIVE for drivers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

I can't help but wonder if they were looking at the rise in the use of fuel-efficient vehicles as well as reduced demand due to high gas prices and thinking, hey, we need to replace all that "lost" revenue somehow!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on May 05, 2011, 10:20:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 10:11:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 05, 2011, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
This (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile) sounds like a truly awful, awful idea.  I hope it never gets out of "draft" format.

That. We don't need an "alternative source of funding for surface transportation" - we already have a system in place. It's called the gas tax. If you want to raise more money for transportation, raise the gas tax. From a pigouvian standpoint the gas tax is one of the best taxes we have - it's got a built-in INCENTIVE for drivers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

I can't help but wonder if they were looking at the rise in the use of fuel-efficient vehicles as well as reduced demand due to high gas prices and thinking, hey, we need to replace all that "lost" revenue somehow!

Why do it by the mile? They should do it for time in the car, so people who sit in traffic not only have a miserable commute, but pay extra for it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 05, 2011, 10:32:25 AM
Quote from: BH on May 05, 2011, 10:20:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 10:11:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 05, 2011, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
This (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile) sounds like a truly awful, awful idea.  I hope it never gets out of "draft" format.

That. We don't need an "alternative source of funding for surface transportation" - we already have a system in place. It's called the gas tax. If you want to raise more money for transportation, raise the gas tax. From a pigouvian standpoint the gas tax is one of the best taxes we have - it's got a built-in INCENTIVE for drivers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

I can't help but wonder if they were looking at the rise in the use of fuel-efficient vehicles as well as reduced demand due to high gas prices and thinking, hey, we need to replace all that "lost" revenue somehow!

Why do it by the mile? They should do it for time in the car, so people who sit in traffic not only have a miserable commute, but pay extra for it.

I bet if they figure out the biometry, they can start taxing us based on how much air we use. You want to pay for more public works? Don't hold your breath.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 05, 2011, 11:30:38 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 05, 2011, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
This (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile) sounds like a truly awful, awful idea.  I hope it never gets out of "draft" format.

That. We don't need an "alternative source of funding for surface transportation" - we already have a system in place. It's called the gas tax. If you want to raise more money for transportation, raise the gas tax. From a pigouvian standpoint the gas tax is one of the best taxes we have - it's got a built-in INCENTIVE for drivers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

Plus, it's pretty pure. The roads are paid for by those who use them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on May 05, 2011, 03:30:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 27, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 27, 2011, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2011, 09:02:37 AM
Keynan Muslim Atheist Socialist?  Well, yeah.  But he was born in the USA. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate)  Now can we get on to the abundant avenues of legitimate criticism and away from all this conspiracy shit?

Spoiler: Probably not.

Huey's favorite sensible moderate...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53802.html

QuoteTrump began his trip to New Hampshire with a victory lap over Obama's release of his birth certificate.

"I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," he said. "I want to look at it, but I hope it's true so we can get onto much more important matters so the press can stop asking me questions."

He added, "I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue."

"I'm taking great credit," he said, calling it "rather amazing" that it "suddenly materializes."

I'm awaiting comment from Luke Scott.

Well, here you go. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/luke-scott-obama-birth-certificate_n_857640.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 05, 2011, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: PenPho on May 05, 2011, 03:30:09 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 27, 2011, 10:16:57 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 27, 2011, 09:49:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2011, 09:02:37 AM
Keynan Muslim Atheist Socialist?  Well, yeah.  But he was born in the USA. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110427/ts_yblog_theticket/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate)  Now can we get on to the abundant avenues of legitimate criticism and away from all this conspiracy shit?

Spoiler: Probably not.

Huey's favorite sensible moderate...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53802.html

QuoteTrump began his trip to New Hampshire with a victory lap over Obama's release of his birth certificate.

"I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," he said. "I want to look at it, but I hope it's true so we can get onto much more important matters so the press can stop asking me questions."

He added, "I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue."

"I'm taking great credit," he said, calling it "rather amazing" that it "suddenly materializes."

I'm awaiting comment from Luke Scott.

Well, here you go. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/luke-scott-obama-birth-certificate_n_857640.html)

It's glorious.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 05, 2011, 03:37:16 PM
This was also glorious:

http://twitter.com/#!/pgammo/status/65973340048859137 (http://twitter.com/#!/pgammo/status/65973340048859137)

QuoteRT @pgammo Luke Scott's ops plus is now double his IQ
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 05, 2011, 03:43:15 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 05, 2011, 03:37:16 PM
This was also glorious:

http://twitter.com/#!/pgammo/status/65973340048859137 (http://twitter.com/#!/pgammo/status/65973340048859137)

QuoteRT @pgammo Luke Scott's ops plus is now double his IQ

Wow.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 05, 2011, 09:05:13 PM
TEC's former governor seems like a straight-shooter tonight.

Also, fuck all of them for the attack on the NLRB's Boeing complaint.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on May 05, 2011, 10:02:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 05, 2011, 09:05:13 PM
TEC's former governor seems like a straight-shooter tonight.

he's here to put the common sense back in government. 

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 05, 2011, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 05, 2011, 10:32:25 AM
Quote from: BH on May 05, 2011, 10:20:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 10:11:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 05, 2011, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2011, 09:46:42 AM
This (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile) sounds like a truly awful, awful idea.  I hope it never gets out of "draft" format.

That. We don't need an "alternative source of funding for surface transportation" - we already have a system in place. It's called the gas tax. If you want to raise more money for transportation, raise the gas tax. From a pigouvian standpoint the gas tax is one of the best taxes we have - it's got a built-in INCENTIVE for drivers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles.

I can't help but wonder if they were looking at the rise in the use of fuel-efficient vehicles as well as reduced demand due to high gas prices and thinking, hey, we need to replace all that "lost" revenue somehow!

Why do it by the mile? They should do it for time in the car, so people who sit in traffic not only have a miserable commute, but pay extra for it.

I bet if they figure out the biometry, they can start taxing us based on how much air helium we use. You want to pay for more public works? Don't hold your breath.

Get it together, man.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 09, 2011, 10:29:37 PM
Jesus Christ, I just heard Joe Morris assert that the "Arab spring" is the sand-nigger version of the "Tea Party." Thanks for silently chugging that dong, Milt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 10, 2011, 08:41:24 AM
Can we all agree that this (http://blogs.forbes.com/charleskadlec/2011/05/09/obamas-nixonian-enemies-list-on-steroids/) is a terrible idea?

Bonus: Gil pokestick at the end.  Although I guess one could argue that with his mouthful of Obamadong, the whole article is a Gil pokestick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 10, 2011, 08:54:18 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2011, 08:41:24 AM
Can we all agree that this (http://blogs.forbes.com/charleskadlec/2011/05/09/obamas-nixonian-enemies-list-on-steroids/) is a terrible idea?

Bonus: Gil pokestick at the end.  Although I guess one could argue that with his mouthful of Obamadong, the whole article is a Gil pokestick.

I understand wanting to reverse the disaster that is Citizens United, but this isn't the way to do it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2011, 09:21:42 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2011, 08:41:24 AM
Can we all agree that this (http://blogs.forbes.com/charleskadlec/2011/05/09/obamas-nixonian-enemies-list-on-steroids/) is a terrible idea?

Bonus: Gil pokestick at the end.  Although I guess one could argue that with his mouthful of Obamadong, the whole article is a Gil pokestick.

Needs more clowns...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 10, 2011, 09:25:53 AM
To be fair, almost everything I've done for the past two years has been more-or-less a Gil pokestick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 10, 2011, 09:59:40 AM
This seemed like the right thread to post this in.

(http://i.imgur.com/f2XTN.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 10, 2011, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2011, 09:59:40 AM
This seemed like the right thread to post this in.

(http://i.imgur.com/f2XTN.jpg)

I'm mezmerized.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 10, 2011, 03:45:49 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 10, 2011, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2011, 09:59:40 AM
This seemed like the right thread to post this in.

(http://i.imgur.com/f2XTN.jpg)

I'm mezmerized.

If only Peter Potamus had made the cut.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2011, 05:20:03 PM
Hold on there, Lebron. (http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=10369)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2011, 06:35:34 PM
Newt's worst kept secret is now official. (http://bit.ly/kEbh7d)

"Gingrich 2012: He will always love America. Unless it gets cancer."

(h/t: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newt-campaign-slogan-open-thread/?)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 11, 2011, 09:07:11 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 11, 2011, 06:35:34 PM
Newt's worst kept secret is now official. (http://bit.ly/kEbh7d)

"Gingrich 2012: He will always love America. Unless it gets cancer."

(h/t: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/newt-campaign-slogan-open-thread/?)

I don't care what anyone says. No one will energize the GOP like Newt Gingrich.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2011, 01:47:52 PM
That sound you just heard was Gil spitting out Jon Huntsman's dong...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/17/quote_of_the_day.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 17, 2011, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2011, 01:47:52 PM
That sound you just heard was Gil spitting out Jon Huntsman's dong...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/17/quote_of_the_day.html

Huntsman never had a chance anyway.  Both in terms of the GOP nomination and in terms of fighting for Gil's mouthspace, as Obama's dong has staked a large claim.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:03:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 17, 2011, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2011, 01:47:52 PM
That sound you just heard was Gil spitting out Jon Huntsman's dong...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/17/quote_of_the_day.html

Huntsman never had a chance anyway.  Both in terms of the GOP nomination and in terms of fighting for Gil's mouthspace, as Obama's dong has staked a large claim.

He's the media's preferred candidate; I wouldn't write him off so flippantly, especially with Huckabee out and Gingrich imploding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:03:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 17, 2011, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2011, 01:47:52 PM
That sound you just heard was Gil spitting out Jon Huntsman's dong...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/17/quote_of_the_day.html

Huntsman never had a chance anyway.  Both in terms of the GOP nomination and in terms of fighting for Gil's mouthspace, as Obama's dong has staked a large claim.

He's the media's preferred candidate; I wouldn't write him off so flippantly, especially with Huckabee out and Gingrich imploding.

Ever since Gil went all Hollywood, he kowtows to the media.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:13:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:03:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 17, 2011, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2011, 01:47:52 PM
That sound you just heard was Gil spitting out Jon Huntsman's dong...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/17/quote_of_the_day.html

Huntsman never had a chance anyway.  Both in terms of the GOP nomination and in terms of fighting for Gil's mouthspace, as Obama's dong has staked a large claim.

He's the media's preferred candidate; I wouldn't write him off so flippantly, especially with Huckabee out and Gingrich imploding.

Ever since Gil went all Hollywood, he kowtows to the media.

..BIG HOLLYWOOD!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Also: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers/index.html

"Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history -- even more so than Nixon," - Gabriel Schoenfeld.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 17, 2011, 02:19:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Also: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers/index.html

"Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history -- even more so than Nixon," - Gabriel Schoenfeld.

Somewhere out there, Bort and his anarchist friends are discussing the hypocrisy of Obama and angrily lashing out at the people who say they can't complain because they didn't vote in an election between two candidates they hated.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2011, 02:19:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Also: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers/index.html

"Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history -- even more so than Nixon," - Gabriel Schoenfeld.

Somewhere out there, Bort and his anarchist friends are discussing the hypocrisy of Obama and angrily lashing out at the people who say they can't complain because they didn't vote in an election between two candidates they hated.

I can do it right here if you'd like...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 17, 2011, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2011, 02:19:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Also: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers/index.html

"Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history -- even more so than Nixon," - Gabriel Schoenfeld.

Somewhere out there, Bort and his anarchist friends are discussing the hypocrisy of Obama and angrily lashing out at the people who say they can't complain because they didn't vote in an election between two candidates they hated.

I can do it right here if you'd like...

How about in an hour or so?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 17, 2011, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2011, 02:19:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Also: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers/index.html

"Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history -- even more so than Nixon," - Gabriel Schoenfeld.

Somewhere out there, Bort and his anarchist friends are discussing the hypocrisy of Obama and angrily lashing out at the people who say they can't complain because they didn't vote in an election between two candidates they hated.

I can do it right here if you'd like...

How about in an hour or so?

Eh, I'm not going to do it here. I come here to say snarky things to other people, not be sincere.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 17, 2011, 02:50:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 17, 2011, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2011, 02:19:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Also: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers/index.html

"Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history -- even more so than Nixon," - Gabriel Schoenfeld.

Somewhere out there, Bort and his anarchist friends are discussing the hypocrisy of Obama and angrily lashing out at the people who say they can't complain because they didn't vote in an election between two candidates they hated.

I can do it right here if you'd like...

How about in an hour or so?

Eh, I'm not going to do it here. I come here to say snarky things to other people, not be sincere.

I'm in the process of seeing what you did there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:59:01 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 17, 2011, 02:50:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 17, 2011, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 17, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 17, 2011, 02:19:27 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Also: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/16/whistleblowers/index.html

"Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history -- even more so than Nixon," - Gabriel Schoenfeld.

Somewhere out there, Bort and his anarchist friends are discussing the hypocrisy of Obama and angrily lashing out at the people who say they can't complain because they didn't vote in an election between two candidates they hated.

I can do it right here if you'd like...

How about in an hour or so?

Eh, I'm not going to do it here. I come here to say snarky things to other people, not be sincere.

I'm in the process of seeing what you did there.

Let me know what you think in an hour or so.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 18, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
60%? (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23951148-strauss-kahn-faces-hiv-test-as-60-per-cent-in-france-believe-he-is-victim-of-plot.do)  That's more traction than Birthers or Truthers ever got.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 18, 2011, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 18, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
60%? (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23951148-strauss-kahn-faces-hiv-test-as-60-per-cent-in-france-believe-he-is-victim-of-plot.do)  That's more traction than Birthers or Truthers ever got.

I think the left and right in 'Merica agree that France is often prety stoopid.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 18, 2011, 06:42:44 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 18, 2011, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 18, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
60%? (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23951148-strauss-kahn-faces-hiv-test-as-60-per-cent-in-france-believe-he-is-victim-of-plot.do)  That's more traction than Birthers or Truthers ever got.

I think the left and right in 'Merica agree that France is often prety stoopid.

World class asshole Ben Stein is on board with the Free Strauss-Kahn movement...

http://www.inquisitr.com/107379/ben-stein-dominique-strauss-kahn-rape/

QuoteIn life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

Edit: Original here (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/17/presumed-innocent-anyone).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 18, 2011, 08:44:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 18, 2011, 06:42:44 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 18, 2011, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 18, 2011, 09:39:40 AM
60%? (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23951148-strauss-kahn-faces-hiv-test-as-60-per-cent-in-france-believe-he-is-victim-of-plot.do)  That's more traction than Birthers or Truthers ever got.

I think the left and right in 'Merica agree that France is often prety stoopid.

World class asshole Ben Stein is on board with the Free Strauss-Kahn movement...

http://www.inquisitr.com/107379/ben-stein-dominique-strauss-kahn-rape/

QuoteIn life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

Edit: Original here (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/17/presumed-innocent-anyone).

I thought he was supposed to be smart. That's the worst attempt at logic I've ever heard.

And someone quickly and easily dismissed his incoherent ramblings here (http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/05/18/answering-ben-steins-question/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 19, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 18, 2011, 06:42:44 PM

World class asshole Ben Stein is on board with the Free Strauss-Kahn movement...

http://www.inquisitr.com/107379/ben-stein-dominique-strauss-kahn-rape/

QuoteIn life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

Edit: Original here (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/17/presumed-innocent-anyone).

That is outstanding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on May 19, 2011, 10:32:00 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 19, 2011, 08:13:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 18, 2011, 06:42:44 PM

World class asshole Ben Stein is on board with the Free Strauss-Kahn movement...

http://www.inquisitr.com/107379/ben-stein-dominique-strauss-kahn-rape/

QuoteIn life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

Edit: Original here (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/17/presumed-innocent-anyone).

That is outstanding.

If only there was a series of tubes which contained historic  news articles where one could test such theories.
[This is what 45 sconds and typing 'economist sexual assault'found....]
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080201/NEWS/80201019

What would we call that series of tubes?  Mr. Stein?  Mr. Stein? Stein? Stein?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 19, 2011, 11:43:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lUMc7we5ks
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 19, 2011, 12:30:35 PM
The Onion wins, again (http://www.theonion.com/articles/fiscally-im-a-rightwing-nutjob-but-on-social-issue,20486/).

QuoteIt's not the government's job to pamper you and hold your hand unless you want funding for a massive public arts project that involves a giant pile of human feces shaped like the American flag, in which case nothing should stand in the way of your First Amendment rights.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 19, 2011, 12:49:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 18, 2011, 06:42:44 PM
World class asshole Ben Stein is on board with the Free Strauss-Kahn movement...

http://www.inquisitr.com/107379/ben-stein-dominique-strauss-kahn-rape/

QuoteIn life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category? Maybe Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty but if so, he is one of a kind, and criminals are not usually one of a kind.

Edit: Original here (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/17/presumed-innocent-anyone).

In my experience, people who are elected Chancellor of large European countries and then turn their positions into dictatorships, go to war with the rest of the world, and enslave and kill millions of persons based upon their religion or ethnicity, tend not to have been corporals in the German army during World War I. Therefore, since he was a corporal in the German army during World War I it is highly unlikely that Hitler was guilty of such events.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
Some light reading (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf) for morts:

QuoteWhile there is compelling U.S. evidence of strong behavioral responses to taxation at the upper end of the distribution around the main tax reform episodes since 1980, in all cases those responses [are related to] timing and avoidance. In contrast, there is no compelling evidence to date of real economic responses to tax rates....If behavioral responses to taxation are large in the current tax system, the best policy response would not be to lower tax rates, but instead broaden the tax base and eliminate avoidance opportunities to lower the size of behavioral responses.

In other words - a realistic description of the response of rich dudes to a rise in marginal tax rates is that they don't stop trying to make money - they just try and change how and when they make that money.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 20, 2011, 11:03:07 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
Some light reading (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf) for morts:

QuoteWhile there is compelling U.S. evidence of strong behavioral responses to taxation at the upper end of the distribution around the main tax reform episodes since 1980, in all cases those responses [are related to] timing and avoidance. In contrast, there is no compelling evidence to date of real economic responses to tax rates....If behavioral responses to taxation are large in the current tax system, the best policy response would not be to lower tax rates, but instead broaden the tax base and eliminate avoidance opportunities to lower the size of behavioral responses.

In other words - a realistic description of the response of rich dudes to a rise in marginal tax rates is that they don't stop trying to make money - they just try and change how and when they make that money.

Lower the rates and broaden the base. People won't stop trying to make money, but they might not take the risks they would with lower rates.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2011, 11:03:07 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
Some light reading (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf) for morts:

QuoteWhile there is compelling U.S. evidence of strong behavioral responses to taxation at the upper end of the distribution around the main tax reform episodes since 1980, in all cases those responses [are related to] timing and avoidance. In contrast, there is no compelling evidence to date of real economic responses to tax rates....If behavioral responses to taxation are large in the current tax system, the best policy response would not be to lower tax rates, but instead broaden the tax base and eliminate avoidance opportunities to lower the size of behavioral responses.

In other words - a realistic description of the response of rich dudes to a rise in marginal tax rates is that they don't stop trying to make money - they just try and change how and when they make that money.

Lower the rates and broaden the base. People won't stop trying to make money, but they might not take the risks they would with lower rates.

I concur.  10, 20, and 30.  No exemptions, no deductions.  Fair and progressive.  I think Congressional Republicans will insist that it be revenue-neutral, however, which would be counterproductive.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2011, 12:56:40 PM
Tea Party rally in South Carolina

(http://media.thestate.com/smedia/2011/05/19/20/teaparty_tg0131.standalone.prod_affiliate.74.jpg)


(h/t: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0511/Dept_of_low_turnout.html?showall)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 20, 2011, 01:01:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2011, 11:03:07 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
Some light reading (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf) for morts:

QuoteWhile there is compelling U.S. evidence of strong behavioral responses to taxation at the upper end of the distribution around the main tax reform episodes since 1980, in all cases those responses [are related to] timing and avoidance. In contrast, there is no compelling evidence to date of real economic responses to tax rates....If behavioral responses to taxation are large in the current tax system, the best policy response would not be to lower tax rates, but instead broaden the tax base and eliminate avoidance opportunities to lower the size of behavioral responses.

In other words - a realistic description of the response of rich dudes to a rise in marginal tax rates is that they don't stop trying to make money - they just try and change how and when they make that money.

Lower the rates and broaden the base. People won't stop trying to make money, but they might not take the risks they would with lower rates.

I concur.  10, 20, and 30.  No exemptions, no deductions.  Fair and progressive.  I think Congressional Republicans will insist that it be revenue-neutral, however, which would be counterproductive.

Good thing religious organizations don't have any political influence. This would sail right through.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2011, 01:01:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2011, 11:03:07 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
Some light reading (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf) for morts:

QuoteWhile there is compelling U.S. evidence of strong behavioral responses to taxation at the upper end of the distribution around the main tax reform episodes since 1980, in all cases those responses [are related to] timing and avoidance. In contrast, there is no compelling evidence to date of real economic responses to tax rates....If behavioral responses to taxation are large in the current tax system, the best policy response would not be to lower tax rates, but instead broaden the tax base and eliminate avoidance opportunities to lower the size of behavioral responses.

In other words - a realistic description of the response of rich dudes to a rise in marginal tax rates is that they don't stop trying to make money - they just try and change how and when they make that money.

Lower the rates and broaden the base. People won't stop trying to make money, but they might not take the risks they would with lower rates.

I concur.  10, 20, and 30.  No exemptions, no deductions.  Fair and progressive.  I think Congressional Republicans will insist that it be revenue-neutral, however, which would be counterproductive.

Good thing religious organizations don't have any political influence. This would sail right through.

Or people with mortgages. Or companies that provide employees with health insurance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2011, 01:01:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2011, 11:03:07 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
Some light reading (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf) for morts:

QuoteWhile there is compelling U.S. evidence of strong behavioral responses to taxation at the upper end of the distribution around the main tax reform episodes since 1980, in all cases those responses [are related to] timing and avoidance. In contrast, there is no compelling evidence to date of real economic responses to tax rates....If behavioral responses to taxation are large in the current tax system, the best policy response would not be to lower tax rates, but instead broaden the tax base and eliminate avoidance opportunities to lower the size of behavioral responses.

In other words - a realistic description of the response of rich dudes to a rise in marginal tax rates is that they don't stop trying to make money - they just try and change how and when they make that money.

Lower the rates and broaden the base. People won't stop trying to make money, but they might not take the risks they would with lower rates.

I concur.  10, 20, and 30.  No exemptions, no deductions.  Fair and progressive.  I think Congressional Republicans will insist that it be revenue-neutral, however, which would be counterproductive.

Good thing religious organizations don't have any political influence. This would sail right through.

Or people with mortgages. Or companies that provide employees with health insurance.
So long to the accounting firms.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 20, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 20, 2011, 02:45:20 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2011, 01:01:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2011, 11:03:07 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
Some light reading (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf) for morts:

QuoteWhile there is compelling U.S. evidence of strong behavioral responses to taxation at the upper end of the distribution around the main tax reform episodes since 1980, in all cases those responses [are related to] timing and avoidance. In contrast, there is no compelling evidence to date of real economic responses to tax rates....If behavioral responses to taxation are large in the current tax system, the best policy response would not be to lower tax rates, but instead broaden the tax base and eliminate avoidance opportunities to lower the size of behavioral responses.

In other words - a realistic description of the response of rich dudes to a rise in marginal tax rates is that they don't stop trying to make money - they just try and change how and when they make that money.

Lower the rates and broaden the base. People won't stop trying to make money, but they might not take the risks they would with lower rates.

I concur.  10, 20, and 30.  No exemptions, no deductions.  Fair and progressive.  I think Congressional Republicans will insist that it be revenue-neutral, however, which would be counterproductive.

Good thing religious organizations don't have any political influence. This would sail right through.

Or people with mortgages. Or companies that provide employees with health insurance.
So long to the accounting firms.

But if the accounting firms needed the grace of a shittily-written tax code to survive, good riddance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2011, 03:39:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 20, 2011, 01:01:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 20, 2011, 12:44:36 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 20, 2011, 11:03:07 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 10:31:48 AM
Some light reading (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL10round2.pdf) for morts:

QuoteWhile there is compelling U.S. evidence of strong behavioral responses to taxation at the upper end of the distribution around the main tax reform episodes since 1980, in all cases those responses [are related to] timing and avoidance. In contrast, there is no compelling evidence to date of real economic responses to tax rates....If behavioral responses to taxation are large in the current tax system, the best policy response would not be to lower tax rates, but instead broaden the tax base and eliminate avoidance opportunities to lower the size of behavioral responses.

In other words - a realistic description of the response of rich dudes to a rise in marginal tax rates is that they don't stop trying to make money - they just try and change how and when they make that money.

Lower the rates and broaden the base. People won't stop trying to make money, but they might not take the risks they would with lower rates.

I concur.  10, 20, and 30.  No exemptions, no deductions.  Fair and progressive.  I think Congressional Republicans will insist that it be revenue-neutral, however, which would be counterproductive.

Good thing religious organizations don't have any political influence. This would sail right through.

Or people with mortgages. Or companies that provide employees with health insurance.

Well, if Congressmen actually SERVED...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/14765671/chicago%25E2%2580%2599s-first-on-street-bike-parking

QuoteThe cycling initiatives have 1st Ward Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno dropping the F-bomb in support. In March, Moreno, whose ward includes Wicker Park, visited Seville, Spain, for the Velo-city bicycle conference. Joining him were fellow bike-friendly, Spanish-speaking Northwest Side politicians, 30th Ward Ald. Ariel Reboyras and 35th Ward Ald. Rey Colon.

"Six years ago Chicago was ahead of Seville in terms of biking," says Moreno. "Now Seville has physically separated bike lanes and a bike-sharing system, and they've closed down their center city to cars. It's so easy to bike there, everybody's doing it: old people on adult tricycles, young men in suits and women in heels."

The aldermen presented their findings last month during a forum at Logan Square's Boiler Room pizzeria. Moreno discussed the Wicker Park bike corral and other innovative ideas to push pedaling in the neighborhood. Since recent CDOT counts show bikes make up 22 percent of daytime traffic on parts of Milwaukee Avenue, Moreno is exploring the possibility of removing one lane of car parking on the street from California to Division to make room for a Seville-style separated bike lane. Asked how meter lessee LAZ Parking would react to the loss of revenue if car spaces were removed, Moreno responded, "Fuck 'em." The crowd of cyclists went wild.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 20, 2011, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/14765671/chicago%25E2%2580%2599s-first-on-street-bike-parking

QuoteThe cycling initiatives have 1st Ward Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno dropping the F-bomb in support. In March, Moreno, whose ward includes Wicker Park, visited Seville, Spain, for the Velo-city bicycle conference. Joining him were fellow bike-friendly, Spanish-speaking Northwest Side politicians, 30th Ward Ald. Ariel Reboyras and 35th Ward Ald. Rey Colon.

"Six years ago Chicago was ahead of Seville in terms of biking," says Moreno. "Now Seville has physically separated bike lanes and a bike-sharing system, and they've closed down their center city to cars. It's so easy to bike there, everybody's doing it: old people on adult tricycles, young men in suits and women in heels."

The aldermen presented their findings last month during a forum at Logan Square's Boiler Room pizzeria. Moreno discussed the Wicker Park bike corral and other innovative ideas to push pedaling in the neighborhood. Since recent CDOT counts show bikes make up 22 percent of daytime traffic on parts of Milwaukee Avenue, Moreno is exploring the possibility of removing one lane of car parking on the street from California to Division to make room for a Seville-style separated bike lane. Asked how meter lessee LAZ Parking would react to the loss of revenue if car spaces were removed, Moreno responded, "Fuck 'em." The crowd of cyclists went wild.

Ha. 

YEAH DOSE GUYZ MADE OUR MARE LOOK STOOPID.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 20, 2011, 04:29:29 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 20, 2011, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/14765671/chicago%25E2%2580%2599s-first-on-street-bike-parking

QuoteThe cycling initiatives have 1st Ward Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno dropping the F-bomb in support. In March, Moreno, whose ward includes Wicker Park, visited Seville, Spain, for the Velo-city bicycle conference. Joining him were fellow bike-friendly, Spanish-speaking Northwest Side politicians, 30th Ward Ald. Ariel Reboyras and 35th Ward Ald. Rey Colon.

"Six years ago Chicago was ahead of Seville in terms of biking," says Moreno. "Now Seville has physically separated bike lanes and a bike-sharing system, and they've closed down their center city to cars. It's so easy to bike there, everybody's doing it: old people on adult tricycles, young men in suits and women in heels."

The aldermen presented their findings last month during a forum at Logan Square's Boiler Room pizzeria. Moreno discussed the Wicker Park bike corral and other innovative ideas to push pedaling in the neighborhood. Since recent CDOT counts show bikes make up 22 percent of daytime traffic on parts of Milwaukee Avenue, Moreno is exploring the possibility of removing one lane of car parking on the street from California to Division to make room for a Seville-style separated bike lane. Asked how meter lessee LAZ Parking would react to the loss of revenue if car spaces were removed, Moreno responded, "Fuck 'em." The crowd of cyclists went wild.

Ha. 

YEAH DOSE GUYZ MADE OUR MARE LOOK STOOPID.

Am I the only one who had never heard of an adult tricycle?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 22, 2011, 06:43:20 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 04:29:29 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 20, 2011, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/14765671/chicago%25E2%2580%2599s-first-on-street-bike-parking

QuoteThe cycling initiatives have 1st Ward Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno dropping the F-bomb in support. In March, Moreno, whose ward includes Wicker Park, visited Seville, Spain, for the Velo-city bicycle conference. Joining him were fellow bike-friendly, Spanish-speaking Northwest Side politicians, 30th Ward Ald. Ariel Reboyras and 35th Ward Ald. Rey Colon.

"Six years ago Chicago was ahead of Seville in terms of biking," says Moreno. "Now Seville has physically separated bike lanes and a bike-sharing system, and they've closed down their center city to cars. It's so easy to bike there, everybody's doing it: old people on adult tricycles, young men in suits and women in heels."

The aldermen presented their findings last month during a forum at Logan Square's Boiler Room pizzeria. Moreno discussed the Wicker Park bike corral and other innovative ideas to push pedaling in the neighborhood. Since recent CDOT counts show bikes make up 22 percent of daytime traffic on parts of Milwaukee Avenue, Moreno is exploring the possibility of removing one lane of car parking on the street from California to Division to make room for a Seville-style separated bike lane. Asked how meter lessee LAZ Parking would react to the loss of revenue if car spaces were removed, Moreno responded, "Fuck 'em." The crowd of cyclists went wild.

Ha. 

YEAH DOSE GUYZ MADE OUR MARE LOOK STOOPID.

Am I the only one who had never heard of an adult tricycle?

They're all the rage in Heaven's Waiting Room, aka Southern Florida.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 22, 2011, 08:53:19 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 20, 2011, 04:29:29 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 20, 2011, 04:00:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/14765671/chicago%25E2%2580%2599s-first-on-street-bike-parking

QuoteThe cycling initiatives have 1st Ward Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno dropping the F-bomb in support. In March, Moreno, whose ward includes Wicker Park, visited Seville, Spain, for the Velo-city bicycle conference. Joining him were fellow bike-friendly, Spanish-speaking Northwest Side politicians, 30th Ward Ald. Ariel Reboyras and 35th Ward Ald. Rey Colon.

"Six years ago Chicago was ahead of Seville in terms of biking," says Moreno. "Now Seville has physically separated bike lanes and a bike-sharing system, and they've closed down their center city to cars. It's so easy to bike there, everybody's doing it: old people on adult tricycles, young men in suits and women in heels."

The aldermen presented their findings last month during a forum at Logan Square's Boiler Room pizzeria. Moreno discussed the Wicker Park bike corral and other innovative ideas to push pedaling in the neighborhood. Since recent CDOT counts show bikes make up 22 percent of daytime traffic on parts of Milwaukee Avenue, Moreno is exploring the possibility of removing one lane of car parking on the street from California to Division to make room for a Seville-style separated bike lane. Asked how meter lessee LAZ Parking would react to the loss of revenue if car spaces were removed, Moreno responded, "Fuck 'em." The crowd of cyclists went wild.

Ha. 

YEAH DOSE GUYZ MADE OUR MARE LOOK STOOPID.

Am I the only one who had never heard of an adult tricycle?

Dude, getting old sucks.  Adult tricycles are for old folks who want to cruise around but basically can't keep a bicycle balanced anymore.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 23, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
Tim Pawlenty's hometown paper on the day of his announcement:

(http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/pawlentyobits.JPG)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 23, 2011, 11:15:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 23, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
Tim Pawlenty's hometown paper on the day of his announcement:

(http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/pawlentyobits.JPG)

Sometimes slow and steady wins the race. Besides, didn't a tornado rip through the Twin Cities yesterday, making less urgent matters, um, less urgent?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on May 23, 2011, 11:33:35 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 23, 2011, 11:15:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 23, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
Tim Pawlenty's hometown paper on the day of his announcement:

(http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/pawlentyobits.JPG)

Sometimes slow and steady wins the race. Besides, didn't a tornado rip through the Twin Cities yesterday, making less urgent matters, um, less urgent?

Are you saying the tornadoes are to blame for Linda and Mary Ann's hairstyles?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on May 23, 2011, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 23, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
Tim Pawlenty's hometown paper on the day of his announcement:

(http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/pawlentyobits.JPG)

His hometown paper doesn't think much of Pawlenty, huh?  An ex-governor announces a presidential run and he's relegated to page 6?  I bet The Body would have gotten at least page 2.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on May 23, 2011, 12:11:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on May 23, 2011, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 23, 2011, 10:41:45 AM
Tim Pawlenty's hometown paper on the day of his announcement:

(http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/pawlentyobits.JPG)

His hometown paper doesn't think much of Pawlenty, huh?  An ex-governor announces a presidential run and he's relegated to page 6?  I bet The Body would have gotten at least page 2.

It's just a pick-up of an AP story too, not even from their own reporter.

Not that this isn't commonplace, but further the notion that they don't give a crap about him or his campaign.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 23, 2011, 12:53:28 PM

The fact that his announcement is on the obituary page isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 23, 2011, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 23, 2011, 12:53:28 PM

The fact that his announcement is on the obituary page isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.

At least give the guy some credit for paying lip serivce to the idea of telling the truth in a politcial campaign.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 23, 2011, 03:48:07 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 23, 2011, 12:53:28 PM

The fact that his announcement is on the obituary page isn't exactly a ringing endorsement either.

Not a ringing endorsement but appropriate given his chances in any election in 2012.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. ... And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" - Herman Cain
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. ... And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" - Herman Cain

For the record, the man also has no clue about what the "right of return" is either.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:53:39 AM
Let's talk about small government....government so small, it can fit on the end of a vaginal probe prior to getting an abortion following an incident of rape or incest.

To wit: (http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Fprobe.jpg)

Bear in mind, this legislation (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7578459.html) was considered an "emergency" for the state of Texas.

Texas, which, for the record, is: second to last in high school graduation rates, 47th in spending per student, second worst in food insecurity rates, and has one-third of its population in poverty.

It also faces a budget deficit of anywhere between 15 billion and 27 billion.

God bless America.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 24, 2011, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. ... And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" - Herman Cain

For the record, the man also has no clue about what the "right of return" is either.

I bet he does now... making a fool of oneself in an interview is a powerful INCENTIVE to get educated on an issue.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 24, 2011, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. ... And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" - Herman Cain

For the record, the man also has no clue about what the "right of return" is either.

I bet he does now... making a fool of oneself in an interview is a powerful INCENTIVE to get educated on an issue.

He was Hannity last night explaining it.

Cain, last night: ""The thing that you're gonna learn about Herman Cain, if he doesn't know something, he's not going to try and fake it, or give an answer that he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Cain, on Sunday:
QuoteCAIN: The right of return? The right of return?

WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return.

CAIN: That is something that should be negotiated. That is something that should be negotiated.

WALLACE: Do you think the Palestinian refugees, the people who were kicked out of the land in 1948, should be able or should have any right to return to Israeli land?

CAIN: Yes. But under -- but not under Palestinian conditions. Yes. They should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make.

It sounds like he was faking it on Sunday, actually.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 24, 2011, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 24, 2011, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. ... And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" - Herman Cain

For the record, the man also has no clue about what the "right of return" is either.

I bet he does now... making a fool of oneself in an interview is a powerful INCENTIVE to get educated on an issue.

He was Hannity last night explaining it.

Cain, last night: ""The thing that you're gonna learn about Herman Cain, if he doesn't know something, he's not going to try and fake it, or give an answer that he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Cain, on Sunday:
QuoteCAIN: The right of return? The right of return?

WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return.

CAIN: That is something that should be negotiated. That is something that should be negotiated.

WALLACE: Do you think the Palestinian refugees, the people who were kicked out of the land in 1948, should be able or should have any right to return to Israeli land?

CAIN: Yes. But under -- but not under Palestinian conditions. Yes. They should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make.

It sounds like he was faking it on Sunday, actually.

He was LITERALLY Hannity?  I'm not sure how to respond to that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2011, 11:04:19 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 24, 2011, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. ... And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" - Herman Cain

For the record, the man also has no clue about what the "right of return" is either.

I bet he does now... making a fool of oneself in an interview is a powerful INCENTIVE to get educated on an issue.

Ah! Now I see why Palin doesn't do interviews![/Gil]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 24, 2011, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 24, 2011, 11:00:55 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 24, 2011, 10:54:01 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:42:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 24, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
"We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. ... And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" - Herman Cain

For the record, the man also has no clue about what the "right of return" is either.

I bet he does now... making a fool of oneself in an interview is a powerful INCENTIVE to get educated on an issue.

He was Hannity last night explaining it.

Cain, last night: ""The thing that you're gonna learn about Herman Cain, if he doesn't know something, he's not going to try and fake it, or give an answer that he doesn't know what he's talking about."

Cain, on Sunday:
QuoteCAIN: The right of return? The right of return?

WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return.

CAIN: That is something that should be negotiated. That is something that should be negotiated.

WALLACE: Do you think the Palestinian refugees, the people who were kicked out of the land in 1948, should be able or should have any right to return to Israeli land?

CAIN: Yes. But under -- but not under Palestinian conditions. Yes. They should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make.

It sounds like he was faking it on Sunday, actually.

He was LITERALLY Hannity?  I'm not sure how to respond to that.

Fine. I fucking laughed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 24, 2011, 02:14:09 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:53:39 AM
Let's talk about small government....government so small, it can fit on the end of a vaginal probe prior to getting an abortion following an incident of rape or incest.

To wit: (http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Fprobe.jpg)

Bear in mind, this legislation (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7578459.html) was considered an "emergency" for the state of Texas.

Texas, which, for the record, is: second to last in high school graduation rates, 47th in spending per student, second worst in food insecurity rates, and has one-third of its population in poverty.

It also faces a budget deficit of anywhere between 15 billion and 27 billion.

God bless America.


In San Francisco the voters get to decide next November whether it will be criminal to perform circumscions on infant boys.  No religious exemption.  Can you imagine all of those moyels going to prison?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 25, 2011, 08:10:10 AM
Quote from: CBStew on May 24, 2011, 02:14:09 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2011, 10:53:39 AM
Let's talk about small government....government so small, it can fit on the end of a vaginal probe prior to getting an abortion following an incident of rape or incest.

To wit: (http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Fprobe.jpg)

Bear in mind, this legislation (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7578459.html) was considered an "emergency" for the state of Texas.

Texas, which, for the record, is: second to last in high school graduation rates, 47th in spending per student, second worst in food insecurity rates, and has one-third of its population in poverty.

It also faces a budget deficit of anywhere between 15 billion and 27 billion.

God bless America.


In San Francisco the voters get to decide next November whether it will be criminal to perform circumscions on infant boys.  No religious exemption.  Can you imagine all of those moyels going to prison?

[Chork]They'll get immunity as criminal informants. Those guys are always giving the cops tips.[/Chork]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 25, 2011, 08:42:09 AM
So, using the same logic that I heard from the punditry when Suave Scott Brown won the special election in MA and Obama and the Democrats needed to take that as a sign to change the health care bill to give the Republicans everything they wanted, should the Republicans now submit a budget with a carbon tax, mandatory abortions and single-payer health care?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 25, 2011, 11:07:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on May 25, 2011, 08:42:09 AM
So, using the same logic that I heard from the punditry when Suave Scott Brown won the special election in MA and Obama and the Democrats needed to take that as a sign to change the health care bill to give the Republicans everything they wanted, should the Republicans now submit a budget with a carbon tax, mandatory abortions and single-payer health care?

Don't forget Medicaid coverage for male lactation treatment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
So Sarah Palin has decided to make her very own version of A Burns For All Seasons. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) No word yet on the extent of the role that Señor Spielbergo played in making the film.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 25, 2011, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
So Sarah Palin has decided to make her very own version of A Burns For All Seasons. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) No word yet on the extent of the role that Señor Spielbergo played in making the film.

There better be a prominent role for Bumblebee Man.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 25, 2011, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
So Sarah Palin has decided to make her very own version of A Burns For All Seasons. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) No word yet on the extent of the role that Señor Spielbergo played in making the film.

There better be a prominent role for Bumblebee Man.

Perhaps as one of the villains?


QuoteRife with religious metaphor and unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure, "The Undefeated" echoes Palin's "Going Rogue" in its tidy division of the world between the heroes who are on her side and the villains who seek to thwart her at every turn.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 11:41:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 25, 2011, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
So Sarah Palin has decided to make her very own version of A Burns For All Seasons. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) No word yet on the extent of the role that Señor Spielbergo played in making the film.

There better be a prominent role for Bumblebee Man.

Perhaps as one of the villains?


QuoteRife with religious metaphor and unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure, "The Undefeated" echoes Palin's "Going Rogue" in its tidy division of the world between the heroes who are on her side and the villains who seek to thwart her at every turn.


So, Sarah Palin is running for president then, I take it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 11:41:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 25, 2011, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
So Sarah Palin has decided to make her very own version of A Burns For All Seasons. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) No word yet on the extent of the role that Señor Spielbergo played in making the film.

There better be a prominent role for Bumblebee Man.

Perhaps as one of the villains?


QuoteRife with religious metaphor and unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure, "The Undefeated" echoes Palin's "Going Rogue" in its tidy division of the world between the heroes who are on her side and the villains who seek to thwart her at every turn.


So, Sarah Palin is running for president then, I take it?


Quote"From here, I can see November."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 11:58:08 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 11:41:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 25, 2011, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
So Sarah Palin has decided to make her very own version of A Burns For All Seasons. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) No word yet on the extent of the role that Señor Spielbergo played in making the film.

There better be a prominent role for Bumblebee Man.

Perhaps as one of the villains?


QuoteRife with religious metaphor and unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure, "The Undefeated" echoes Palin's "Going Rogue" in its tidy division of the world between the heroes who are on her side and the villains who seek to thwart her at every turn.


So, Sarah Palin is running for president then, I take it?


Quote"From here, I can see November."


Well then, this changes the game.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 25, 2011, 12:05:17 PM
If I were a Republican, Sarah Palin's vexating existence would cause me to want to throat-punch anybody in my path.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 25, 2011, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 11:58:08 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 11:41:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 25, 2011, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
So Sarah Palin has decided to make her very own version of A Burns For All Seasons. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) No word yet on the extent of the role that Señor Spielbergo played in making the film.

There better be a prominent role for Bumblebee Man.

Perhaps as one of the villains?


QuoteRife with religious metaphor and unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure, "The Undefeated" echoes Palin's "Going Rogue" in its tidy division of the world between the heroes who are on her side and the villains who seek to thwart her at every turn.


So, Sarah Palin is running for president then, I take it?


Quote"From here, I can see November."


Well then, this changes the game.

Set the Gil Palin Obsession Meter to "RED".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 12:19:46 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 25, 2011, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 11:58:08 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2011, 11:41:58 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:12:47 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 25, 2011, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 25, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
So Sarah Palin has decided to make her very own version of A Burns For All Seasons. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html) No word yet on the extent of the role that Señor Spielbergo played in making the film.

There better be a prominent role for Bumblebee Man.

Perhaps as one of the villains?


QuoteRife with religious metaphor and unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure, "The Undefeated" echoes Palin's "Going Rogue" in its tidy division of the world between the heroes who are on her side and the villains who seek to thwart her at every turn.


So, Sarah Palin is running for president then, I take it?


Quote"From here, I can see November."


Well then, this changes the game.

Set the Gil Palin Obsession Meter to "RED".

I'm colorblind, so it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 31, 2011, 10:44:27 AM
Gerrymandering, Illinois-style.

http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com/6245/illinois-democrats-unveil-new-congressional-map/

Whither "Dold with a D, not an E"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on June 01, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
I was talking to Tony last night and saying that eighty to ninety percent of everything I experience here in America is, to a degree at least, familiar to me.  Sarah Palin, though, falls squarely into the other ten to twenty percent.  I just cannot comprehend her, or any of what she says and does, in any way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 01, 2011, 09:14:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 31, 2011, 10:44:27 AM
Gerrymandering, Illinois-style.

http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com/6245/illinois-democrats-unveil-new-congressional-map/

Whither "Dold with a D, not an E"?

Maybe Dold with a D will move to Glencoe. Maybe Section 242 will mount another run. His wife never participated in any check-kiting schemes, did she?

I am now in Schachowsky's district, although the 10th begins not quite 300 yards from my front yard.

Mike Quigley now represents Rogers Park AND Bolingbrook. Luis Gutierrez's district gets thin in spots that even an injured Alfonso Soriano could cover it.

The technology exists. Just get a computer to draw a random map based on population.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:19:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 01, 2011, 09:14:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 31, 2011, 10:44:27 AM
Gerrymandering, Illinois-style.

http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com/6245/illinois-democrats-unveil-new-congressional-map/

Whither "Dold with a D, not an E"?

Maybe Dold with a D will move to Glencoe. Maybe Section 242 will mount another run. His wife never participated in any check-kiting schemes, did she?

I am now in Schachowsky's district, although the 10th begins not quite 300 yards from my front yard.

Mike Quigley now represents Rogers Park AND Bolingbrook. Luis Gutierrez's district gets thin in spots that even an injured Alfonso Soriano could cover it.

The technology exists. Just get a computer to draw a random map based on population.

THIS.  Make it so that neither party has the power to influence how the lines are redrawn.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 01, 2011, 09:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 01, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
I was talking to Tony last night and saying that eighty to ninety percent of everything I experience here in America is, to a degree at least, familiar to me.  Sarah Palin, though, falls squarely into the other ten to twenty percent.  I just cannot comprehend her, or any of what she says and does, in any way.

That makes you a lot like most Americans who I think (for my own sanity) view her as a hilarious sideshow, a what will she say next type of thing. Then there are the rest of the people who actually think she should hold office and make important decisions. These people are not anyone you would ever want to be associated with and therefore pat yourself on the back.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 01, 2011, 09:27:01 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:19:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 01, 2011, 09:14:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 31, 2011, 10:44:27 AM
Gerrymandering, Illinois-style.

http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com/6245/illinois-democrats-unveil-new-congressional-map/

Whither "Dold with a D, not an E"?

Maybe Dold with a D will move to Glencoe. Maybe Section 242 will mount another run. His wife never participated in any check-kiting schemes, did she?

I am now in Schachowsky's district, although the 10th begins not quite 300 yards from my front yard.

Mike Quigley now represents Rogers Park AND Bolingbrook. Luis Gutierrez's district gets thin in spots that even an injured Alfonso Soriano could cover it.

The technology exists. Just get a computer to draw a random map based on population.

THIS.  Make it so that neither party has the power to influence how the lines are redrawn.

Agreed, but I'd like to see that nationally before I'd agree to it here.  As far as I'm concerned, this is payback for the Texas fiasco of a few years ago.

I've been relocated to the 9th and have, effectively, an open seat.  Goes all the way up to Libertyville and Zion and the Wisconsin border.

Anyone want to run and get to legislate over Great America?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 01, 2011, 09:32:43 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 01, 2011, 09:14:46 AMLuis Gutierrez's district gets thin in spots that even an injured Alfonso Soriano could cover it.

I declare you the winner of one (1) chicken dinner.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tony on June 01, 2011, 09:38:30 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 01, 2011, 09:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 01, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
I was talking to Tony last night and saying that eighty to ninety percent of everything I experience here in America is, to a degree at least, familiar to me.  Sarah Palin, though, falls squarely into the other ten to twenty percent.  I just cannot comprehend her, or any of what she says and does, in any way.

That makes you a lot like most Americans who I think (for my own sanity) view her as a hilarious sideshow, a what will she say next type of thing. Then there are the rest of the people who actually think she should hold office and make important decisions. These people are not anyone you would ever want to be associated with and therefore pat yourself on the back.

Oleg explained that other 10 to 20 percent was due to people called "republicans". That's his theory anyway. It seems like they are behind the Palin phenomenon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 01, 2011, 09:46:18 AM
Quote from: Tony on June 01, 2011, 09:38:30 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 01, 2011, 09:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 01, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
I was talking to Tony last night and saying that eighty to ninety percent of everything I experience here in America is, to a degree at least, familiar to me.  Sarah Palin, though, falls squarely into the other ten to twenty percent.  I just cannot comprehend her, or any of what she says and does, in any way.

That makes you a lot like most Americans who I think (for my own sanity) view her as a hilarious sideshow, a what will she say next type of thing. Then there are the rest of the people who actually think she should hold office and make important decisions. These people are not anyone you would ever want to be associated with and therefore pat yourself on the back.

Oleg explained that other 10 to 20 percent was due to people called "republicans". That's his theory anyway. It seems like they are behind the Palin phenomenon.

Lest we forget the 27% Crazification Factor. (http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html)

Hey, guys... Remember Alan Keyes?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 01, 2011, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: Tony on June 01, 2011, 09:38:30 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 01, 2011, 09:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 01, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
I was talking to Tony last night and saying that eighty to ninety percent of everything I experience here in America is, to a degree at least, familiar to me.  Sarah Palin, though, falls squarely into the other ten to twenty percent.  I just cannot comprehend her, or any of what she says and does, in any way.

That makes you a lot like most Americans who I think (for my own sanity) view her as a hilarious sideshow, a what will she say next type of thing. Then there are the rest of the people who actually think she should hold office and make important decisions. These people are not anyone you would ever want to be associated with and therefore pat yourself on the back.

Oleg explained that other 10 to 20 percent was due to people called "republicans". That's his theory anyway. It seems like they are behind the Palin phenomenon.

I refuse to believe that good people are behind this. I maintain that if I were a Republican I'd be furious, constantly, that this woman was attached to my political party.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on June 01, 2011, 09:53:15 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 01, 2011, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: Tony on June 01, 2011, 09:38:30 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 01, 2011, 09:21:27 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 01, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
I was talking to Tony last night and saying that eighty to ninety percent of everything I experience here in America is, to a degree at least, familiar to me.  Sarah Palin, though, falls squarely into the other ten to twenty percent.  I just cannot comprehend her, or any of what she says and does, in any way.

That makes you a lot like most Americans who I think (for my own sanity) view her as a hilarious sideshow, a what will she say next type of thing. Then there are the rest of the people who actually think she should hold office and make important decisions. These people are not anyone you would ever want to be associated with and therefore pat yourself on the back.

Oleg explained that other 10 to 20 percent was due to people called "republicans". That's his theory anyway. It seems like they are behind the Palin phenomenon.

I refuse to believe that good people are behind this. I maintain that if I were a Republican I'd be furious, constantly, that this woman was attached to my political party.

Ding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Um... because he's a dude?  A dude who likes women?  You could also ask, if you were so inclined, why he was following this "stranger" on Twitter.  A few people (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_many_coincidences_in_weiner_Rl8bBPw5CL5TqdO9aUe4sI) have done so (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH), but no answers seem to be forthcoming.  Even CNN (in the original link) can sense there's something going on here.

There is a more innocent explanation - that he simply has a ghost-tweeter, that he doesn't write them himself, and that the ghost-tweeter is the one whose dick pic went out - but the word "hack" implies a security issue that, given his earlier commentary on the subject, one would think he'd be interested in investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980796/-Why-hasnt-Weiner-contacted-the-FBI-Law-Enforcement-to-report-Breitbarts-hack).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 01, 2011, 09:59:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Um... because he's a dude?  A dude who likes women?  You could also ask, if you were so inclined, why he was following this "stranger" on Twitter.  A few people (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_many_coincidences_in_weiner_Rl8bBPw5CL5TqdO9aUe4sI) have done so (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH), but no answers seem to be forthcoming.  Even CNN (in the original link) can sense there's something going on here.

There is a more innocent explanation - that he simply has a ghost-tweeter, that he doesn't write them himself, and that the ghost-tweeter is the one whose dick pic went out - but the word "hack" implies a security issue that, given his earlier commentary on the subject, one would think he'd be interested in investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980796/-Why-hasnt-Weiner-contacted-the-FBI-Law-Enforcement-to-report-Breitbarts-hack).

Was it actually a dick pic?  I thought it was just a bulge pic.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 01, 2011, 09:59:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Um... because he's a dude?  A dude who likes women?  You could also ask, if you were so inclined, why he was following this "stranger" on Twitter.  A few people (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_many_coincidences_in_weiner_Rl8bBPw5CL5TqdO9aUe4sI) have done so (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH), but no answers seem to be forthcoming.  Even CNN (in the original link) can sense there's something going on here.

There is a more innocent explanation - that he simply has a ghost-tweeter, that he doesn't write them himself, and that the ghost-tweeter is the one whose dick pic went out - but the word "hack" implies a security issue that, given his earlier commentary on the subject, one would think he'd be interested in investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980796/-Why-hasnt-Weiner-contacted-the-FBI-Law-Enforcement-to-report-Breitbarts-hack).

Was it actually a dick pic?  I thought it was just a bulge pic.

Pedantry noted and accepted.  Bulge in teh underwear only.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 01, 2011, 10:03:21 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:19:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 01, 2011, 09:14:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 31, 2011, 10:44:27 AM
Gerrymandering, Illinois-style.

http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com/6245/illinois-democrats-unveil-new-congressional-map/

Whither "Dold with a D, not an E"?

Maybe Dold with a D will move to Glencoe. Maybe Section 242 will mount another run. His wife never participated in any check-kiting schemes, did she?

I am now in Schachowsky's district, although the 10th begins not quite 300 yards from my front yard.

Mike Quigley now represents Rogers Park AND Bolingbrook. Luis Gutierrez's district gets thin in spots that even an injured Alfonso Soriano could cover it.

The technology exists. Just get a computer to draw a random map based on population.

THIS.  Make it so that neither party has the power to influence how the lines are redrawn.

Agreed.  I believe Florida and California - home to a combined 80 congressional seats by 2013 - have approved non-partisan redistricting boards.

80 out of 435...hey, it's a start, America!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 01, 2011, 10:04:03 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 10:00:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 01, 2011, 09:59:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Um... because he's a dude?  A dude who likes women?  You could also ask, if you were so inclined, why he was following this "stranger" on Twitter.  A few people (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_many_coincidences_in_weiner_Rl8bBPw5CL5TqdO9aUe4sI) have done so (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH), but no answers seem to be forthcoming.  Even CNN (in the original link) can sense there's something going on here.

There is a more innocent explanation - that he simply has a ghost-tweeter, that he doesn't write them himself, and that the ghost-tweeter is the one whose dick pic went out - but the word "hack" implies a security issue that, given his earlier commentary on the subject, one would think he'd be interested in investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980796/-Why-hasnt-Weiner-contacted-the-FBI-Law-Enforcement-to-report-Breitbarts-hack).

Was it actually a dick pic?  I thought it was just a bulge pic.

Pedantry noted and accepted.  Bulge in teh underwear only.

I wasn't being pedantic; I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything (||).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 01, 2011, 10:10:44 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Here's a reason: WHO THE FUCK CARES?

He's not my congroid.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 10:12:49 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 01, 2011, 10:10:44 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Here's a reason: WHO THE FUCK CARES?

He's not my congroid. DOES HE WANT TO SERVE?

Chuck'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on June 01, 2011, 10:14:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 01, 2011, 10:10:44 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Here's a reason: WHO THE FUCK CARES?

He's not my congroid.

Hopefully this turns out to be a massive scandal that becomes a reference point for all future scandals, if only so that down the line I'll be able to turn on the TV and hear some pundit declare that "it looks like we've got another Weiner on our hands".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 10:15:01 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 01, 2011, 10:14:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 01, 2011, 10:10:44 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Here's a reason: WHO THE FUCK CARES?

He's not my congroid.

Hopefully this turns out to be a massive scandal that becomes a reference point for all future scandals, if only so that down the line I'll be able to turn on the TV and hear some pundit declare that "it looks like we've got another Weiner on our hands".

I admit it.  I laughed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on June 01, 2011, 10:25:24 AM

BEN STEIN WAS RIGHT! (http://www.eutimes.net/2011/05/russia-says-imf-chief-jailed-for-discovering-all-us-gold-is-gone/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 01, 2011, 10:34:35 AM
Quote from: flannj on June 01, 2011, 10:25:24 AM

BEN STEIN WAS RIGHT! (http://www.eutimes.net/2011/05/russia-says-imf-chief-jailed-for-discovering-all-us-gold-is-gone/)

Putin really is dead set on getting Russia's Cold War swagger back.

QuoteThe American peoples ability to know the truth of these things, and as always, has been shouted out by their propaganda media organs leaving them in danger of not being prepared for the horrific economic collapse of their nation now believed will much sooner than later.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Um... because he's a dude?  A dude who likes women?  You could also ask, if you were so inclined, why he was following this "stranger" on Twitter.  A few people (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_many_coincidences_in_weiner_Rl8bBPw5CL5TqdO9aUe4sI) have done so (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH), but no answers seem to be forthcoming.  Even CNN (in the original link) can sense there's something going on here.

There is a more innocent explanation - that he simply has a ghost-tweeter, that he doesn't write them himself, and that the ghost-tweeter is the one whose dick pic went out - but the word "hack" implies a security issue that, given his earlier commentary on the subject, one would think he'd be interested in investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980796/-Why-hasnt-Weiner-contacted-the-FBI-Law-Enforcement-to-report-Breitbarts-hack).

I just took a case involving a high school teacher whose student opened a phony Facebook page in the teacher's name and filled it with salacious stuff that could easily get the teacher fired.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Um... because he's a dude?  A dude who likes women?  You could also ask, if you were so inclined, why he was following this "stranger" on Twitter.  A few people (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_many_coincidences_in_weiner_Rl8bBPw5CL5TqdO9aUe4sI) have done so (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH), but no answers seem to be forthcoming.  Even CNN (in the original link) can sense there's something going on here.

There is a more innocent explanation - that he simply has a ghost-tweeter, that he doesn't write them himself, and that the ghost-tweeter is the one whose dick pic went out - but the word "hack" implies a security issue that, given his earlier commentary on the subject, one would think he'd be interested in investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980796/-Why-hasnt-Weiner-contacted-the-FBI-Law-Enforcement-to-report-Breitbarts-hack).

I just took a case involving a high school teacher whose student opened a phony Facebook page in the teacher's name and filled it with salacious stuff that could easily get the teacher fired.

Well, that sucks for that guy.

EDIT: I meant that what happened to that guy sucks... I just realized that this could have been taken as a pejorative against your lawyering skills, which I assure you I had no intention of making.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 01, 2011, 01:37:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Um... because he's a dude?  A dude who likes women?  You could also ask, if you were so inclined, why he was following this "stranger" on Twitter.  A few people (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_many_coincidences_in_weiner_Rl8bBPw5CL5TqdO9aUe4sI) have done so (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH), but no answers seem to be forthcoming.  Even CNN (in the original link) can sense there's something going on here.

There is a more innocent explanation - that he simply has a ghost-tweeter, that he doesn't write them himself, and that the ghost-tweeter is the one whose dick pic went out - but the word "hack" implies a security issue that, given his earlier commentary on the subject, one would think he'd be interested in investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980796/-Why-hasnt-Weiner-contacted-the-FBI-Law-Enforcement-to-report-Breitbarts-hack).

I just took a case involving a high school teacher whose student opened a phony Facebook page in the teacher's name and filled it with salacious stuff that could easily get the teacher fired.

Well, that sucks for that guy.

EDIT: I meant that what happened to that guy sucks... I just realized that this could have been taken as a pejorative against your lawyering skills, which I assure you I had no intention of making.

What morph is trying to say is that his investigation of Weiner will not rest until Drudge and Breitbart can confirm that the dong in question does *not* belong to Common.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 01, 2011, 05:27:56 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 01, 2011, 01:37:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 01:07:56 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 12:01:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 01, 2011, 09:30:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 01, 2011, 08:45:11 AM
Weinergate. His performance in this press conference (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/weiner-says-hes-done-talking-about-twitpic/) is beyond amazing.  For a guy whose account got hacked, he sure acts like a guy who accidentally hit "@" instead of "d"...

I thought that Weiner showed amazing patience.  The only reason that Weiner didn't take a swing at the guy he called a jackass was the fact that the guy appeared to be 7 feet tall.  That is a good reason for patience.  But the guy was a jackass.   Asking really perceptive questions.  "Is the reason that you are not answering my question is because it is true?"   "Yes.  Next question."   A New York Congressman is going to send a picture of his dick to a stranger 3500 miles away?  Give me a reason.  

Um... because he's a dude?  A dude who likes women?  You could also ask, if you were so inclined, why he was following this "stranger" on Twitter.  A few people (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/too_many_coincidences_in_weiner_Rl8bBPw5CL5TqdO9aUe4sI) have done so (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/weiner_tweet_hearts_UTe6y5bwizh46ycTkIIkxH), but no answers seem to be forthcoming.  Even CNN (in the original link) can sense there's something going on here.

There is a more innocent explanation - that he simply has a ghost-tweeter, that he doesn't write them himself, and that the ghost-tweeter is the one whose dick pic went out - but the word "hack" implies a security issue that, given his earlier commentary on the subject, one would think he'd be interested in investigating (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980796/-Why-hasnt-Weiner-contacted-the-FBI-Law-Enforcement-to-report-Breitbarts-hack).

I just took a case involving a high school teacher whose student opened a phony Facebook page in the teacher's name and filled it with salacious stuff that could easily get the teacher fired.

Well, that sucks for that guy.

EDIT: I meant that what happened to that guy sucks... I just realized that this could have been taken as a pejorative against your lawyering skills, which I assure you I had no intention of making.

What morph is trying to say is that his investigation of Weiner will not rest until Drudge and Breitbart can confirm that the dong in question does *not* belong to Common.

Spoiler: It was THE CHINESE...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576359770243517568.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 02, 2011, 07:56:22 PM
In the middle of high-level talks between the White House and the House Republicans on the debt ceiling, and after being chided by Rep. Paul Ryan for calling his Medicare plan a "voucher system," the President managed to either embrace the butthurt or bring teh funny.

YOU DECIDE!

Quote"I'm the death-panel-supporting, socialist, may-not-have-been-born-here president."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-gop-debt-20110602,0,7998900.story

Intrepid Reader MikeC: "HE FINALLY ADMITS IT!!!  I KNEW IT!!!!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 06, 2011, 09:38:27 PM
(http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2011/6/3/16/us-history-according-to-sarah-palin-13965-1307132094-19.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 07, 2011, 10:10:03 PM
I have been commenting here about the ballot proposition making circumcision a crime punishable by a year in jail.  Here is the link to the website of the sponsors.   You should have no allusions about the motivation of these folks.  Nazism is alive and well in 2011.

http://foreskinman.com/

Foreskin Man's symbol is really subtle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CubFaninHydePark on June 07, 2011, 10:20:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 07, 2011, 10:10:03 PM
I have been commenting here about the ballot proposition making circumcision a crime punishable by a year in jail.  Here is the link to the website of the sponsors.   You should have no allusions about the motivation of these folks.  Nazism is alive and well in 2011.

http://foreskinman.com/

Foreskin Man's symbol is really subtle.

I was too busy trying to look past the muscle bound Aryan versus the sinister looking guys with long grey beards.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 07, 2011, 11:16:27 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 07, 2011, 10:10:03 PM
I have been commenting here about the ballot proposition making circumcision a crime punishable by a year in jail.  Here is the link to the website of the sponsors.   You should have no allusions about the motivation of these folks.  Nazism is alive and well in 2011.

http://foreskinman.com/

Foreskin Man's symbol is really subtle.

Holy shit.

Also: Anti-Semitism (and "Monster Mohel") aside...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/backer-circumcision-ban-in-california-city-withdraws-proposal/

QuoteTroutman, a lactation consultant and mother of two, told FoxNews.com that her focus was "never about religion" when she submitted the initiative, which was written by a San Diego-based group called MGMbill.org, the same organization that authored the measure to ban circumcision that will appear on the ballot in San Francisco this November.

"I don't have the time or the energy to argue with everybody, but you shouldn't go around cutting up your little babies," Troutman said. "Why don't people [expletive] get that? For me, this was never about religion. It was about protecting babies from their parents not knowing that circumcision was started in America to end masturbation."

An intactivist lactation consultant? This shit has got to be like crack to Wheezer.

http://www.wholebabyrevolution.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/us/08circumcise.html

(http://i.imgur.com/mzNU1.jpg)

That's apparently a "Genital Autonomy" symbol around her neck.

Also also: Look, puns...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=90529
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/06/circumcision_ban_jena_troutman.php
http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2011-06-06-71950.113116-Backer-of-circumcision-ban-pulling-out.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 08, 2011, 09:41:55 AM
Well, isn't this lovely? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56474.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 08, 2011, 11:51:11 AM
Having a hard time finding anything to argue with here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/07/weiner/index.html).

QuoteYes, Anthony Weiner lied -- about something that is absolutely nobody's business but his and his wife's.  If you're not his wife, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to want to know about -- let alone pass judgment on -- what he does in his private sexual life with other consenting adults.  Particularly repellent is the pretense of speaking out on behalf of his wife, as though anyone knows what her perspectives on such matters are or what their relationship entails.  The only reason to want to wallow in the details of Anthony Weiner's sex life is because of the voyeuristic titillation it provides: a deeply repressed culture celebrates when it finds cause to be able to talk about penises and naked pictures and oral sex while hiding behind some noble pretext.  On some level, I find the behavior of the obviously loathsome Andrew Breitbart preferable; at least he's honest about his motive:  he hates Democrats and liberals and wants sadistically to destroy them however he can.  It's the empty, barren, purse-lipped busybodies who cannot stay out of other adults' private and sexual lives -- while pretending to be elevated  -- that are the truly odious villains here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 08, 2011, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 08, 2011, 11:51:11 AM
Having a hard time finding anything to argue with here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/07/weiner/index.html).

QuoteYes, Anthony Weiner lied -- about something that is absolutely nobody's business but his and his wife's.  If you're not his wife, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to want to know about -- let alone pass judgment on -- what he does in his private sexual life with other consenting adults.  Particularly repellent is the pretense of speaking out on behalf of his wife, as though anyone knows what her perspectives on such matters are or what their relationship entails.  The only reason to want to wallow in the details of Anthony Weiner's sex life is because of the voyeuristic titillation it provides: a deeply repressed culture celebrates when it finds cause to be able to talk about penises and naked pictures and oral sex while hiding behind some noble pretext.  On some level, I find the behavior of the obviously loathsome Andrew Breitbart preferable; at least he's honest about his motive:  he hates Democrats and liberals and wants sadistically to destroy them however he can.  It's the empty, barren, purse-lipped busybodies who cannot stay out of other adults' private and sexual lives -- while pretending to be elevated  -- that are the truly odious villains here.

So you (and Greenwald) felt the same back when this (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressman-chris-lee-resigns-shirtless-photo-posted-internet/story?id=12878937) happened?  (Maybe you did... I'm just curious.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on June 08, 2011, 12:16:30 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 08, 2011, 11:51:11 AM
Having a hard time finding anything to argue with here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/07/weiner/index.html).

QuoteYes, Anthony Weiner lied -- about something that is absolutely nobody's business but his and his wife's.  If you're not his wife, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to want to know about -- let alone pass judgment on -- what he does in his private sexual life with other consenting adults.  Particularly repellent is the pretense of speaking out on behalf of his wife, as though anyone knows what her perspectives on such matters are or what their relationship entails.  The only reason to want to wallow in the details of Anthony Weiner's sex life is because of the voyeuristic titillation it provides: a deeply repressed culture celebrates when it finds cause to be able to talk about penises and naked pictures and oral sex while hiding behind some noble pretext.  On some level, I find the behavior of the obviously loathsome Andrew Breitbart preferable; at least he's honest about his motive:  he hates Democrats and liberals and wants sadistically to destroy them however he can.  It's the empty, barren, purse-lipped busybodies who cannot stay out of other adults' private and sexual lives -- while pretending to be elevated  -- that are the truly odious villains here.

This is a bit different than someone actually stealing photos from his safe and posting them... it's between him and his wife, agree, but if you are are retarded enough to post boxerbriefboner pics on Twitter then lie about it, you shouldn't be surprised the media is all over it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 08, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 08, 2011, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 08, 2011, 11:51:11 AM
Having a hard time finding anything to argue with here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/07/weiner/index.html).

QuoteYes, Anthony Weiner lied -- about something that is absolutely nobody's business but his and his wife's.  If you're not his wife, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to want to know about -- let alone pass judgment on -- what he does in his private sexual life with other consenting adults.  Particularly repellent is the pretense of speaking out on behalf of his wife, as though anyone knows what her perspectives on such matters are or what their relationship entails.  The only reason to want to wallow in the details of Anthony Weiner's sex life is because of the voyeuristic titillation it provides: a deeply repressed culture celebrates when it finds cause to be able to talk about penises and naked pictures and oral sex while hiding behind some noble pretext.  On some level, I find the behavior of the obviously loathsome Andrew Breitbart preferable; at least he's honest about his motive:  he hates Democrats and liberals and wants sadistically to destroy them however he can.  It's the empty, barren, purse-lipped busybodies who cannot stay out of other adults' private and sexual lives -- while pretending to be elevated  -- that are the truly odious villains here.

So you (and Greenwald) felt the same back when this (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressman-chris-lee-resigns-shirtless-photo-posted-internet/story?id=12878937) happened?  (Maybe you did... I'm just curious.)

I can't speak for my BFF Glennycakes but I don't/didn't give a shit about Chris Lee's pics. Other than the fact that he has a very nice chest.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 08, 2011, 12:37:45 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 08, 2011, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 08, 2011, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 08, 2011, 11:51:11 AM
Having a hard time finding anything to argue with here (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/07/weiner/index.html).

QuoteYes, Anthony Weiner lied -- about something that is absolutely nobody's business but his and his wife's.  If you're not his wife, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to want to know about -- let alone pass judgment on -- what he does in his private sexual life with other consenting adults.  Particularly repellent is the pretense of speaking out on behalf of his wife, as though anyone knows what her perspectives on such matters are or what their relationship entails.  The only reason to want to wallow in the details of Anthony Weiner's sex life is because of the voyeuristic titillation it provides: a deeply repressed culture celebrates when it finds cause to be able to talk about penises and naked pictures and oral sex while hiding behind some noble pretext.  On some level, I find the behavior of the obviously loathsome Andrew Breitbart preferable; at least he's honest about his motive:  he hates Democrats and liberals and wants sadistically to destroy them however he can.  It's the empty, barren, purse-lipped busybodies who cannot stay out of other adults' private and sexual lives -- while pretending to be elevated  -- that are the truly odious villains here.

So you (and Greenwald) felt the same back when this (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressman-chris-lee-resigns-shirtless-photo-posted-internet/story?id=12878937) happened?  (Maybe you did... I'm just curious.)

I can't speak for my BFF Glennycakes but I don't/didn't give a shit about Chris Lee's pics. Other than the fact that he has a very nice chest.

I can almost guarantee that Greenwald probably didn't care that much about that. Unless he found Chris Lee cute. He's usually much more concerned about abuses of power than sex scandals.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 08, 2011, 05:33:09 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ckytA.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 09, 2011, 10:43:12 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 08, 2011, 05:33:09 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ckytA.jpg)

I LOLed.  Like, really loudly.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on June 10, 2011, 06:31:19 AM
Excellent.  Maggie Thatcher is senile as all get out, but even she knows that Sarah Palin is nuts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8567490/Margaret-Thatchers-Sarah-Palin-snub-enrages-US-right.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 10, 2011, 09:06:09 AM
"Put me in charge of the fence and it will be a twenty foot wall, barbed wire, electrified on the top. And on this side of the fence, I'd have that moat that President Obama talked about. And I would put those alligators in that moat!"

-- Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, quoted by Mediaite.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 10, 2011, 09:09:24 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 10, 2011, 09:06:09 AM
"Put me in charge of the fence and it will be a twenty foot wall, barbed wire, electrified on the top. And on this side of the fence, I'd have that moat that President Obama talked about. And I would put those alligators in that moat!"

-- Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, quoted by Mediaite.

"Also, buy one medium with two toppings and get another for half price!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 15, 2011, 09:16:09 AM
Simply put, the ad is Willie Horton on steroids.  (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/in-ca-36-democrat-calls-for-blanket-condemnation-of-stunning-new-web-ad-video.php)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 15, 2011, 09:46:33 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 15, 2011, 09:16:09 AM
Simply put, the ad is Willie Horton on steroids.  (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/in-ca-36-democrat-calls-for-blanket-condemnation-of-stunning-new-web-ad-video.php)

QuoteIn a statement EMILY's List, which has endorsed Hahn, called the ad "the most vile, racist, sexist ad we have ever seen" and also called on Huey to condemn it.

(http://i.imgur.com/EFedR.jpg)

HUEY!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 15, 2011, 03:25:51 PM
Not only did the last administration let him go (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110615/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_bin_laden_linchpin), he can probably teach a class on how to implement secret US torture techniques to Al Qaida.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 16, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/nyregion/anthony-d-weiner-tells-friends-he-will-resign.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — Representative Anthony D. Weiner has told House leaders that he plans to resign his seat after coming under growing pressure from his Democratic colleagues to leave the House, said a top Democratic official and two people told of Mr. Weiner's plans.

His decision follows revelations of his lewd online exchanges with women.

The top Democratic official said Mr. Weiner called Representative Nancy Pelosi of California and Representative Steve Israel of New York last night while they were at the White House picnic to inform them he had decided to resign on Thursday.

Mr. Weiner plans to resign in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, at 2 p.m. , at the spot where he announced his first campaign for City Council in 1992, according to two people told of his plans.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on June 16, 2011, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 16, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/nyregion/anthony-d-weiner-tells-friends-he-will-resign.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — Representative Anthony D. Weiner has told House leaders that he plans to resign his seat after coming under growing pressure from his Democratic colleagues to leave the House, said a top Democratic official and two people told of Mr. Weiner's plans.

His decision follows revelations of his lewd online exchanges with women.

The top Democratic official said Mr. Weiner called Representative Nancy Pelosi of California and Representative Steve Israel of New York last night while they were at the White House picnic to inform them he had decided to resign on Thursday.

Mr. Weiner plans to resign in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, at 2 p.m. , at the spot where he announced his first campaign for City Council in 1992, according to two people told of his plans.

I still like the guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 16, 2011, 12:32:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 16, 2011, 11:30:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 16, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/nyregion/anthony-d-weiner-tells-friends-he-will-resign.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — Representative Anthony D. Weiner has told House leaders that he plans to resign his seat after coming under growing pressure from his Democratic colleagues to leave the House, said a top Democratic official and two people told of Mr. Weiner's plans.

His decision follows revelations of his lewd online exchanges with women.

The top Democratic official said Mr. Weiner called Representative Nancy Pelosi of California and Representative Steve Israel of New York last night while they were at the White House picnic to inform them he had decided to resign on Thursday.

Mr. Weiner plans to resign in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, at 2 p.m. , at the spot where he announced his first campaign for City Council in 1992, according to two people told of his plans.

I still like the guy.

After the Bill Maher show last week I think that Weiner tops the list of Creeps.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2011, 01:47:27 PM
History's Greatest Monster opines...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html

QuoteIN an extraordinary new initiative announced earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has made some courageous and profoundly important recommendations in a report on how to bring more effective control over the illicit drug trade. The commission includes the former presidents or prime ministers of five countries, a former secretary general of the United Nations, human rights leaders, and business and government leaders, including Richard Branson, George P. Shultz and Paul A. Volcker.

The report describes the total failure of the present global antidrug effort, and in particular America's "war on drugs," which was declared 40 years ago today. It notes that the global consumption of opiates has increased 34.5 percent, cocaine 27 percent and cannabis 8.5 percent from 1998 to 2008. Its primary recommendations are to substitute treatment for imprisonment for people who use drugs but do no harm to others, and to concentrate more coordinated international effort on combating violent criminal organizations rather than nonviolent, low-level offenders.

These recommendations are compatible with United States drug policy from three decades ago. In a message to Congress in 1977, I said the country should decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a full program of treatment for addicts. I also cautioned against filling our prisons with young people who were no threat to society, and summarized by saying: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself."

These ideas were widely accepted at the time. But in the 1980s President Ronald Reagan and Congress began to shift from balanced drug policies, including the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts, toward futile efforts to control drug imports from foreign countries.

...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2011, 02:53:55 PM
http://origin.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/06/gop-state-sen-roy-mcdonald-will-vote-in-favor-of-legalizing-same-sex-marriage

QuoteWith at least four other Republicans on the fence, the measure is expected to have enough votes to pass if the Republicans decide to allow the bill to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn't black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that. Well, f--- it, I don't care what you think. I'm trying to do the right thing," McDonald said.

The GOP will privately conference the issue tomorrow morning. Multiple insiders say they expect the measure will be brought to the floor. McDonald himself said he expects a vote could come Friday.

McDonald two years ago voted against a gay marriage bill. "Things changed," he said.

He said he altered his viewpoint in large part because he has two grandkids with disabilities.

"You realize that people and circumstances aren't always what you think they're going to be... develop a little more sensitivity... As a father, as a grandfather you try to do the right thing, you care about people."

He went on to say he's worked closely with Gov. Cuomo and likes him: "I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics," he said. "I'm tired of blowhard radio people, blowhard television people, blowhard newspapers. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing and that's where I'm going with this."

He said if the public respects that, he's grateful. If not, he'll move on.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2011, 04:10:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/14765671/chicago%25E2%2580%2599s-first-on-street-bike-parking

QuoteThe cycling initiatives have 1st Ward Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno dropping the F-bomb in support. In March, Moreno, whose ward includes Wicker Park, visited Seville, Spain, for the Velo-city bicycle conference. Joining him were fellow bike-friendly, Spanish-speaking Northwest Side politicians, 30th Ward Ald. Ariel Reboyras and 35th Ward Ald. Rey Colon.

"Six years ago Chicago was ahead of Seville in terms of biking," says Moreno. "Now Seville has physically separated bike lanes and a bike-sharing system, and they've closed down their center city to cars. It's so easy to bike there, everybody's doing it: old people on adult tricycles, young men in suits and women in heels."

The aldermen presented their findings last month during a forum at Logan Square's Boiler Room pizzeria. Moreno discussed the Wicker Park bike corral and other innovative ideas to push pedaling in the neighborhood. Since recent CDOT counts show bikes make up 22 percent of daytime traffic on parts of Milwaukee Avenue, Moreno is exploring the possibility of removing one lane of car parking on the street from California to Division to make room for a Seville-style separated bike lane. Asked how meter lessee LAZ Parking would react to the loss of revenue if car spaces were removed, Moreno responded, "Fuck 'em." The crowd of cyclists went wild.

Bump.

http://www.theurbancountry.com/2011/05/bicycle-infrastructure-is-good-for.html

QuoteA study in Toronto (http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/files/BikeLanes_Parking_Business_BloorWestVillage.pdf) seems to support the theory that people who arrive sans automobile spend more than those who arrive by automobile.

Despite the fact that businesses overestimate the number of customers that arrive by car, the study found that 4 out of 5 people do not in fact drive to the particular study area and people who arrive by transit, foot or bicycle "visit more often and report spending more money than those who drive".

Another interesting study from Melbourne (http://colabradio.mit.edu/changing-car-parking-to-bike-parking-in-melbourne/) found that re-allocating car parking spaces to bicycles could increase hourly revenue for businesses by about 5 times. The study found that in Melbourne, car drivers do spend more on shopping when they park their car than bicyclists do. But since car parking takes up several multiples of the space that bicycles require, businesses can increase their revenue by re-allocating that space to bicyclists.

Related...

http://www.stevencanplan.com/the-bollards-are-in-nuff-said/
http://gapersblock.com/tailgate/2011/06/on-the-right-cycle-track.php
http://gapersblock.com/tailgate/2011/06/transportation-commissioner-gabe-klein-meets-chicagos-bicycle-community.php
http://www.activetrans.org/blog/adolfo-hernandez/mayor-emanuel-announces-kinzie-st-protected-bike-lane
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 19, 2011, 12:56:27 PM
Marvelous!  The Republicans hire an impersonator to ridicule Obama, but he turns it around on them so the cut off his microphone and escort  him offstage.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/25659152
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 20, 2011, 09:07:11 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

QuoteEmployers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 20, 2011, 09:13:56 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2011, 04:10:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 20, 2011, 03:53:39 PM
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/14765671/chicago%25E2%2580%2599s-first-on-street-bike-parking

QuoteThe cycling initiatives have 1st Ward Ald. Proco "Joe" Moreno dropping the F-bomb in support. In March, Moreno, whose ward includes Wicker Park, visited Seville, Spain, for the Velo-city bicycle conference. Joining him were fellow bike-friendly, Spanish-speaking Northwest Side politicians, 30th Ward Ald. Ariel Reboyras and 35th Ward Ald. Rey Colon.

"Six years ago Chicago was ahead of Seville in terms of biking," says Moreno. "Now Seville has physically separated bike lanes and a bike-sharing system, and they've closed down their center city to cars. It's so easy to bike there, everybody's doing it: old people on adult tricycles, young men in suits and women in heels."

The aldermen presented their findings last month during a forum at Logan Square's Boiler Room pizzeria. Moreno discussed the Wicker Park bike corral and other innovative ideas to push pedaling in the neighborhood. Since recent CDOT counts show bikes make up 22 percent of daytime traffic on parts of Milwaukee Avenue, Moreno is exploring the possibility of removing one lane of car parking on the street from California to Division to make room for a Seville-style separated bike lane. Asked how meter lessee LAZ Parking would react to the loss of revenue if car spaces were removed, Moreno responded, "Fuck 'em." The crowd of cyclists went wild.

Bump.

http://www.theurbancountry.com/2011/05/bicycle-infrastructure-is-good-for.html

QuoteA study in Toronto (http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/files/BikeLanes_Parking_Business_BloorWestVillage.pdf) seems to support the theory that people who arrive sans automobile spend more than those who arrive by automobile.

Despite the fact that businesses overestimate the number of customers that arrive by car, the study found that 4 out of 5 people do not in fact drive to the particular study area and people who arrive by transit, foot or bicycle "visit more often and report spending more money than those who drive".

Another interesting study from Melbourne (http://colabradio.mit.edu/changing-car-parking-to-bike-parking-in-melbourne/) found that re-allocating car parking spaces to bicycles could increase hourly revenue for businesses by about 5 times. The study found that in Melbourne, car drivers do spend more on shopping when they park their car than bicyclists do. But since car parking takes up several multiples of the space that bicycles require, businesses can increase their revenue by re-allocating that space to bicyclists.

Related...

http://www.stevencanplan.com/the-bollards-are-in-nuff-said/
http://gapersblock.com/tailgate/2011/06/on-the-right-cycle-track.php
http://gapersblock.com/tailgate/2011/06/transportation-commissioner-gabe-klein-meets-chicagos-bicycle-community.php
http://www.activetrans.org/blog/adolfo-hernandez/mayor-emanuel-announces-kinzie-st-protected-bike-lane

We get it, you're a self-righteous, bearded, bike-riding hipster.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 20, 2011, 04:43:33 PM
http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/204061/337/Man-robbed-bank-for-1-to-cover-jail-health-care

QuoteCHARLOTTE, N.C. - Desperation apparently drove a North Carolina man to commit a bank robbery last week. What made him sit down and wait for police to arrive to arrest him, is another story.

"I'm sort of a logical person and that was my logic, what I came up with," James Verone said.

Verone says he came to the decision to rob the RBC Bank on Thursday of last week. He had no gun but handed the teller a rather unusual note.

"The note said this is a bank robbery. please only give me one dollar," Verone said.

Then he did the strangest thing of all.

"I started to walk away from the teller then I went back and said, 'I'll be sitting right over there in the chair waiting for the police," he said.

And that is what he did. So why did he did he do everything he could to get arrested?

"I wanted to make it known that this wasn't for monetary reasons, but for medical reasons," he said.

That's right James Verone says he has no medical insurance. He has a growth of some sort on his chest, two ruptured disks and a problem with his left foot. He is 59 years old and with no job and a depleted bank account. He thought jail was the best place he could go for medical care and a roof over his head. Verone is hoping for a three-year sentence. He'd then be able to collect social security when he got out, and says he'd head for the beach.

"I've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor, on Myrtle Beach," he said.

He admits his story is unusual and says he wouldn't recommend anyone else do what he did, but James Verone says he has no regrets. He says he is getting good medical care now, but the jail doctor accused him of manipulating the system.

"If it is called manipulation, then out of necessity because I need medical care then I guess I am manipulating the courts to get medical care," he said.

Verone may have a little problem with his plan. Because he only demanded one dollar and didn't have a weapon police charged him not with bank robbery, but larceny, so he might not get as much time in the slammer as he was hoping for.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 20, 2011, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 20, 2011, 04:43:33 PM
http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/204061/337/Man-robbed-bank-for-1-to-cover-jail-health-care

Quote'd then be able to collect social security when he got out, and says he'd head for the beach.

"I've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor, on Myrtle Beach," he said.

So... Universal Myrtle Beach Condominiums?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 20, 2011, 05:49:48 PM


*JAILS & NURSING HOMES*

*Let's put the seniors in jail*

*and the criminals in nursing homes.*

*This would correct two things at once:

*A.**SENIORS IN JAIL:*

*1.*Seniors would have access to showers, hobbies and walks.
*2.*They would receive unlimited free prescriptions, dental and
medical treatment, wheel chairs, etc.
*3.*They would receive money instead of having to pay it out.
*4.*They would have constant video monitoring, so they would be
helped instantly if they fell or needed assistance*.*
*5.*Bedding would be washed twice a week and all clothing would be
ironed and returned to them.
*6.*A guard would check on them every 20 minutes.
*7.*All meals and snacks would be brought to them
*8.*They would have family visits in a suite built for that purpose.
*9.*They would have access to a library, weight/fitness room,
spiritual counseling, a pool and education.
*10.*Free admission to in-house concerts by nationally recognized
entertainment artists.
*11.*Simple clothing - i.e. shoes, slippers, PJ's - and legal aid
would be free, upon request.
*12.*There would be private, secure rooms provided for all with an
outdoor exercise yard complete with gardens.
*13.*Each senior would have a P.C., T.V., phone and radio in their
room at no cost.
*14.*They would receive daily phone calls.
*15.*There would be a board of directors to hear any complaints and
the ACLU would fight for their rights and protection.
*16.*The guards would have a code of conduct to be strictly adhered
to, with attorneys available, at no charge to protect the seniors
and their families from abuse or neglect.

*B**. **And for the Criminals (in Nursing Homes)*

*1.*They would receive cold food.
*2.* They would be left alone and unsupervised.
*3.* They would receive showers once a week.
*4.* They would live in tiny rooms, for which they would have to pay
$5,000 per month.
*5.*They would have no hope of ever getting out.
Sounds like justice to me!



Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 20, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 20, 2011, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 20, 2011, 04:43:33 PM
http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/204061/337/Man-robbed-bank-for-1-to-cover-jail-health-care

Quote'd then be able to collect social security when he got out, and says he'd head for the beach.

"I've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor, on Myrtle Beach," he said.

So... Universal Myrtle Beach Condominiums?

Frankly, I'd take prison over retiring to Myrtle Beach.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on June 21, 2011, 06:28:38 AM
Quote from: Bort on June 20, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 20, 2011, 04:56:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 20, 2011, 04:43:33 PM
http://www.9news.com/news/sidetracks/204061/337/Man-robbed-bank-for-1-to-cover-jail-health-care

Quote'd then be able to collect social security when he got out, and says he'd head for the beach.

"I've already looked at a condominium. I've spoken to a realtor, on Myrtle Beach," he said.

So... Universal Myrtle Beach Condominiums?

Frankly, I'd take prison over retiring to Myrtle Beach.

I bet you would, Mr. Fabulous.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 20, 2011, 09:07:11 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

QuoteEmployers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 21, 2011, 09:28:42 AM

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 21, 2011, 09:33:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 20, 2011, 09:07:11 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

QuoteEmployers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

QuoteThe law forbids employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case, these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.

The allegation that the company "transferred" jobs out of state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has added about 3,000 — albeit temporary — jobs in Washington since it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial airliners.

You seem so sure of yourself, and yet the facts of the case seem be so unsupportive... you use that word "retaliate" but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 21, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 21, 2011, 09:28:42 AM

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 09:41:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 21, 2011, 09:33:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 20, 2011, 09:07:11 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

QuoteEmployers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

QuoteThe law forbids employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case, these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.

The allegation that the company "transferred" jobs out of state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has added about 3,000 — albeit temporary — jobs in Washington since it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial airliners.

You seem so sure of yourself, and yet the facts of the case seem be so unsupportive... you use that word "retaliate" but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yeah, those are the only three conditions for establishing retaliation.  Wow.  I'm so happy.  Maybe I don't need to work for the Board anymore, the Washington Post has it down pat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 21, 2011, 09:42:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 09:41:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 21, 2011, 09:33:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 20, 2011, 09:07:11 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

QuoteEmployers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

QuoteThe law forbids employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case, these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.

The allegation that the company "transferred" jobs out of state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has added about 3,000 — albeit temporary — jobs in Washington since it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial airliners.

You seem so sure of yourself, and yet the facts of the case seem be so unsupportive... you use that word "retaliate" but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yeah, those are the only three conditions for establishing retaliation.  Wow.  I'm so happy.  Maybe I don't need to work for the Board anymore, the Washington Post has it down pat.

Maybe I should ask a lawyer?  [/Gilhurt]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 21, 2011, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 21, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 21, 2011, 09:28:42 AM

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

DPD.  In my rush to pokestick Gil I missed this one.  Well done, TEC.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on June 21, 2011, 10:18:30 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 21, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 21, 2011, 09:28:42 AM

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

He's a Mormon.  Next please.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

The NLRB is quashing corporate America's First Amendment right to counter the propaganda of union interlopers with slick and informative training videos (http://gawker.com/5811371/heres-the-cheesy-anti+union-video-all-target-employees-must-endure)?

I thought you supported freedom, Gil.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 21, 2011, 10:33:32 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2011, 10:18:30 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 21, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 21, 2011, 09:28:42 AM

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

He's a Mormon.  Next please.

Also, he accepts that climate change is hai and humans just might have something to do with it (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/jon-huntsman-shocks-right-by-not-being-a-climate-change-denier.php), he supports some rights for teh gheys (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57403.html), and Gil likes him. He's got no chance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 10:37:56 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 21, 2011, 10:33:32 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2011, 10:18:30 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 21, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 21, 2011, 09:28:42 AM

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

He's a Mormon.  Next please.

Also, he accepts that climate change is hai and humans just might have something to do with it (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/jon-huntsman-shocks-right-by-not-being-a-climate-change-denier.php), he supports some rights for teh gheys (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57403.html), and Gil likes him. He's got no chance.

It doesn't help when his own campaign can't spell his name right: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/huntsman-campaign-launch-begins-day-with-misspelling-of-his-own-name.html

Quote"Members of the media were handed a press pass that read 'John Huntsman for President' -- adding an unnecessary H in the candidate's first name."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 10:48:14 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 21, 2011, 10:33:32 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2011, 10:18:30 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 21, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 21, 2011, 09:28:42 AM

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

He's a Mormon.  Next please.

Also, he accepts that climate change is hai and humans just might have something to do with it (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/jon-huntsman-shocks-right-by-not-being-a-climate-change-denier.php), he supports some rights for teh gheys (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57403.html), and Gil likes him. He's got no chance.

Not to mention that he was most recently employed by a Kenyan usurper's tin-pot regime.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 21, 2011, 10:50:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 10:48:14 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 21, 2011, 10:33:32 AM
Quote from: CT III on June 21, 2011, 10:18:30 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 21, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 21, 2011, 09:28:42 AM

Jon Huntsman announced he's running for the GOP nomination.

He's intelligent, qualified and moderate.

In other words, doomed.

In Huntsman's time as Governor of Utah, he signed the largest tax cut in the history of the state, mandated parental consent for minors to get abortions, and implemented a school voucher program.

I'm glad to learn that you consider that a moderate record, Fork.  There might be hope for you yet.

He's a Mormon.  Next please.

Also, he accepts that climate change is hai and humans just might have something to do with it (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/jon-huntsman-shocks-right-by-not-being-a-climate-change-denier.php), he supports some rights for teh gheys (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57403.html), and Gil likes him. He's got no chance.

Not to mention that he was most recently employed by a Kenyan usurper's tin-pot regime.

SOCIALIST MORMON!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
From the marriage debate in New York State...

QuoteThough no deal has been reached yet in the fight over the New York marriage equality bill, there's one Republican state Senator who's dropped his poker face.

QuoteJames Alesi told a crowd in Albany Tuesday that he's supporting the bill, adding: "I'm a Republican -- I was born that way."

"Passing marriage equality is the most important thing that I think I can do in my 20-year history as a legislator," Alesi said.

Referring to the order votes would be cast (which is alphabetical), Alesi added: "I am proud to be a Republican. I will also be proud to be the first Republican voter to vote for marriage equality in this state."

Bravo, sir.  Bravo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 05:09:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
From the marriage debate in New York State...

QuoteThough no deal has been reached yet in the fight over the New York marriage equality bill, there's one Republican state Senator who's dropped his poker face.

QuoteJames Alesi told a crowd in Albany Tuesday that he's supporting the bill, adding: "I'm a Republican -- I was born that way."

"Passing marriage equality is the most important thing that I think I can do in my 20-year history as a legislator," Alesi said.

Referring to the order votes would be cast (which is alphabetical), Alesi added: "I am proud to be a Republican. I will also be proud to be the first Republican voter to vote for marriage equality in this state."

Bravo, sir.  Bravo.

He's totally stealing Roy McDonald's thunder (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg243114#msg243114).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 05:20:14 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 05:09:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
From the marriage debate in New York State...

QuoteThough no deal has been reached yet in the fight over the New York marriage equality bill, there's one Republican state Senator who's dropped his poker face.

QuoteJames Alesi told a crowd in Albany Tuesday that he's supporting the bill, adding: "I'm a Republican -- I was born that way."

"Passing marriage equality is the most important thing that I think I can do in my 20-year history as a legislator," Alesi said.

Referring to the order votes would be cast (which is alphabetical), Alesi added: "I am proud to be a Republican. I will also be proud to be the first Republican voter to vote for marriage equality in this state."

Bravo, sir.  Bravo.

He's totally stealing Roy McDonald's thunder (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg243114#msg243114).

Roy's quote is better, to be sure.  But the "I was born that way" line stuck with me.  I'm sure he's going to feel good when this thing eventually passes.  When he voted against it in 2009, he looked dejected and sad.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
Christ. And apologies ahead of time...

Googling "Roy McDonald James Alesi" leads me to (third result) some Christian New York asshole on YouTube who uses "straight-line logic" to conclude that New York allowing same-sex marriage today will lead to Sharia law allowing 50-year-old American men to legally marry 10-year-old runaways a decade hence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=295cQlwZ3uw

Straight-line logic compels me to conclude that Gil is right: Americans are the worst.

(Sorry.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 05:20:14 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 05:09:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
From the marriage debate in New York State...

QuoteThough no deal has been reached yet in the fight over the New York marriage equality bill, there's one Republican state Senator who's dropped his poker face.

QuoteJames Alesi told a crowd in Albany Tuesday that he's supporting the bill, adding: "I'm a Republican -- I was born that way."

"Passing marriage equality is the most important thing that I think I can do in my 20-year history as a legislator," Alesi said.

Referring to the order votes would be cast (which is alphabetical), Alesi added: "I am proud to be a Republican. I will also be proud to be the first Republican voter to vote for marriage equality in this state."

Bravo, sir.  Bravo.

He's totally stealing Roy McDonald's thunder (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg243114#msg243114).

Roy's quote is better, to be sure.  But the "I was born that way" line stuck with me.  I'm sure he's going to feel good when this thing eventually passes.  When he voted against it in 2009, he looked dejected and sad.

I guess Roy actually stole Jim's thunder, as Alesi came out for it first (no pun something something)...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/nyregion/2d-gop-senator-backs-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 05:39:14 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
Christ. And apologies ahead of time...

Googling "Roy McDonald James Alesi" leads me to (third result) some Christian New York asshole on YouTube who uses "straight-line logic" to conclude that New York allowing same-sex marriage today will lead to Sharia law allowing 50-year-old American men to legally marry 10-year-old runaways a decade hence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=295cQlwZ3uw

Straight-line logic compels me to conclude that Gil is right: Americans are the worst.

(Sorry.)

In order to feel somewhat better about America, let's contemplate how characters in TV shows and movies never say goodbye when they hang up the telephone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUQeQalRsU&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 08:17:35 PM
Unrelated: http://twitpic.com/5ey9n3/full

Additionally unrelated: http://twitpic.com/5ezd1f/full
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 10:05:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 08:17:35 PM
Unrelated: http://twitpic.com/5ey9n3/full

Additionally unrelated: http://twitpic.com/5ezd1f/full

We get it. You think bumper stickers put your "carefree" side on display.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 10:07:41 PM
More generally: this is the first I've seen of the Bears specialty plates and they're appropriately bad ass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 22, 2011, 09:05:12 AM
Some interesting thoughts (http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/School-Daze-School-Daze-Good-Old-Golden-Rule-Days.aspx) on the idea that All Serious People agree that we reduce the deficit Immediately in order to create a billion jobs and win the future.

QuoteThe past several decades have witnessed an erosion of our manufacturing base in exchange for a reliance on wealth creation via financial assets. Now, as that road approaches a dead-end cul-de-sac via interest rates that can go no lower, we are left untrained, underinvested and overindebted relative to our global competitors. The precipitating cause of our structural employment break is both internal neglect and external competition. Blame us. Blame them. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Solutions from policymakers on the right or left, however, seem focused almost exclusively on rectifying or reducing our budget deficit as a panacea. While Democrats favor tax increases and mild adjustments to entitlements, Republicans pound the table for trillions of dollars of spending cuts and an axing of Obamacare. Both, however, somewhat mystifyingly, believe that balancing the budget will magically produce 20 million jobs over the next 10 years. President Obama's long-term budget makes just such a claim and Republican alternatives go many steps further. Former Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota might be the Republicans' extreme example, but his claim of 5% real growth based on tax cuts and entitlement reductions comes out of left field or perhaps the field of dreams. The United States has not had a sustained period of 5% real growth for nearly 60 years.

QuotePoliticians feel that fiscal conservatism equates to job growth. It's difficult to believe, however, that an American-based corporation, with profits as its primary focus, can somehow be wooed back to American soil with a feeble and historically unjustified assurance that Social Security will be now secure or that medical care inflation will disinflate. Admittedly, those are long-term requirements for a stable and healthy economy, but fiscal balance alone will not likely produce 20 million jobs over the next decade. The move towards it, in fact, if implemented too quickly, could stultify economic growth.

QuoteAcademics also point to a theory known as Ricardian equivalence, a notion named after David Ricardo from the early 19th century. His ivory tower theorem was that consumers would become more and more confident of their financial future if in fact they believed that their own government's exuberance would be held in check. Balance the U.S. or any government budget, he prophesized, and the private sector would extend and lever theirs. Well, commonsensically and anecdotally, I know of no family who, after watching the Republican candidates' debate in New Hampshire, went out the next day and bought themselves a flat screen under the assumption that their Medicare entitlements would be cut in future years and the U.S. budget balanced. Ricardo and his "equivalence" belong in the trash bin of theses and research aimed more towards academics than a practical remedy to America's job crisis.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 22, 2011, 09:09:14 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 05:39:14 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 21, 2011, 05:22:03 PM
Christ. And apologies ahead of time...

Googling "Roy McDonald James Alesi" leads me to (third result) some Christian New York asshole on YouTube who uses "straight-line logic" to conclude that New York allowing same-sex marriage today will lead to Sharia law allowing 50-year-old American men to legally marry 10-year-old runaways a decade hence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=295cQlwZ3uw

Straight-line logic compels me to conclude that Gil is right: Americans are the worst.

(Sorry.)

In order to feel somewhat better about America, let's contemplate how characters in TV shows and movies never say goodbye when they hang up the telephone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUQeQalRsU&feature=player_embedded

Also, no one on TV ever has any urgency to answer a door unless it can lead to slapstick comedy.

And they made the whole plane out of airline food.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 22, 2011, 09:19:36 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 22, 2011, 09:05:12 AM
Some interesting thoughts (http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/School-Daze-School-Daze-Good-Old-Golden-Rule-Days.aspx) on the idea that All Serious People agree that we reduce the deficit Immediately in order to create a billion jobs and win the future.

QuoteThe past several decades have witnessed an erosion of our manufacturing base in exchange for a reliance on wealth creation via financial assets. Now, as that road approaches a dead-end cul-de-sac via interest rates that can go no lower, we are left untrained, underinvested and overindebted relative to our global competitors. The precipitating cause of our structural employment break is both internal neglect and external competition. Blame us. Blame them. There's plenty of blame to go around.

Solutions from policymakers on the right or left, however, seem focused almost exclusively on rectifying or reducing our budget deficit as a panacea. While Democrats favor tax increases and mild adjustments to entitlements, Republicans pound the table for trillions of dollars of spending cuts and an axing of Obamacare. Both, however, somewhat mystifyingly, believe that balancing the budget will magically produce 20 million jobs over the next 10 years. President Obama's long-term budget makes just such a claim and Republican alternatives go many steps further. Former Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota might be the Republicans' extreme example, but his claim of 5% real growth based on tax cuts and entitlement reductions comes out of left field or perhaps the field of dreams. The United States has not had a sustained period of 5% real growth for nearly 60 years.

QuotePoliticians feel that fiscal conservatism equates to job growth. It's difficult to believe, however, that an American-based corporation, with profits as its primary focus, can somehow be wooed back to American soil with a feeble and historically unjustified assurance that Social Security will be now secure or that medical care inflation will disinflate. Admittedly, those are long-term requirements for a stable and healthy economy, but fiscal balance alone will not likely produce 20 million jobs over the next decade. The move towards it, in fact, if implemented too quickly, could stultify economic growth.

QuoteAcademics also point to a theory known as Ricardian equivalence, a notion named after David Ricardo from the early 19th century. His ivory tower theorem was that consumers would become more and more confident of their financial future if in fact they believed that their own government's exuberance would be held in check. Balance the U.S. or any government budget, he prophesized, and the private sector would extend and lever theirs. Well, commonsensically and anecdotally, I know of no family who, after watching the Republican candidates' debate in New Hampshire, went out the next day and bought themselves a flat screen under the assumption that their Medicare entitlements would be cut in future years and the U.S. budget balanced. Ricardo and his "equivalence" belong in the trash bin of theses and research aimed more towards academics than a practical remedy to America's job crisis.

Of course, if the Government were ever able to balance the budget, any growth in the private sector would lead to projected surpluses, which would lead to someone running for office on a platform of tax cuts because "it's your money", which would lead to deficits.

We're boned. Let's go bowling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 22, 2011, 10:34:28 AM
Boned, indeed.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/feds-look-to-regulate-food-similar-to-tobacco-with-hopes-of-saving-money-on-health-care/#ixzz1Q0ynJFJL

QuoteThe federal government has a growing interest in the eating habits of Americans for the same reason it has an interest in tobacco consumption, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Goddamnit, they can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 22, 2011, 10:54:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 22, 2011, 10:34:28 AM
Boned, indeed.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/22/feds-look-to-regulate-food-similar-to-tobacco-with-hopes-of-saving-money-on-health-care/#ixzz1Q0ynJFJL

QuoteThe federal government has a growing interest in the eating habits of Americans for the same reason it has an interest in tobacco consumption, said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Goddamnit, they can have my bacon when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

THIS. WILL. NOT. STAND.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 22, 2011, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 17, 2011, 01:47:27 PM
History's Greatest Monster opines...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html

QuoteIN an extraordinary new initiative announced earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has made some courageous and profoundly important recommendations in a report on how to bring more effective control over the illicit drug trade. The commission includes the former presidents or prime ministers of five countries, a former secretary general of the United Nations, human rights leaders, and business and government leaders, including Richard Branson, George P. Shultz and Paul A. Volcker.

The report describes the total failure of the present global antidrug effort, and in particular America's "war on drugs," which was declared 40 years ago today. It notes that the global consumption of opiates has increased 34.5 percent, cocaine 27 percent and cannabis 8.5 percent from 1998 to 2008. Its primary recommendations are to substitute treatment for imprisonment for people who use drugs but do no harm to others, and to concentrate more coordinated international effort on combating violent criminal organizations rather than nonviolent, low-level offenders.

These recommendations are compatible with United States drug policy from three decades ago. In a message to Congress in 1977, I said the country should decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a full program of treatment for addicts. I also cautioned against filling our prisons with young people who were no threat to society, and summarized by saying: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself."

These ideas were widely accepted at the time. But in the 1980s President Ronald Reagan and Congress began to shift from balanced drug policies, including the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts, toward futile efforts to control drug imports from foreign countries.

...

Meanwhile in Washington, Big Gay Barney and Ron Paul hot box the zeppelin...

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/22/barney-frank-and-ron-paul-will

QuoteRep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce "bi-partisan legislation tomorrow ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states legalize, regulate, tax, and control marijuana without federal interference," according to a press release from the Marijuana Policy Project that just hit my inbox. More from that email:

QuoteOther co-sponsors include Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). The legislation would limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, allowing people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal. The legislation is the first bill ever introduced in Congress to end federal marijuana prohibition.

Rep. Frank's legislation would end state/federal conflicts over marijuana policy, reprioritize federal resources, and provide more room for states to do what is best for their own citizens.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 23, 2011, 08:37:44 AM

That explains Oleg running down the street naked, yelling "Hallelujah!" last night.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 09:52:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

You call the end of the world funny?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 23, 2011, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 09:52:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

You call the end of the world funny?

I guess you had to be there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on June 23, 2011, 10:36:43 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 23, 2011, 08:37:44 AM

That explains Oleg running down the street naked, yelling "Hallelujah!" last night.

Why was he naked?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on June 23, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 23, 2011, 10:36:43 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 23, 2011, 08:37:44 AM

That explains Oleg running down the street naked, yelling "Hallelujah!" last night.

Why was he naked?

An unrelated anecdote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on June 23, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on June 23, 2011, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 09:52:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

You call the end of the world funny?

I guess you had to be there.

In Stew's defense, he was there for the beginning of the world.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 12:41:26 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 23, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on June 23, 2011, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 09:52:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

You call the end of the world funny?

I guess you had to be there.

In Stew's defense, he was there for the beginning of the world.

At first it was too dark to see what was going on.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 23, 2011, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 12:41:26 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 23, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on June 23, 2011, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 09:52:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

You call the end of the world funny?

I guess you had to be there.

In Stew's defense, he was there for the beginning of the world.

At first it was too dark to see what was going on.

You sure that wasn't the cataracts?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 23, 2011, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 23, 2011, 01:00:39 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 12:41:26 PM
Quote from: PenPho on June 23, 2011, 11:56:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on June 23, 2011, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 23, 2011, 09:52:52 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

You call the end of the world funny?

I guess you had to be there.

In Stew's defense, he was there for the beginning of the world.

At first it was too dark to see what was going on.

You sure that wasn't the cataracts?

Intrepid Reader: Asian Stereotype

Cataract? Stew dlive Rincoln!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 23, 2011, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

*starts thinking of what it would be like to live in Norway*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2011, 08:09:28 AM
What the Health Care discussion was missing (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-23/entertainment/bal-katy-perry-reveals-what-drives-her-crazy-lack-of-universal-health-care-20110623_1_health-care-katy-perry-lack-of-universal-health)...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on June 24, 2011, 08:25:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 23, 2011, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

*starts thinking of what it would be like to live in Norway*

Dark.  Cold.  Expensive.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on June 24, 2011, 08:42:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2011, 08:09:28 AM
What the Health Care discussion was missing (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-23/entertainment/bal-katy-perry-reveals-what-drives-her-crazy-lack-of-universal-health-care-20110623_1_health-care-katy-perry-lack-of-universal-health)...

I thought for sure you'd say this. (http://www.britishmusclebear.com)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 24, 2011, 08:53:55 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2011, 08:42:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2011, 08:09:28 AM
What the Health Care discussion was missing (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-23/entertainment/bal-katy-perry-reveals-what-drives-her-crazy-lack-of-universal-health-care-20110623_1_health-care-katy-perry-lack-of-universal-health)...

I thought for sure you'd say this. (http://www.britishmusclebear.com)

I may have to reassess my opinion of the British healthcare system.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 24, 2011, 09:21:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2011, 08:25:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 23, 2011, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

*starts thinking of what it would be like to live in Norway*

Dark.  Cold.  Expensive.

*Is never actually moving to Norway*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on June 24, 2011, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 24, 2011, 08:42:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 24, 2011, 08:09:28 AM
What the Health Care discussion was missing (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-23/entertainment/bal-katy-perry-reveals-what-drives-her-crazy-lack-of-universal-health-care-20110623_1_health-care-katy-perry-lack-of-universal-health)...

I thought for sure you'd say this. (http://www.britishmusclebear.com)

FUCK
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 24, 2011, 01:01:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 24, 2011, 09:21:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2011, 08:25:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 23, 2011, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

*starts thinking of what it would be like to live in Norway*

Dark.  Cold.  Expensive.

*Is never actually moving to Norway*

How about Minnesota? It's like Norway, only less potent beer and a close-up view of the Viking Apocalypse, now with Samurai Mike.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 24, 2011, 02:38:57 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 24, 2011, 01:01:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on June 24, 2011, 09:21:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2011, 08:25:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 23, 2011, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 23, 2011, 09:40:15 AM
Lots of funny stuff here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?print=true

*starts thinking of what it would be like to live in Norway*

Dark.  Cold.  Expensive.

*Is never actually moving to Norway*

How about Minnesota? It's like Norway, only less potent beer and a close-up view of the Viking Apocalypse, now with Samurai Mike.

It's also colder. No joke. And Minnesota is kind of the reason I would leave for Norway in the first place. We've come full circle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 25, 2011, 10:52:33 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/xdxkh.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 29, 2011, 07:01:50 PM
CT, I need an irony ruling on this: http://www.avclub.com/articles/to-catch-a-predators-chris-hansen-caught-by-hidden,58335/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 30, 2011, 09:06:47 AM
Apologies for the HuffPo link, but while reading this (http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/republicans-reject-the-republican-offer-on-deficit-cutting-mix-or-democrats-propose-the-aei-plan-on-tax-increases-vs-spending-cuts/) about the shitty negotiating done by the Democrats during this debt ceiling clusterfuck:

QuoteSo once again, just like in the government shutdown debate, Obama and the Democrats are fighting to get what the Republicans and the right-wing economic think tanks originally proposed they should do, and the GOP just keeps walking the goalposts to the right.  If this comes down to the constitutional option, I hope everyone remembers that the Democrats have actually proposed doing exactly what the Republicans and the right-wing economists originally asked for.

I had no idea what the constitutional option was and found this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/14th-amendment-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional-democrats_n_886442.html). Let's set aside the wisdom of this option. What say you about its validity, lawyers and notlawyers?

QuoteGrowing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment.

"This is an issue that's been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. "I don't think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I'll tell you that it's going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, 'Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'"

By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on June 30, 2011, 09:58:42 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 29, 2011, 07:01:50 PM
CT, I need an irony ruling on this: http://www.avclub.com/articles/to-catch-a-predators-chris-hansen-caught-by-hidden,58335/

Funny, yes.  Ironic?  No.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 01, 2011, 10:10:26 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 21, 2011, 09:33:11 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 21, 2011, 09:23:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on June 20, 2011, 09:07:11 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/flight-risk-for-boeing/2011/06/17/AGH9Q5bH_story.html

QuoteEmployers who engage in unfair labor practices should be penalized. But the NLRB's move goes too far and would undermine a company's ability to consider all legitimate factors — including potential work disruptions — when making plans. It also substitutes the government's judgment for that of the company. This is neither good law nor good business

Yep.  The editors of the Washington Post get it.

Or they don't.

Legitimate business factors are fine.  Illegal and unlawful business considerations are not.  It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against employees for choosing to engage in protected concerted activity.  Striking is precisely that.

Besides, I imagine this would make you more angry: http://hosted2.ap.org/NMSAN/Politics/Article_2011-06-21-Union%20Elections/id-40d9ec7ff4424f5badcd864c0b16a6bc

QuoteThe law forbids employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees for lawful union activity. To prevail, an aggrieved party typically must show that the retaliation resulted in demotions, dismissals, wage reductions or other punitive measures. In Boeing's case, these reprisals are absent; the company also claims its collective bargaining agreement gives it the explicit and exclusive right to locate work where it wishes.

The allegation that the company "transferred" jobs out of state is unconvincing because the jobs in South Carolina are new. The company has not cut jobs in Washington, nor has it demoted or slashed the wages of union workers. Boeing has added about 3,000 — albeit temporary — jobs in Washington since it announced its South Carolina plans and says it is likely to add more to keep up with demand for its commercial airliners.

You seem so sure of yourself, and yet the facts of the case seem be so unsupportive... you use that word "retaliate" but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Strike one...http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/30/nlrb-judge-denies-boeing-motion-to-dismiss-case/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 01, 2011, 12:39:55 PM
God bless America.  Happy 4th of July, folks. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/?watchId=8fc448c2-7306-4e2e-a6eb-04893cd645df)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on July 01, 2011, 01:23:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 01, 2011, 12:39:55 PM
God bless America.  Happy 4th of July, folks. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/?watchId=8fc448c2-7306-4e2e-a6eb-04893cd645df)

I'm surprised you celebrate the 4th of July.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on July 01, 2011, 02:47:30 PM
Quote from: BH on July 01, 2011, 01:23:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 01, 2011, 12:39:55 PM
God bless America.  Happy 4th of July, folks. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/?watchId=8fc448c2-7306-4e2e-a6eb-04893cd645df)

I'm surprised you celebrate the 4th of July.

He doesn't hate America, just everyone who lives in, supports, protects, and generally embiggens America. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 01, 2011, 03:38:50 PM
Quote from: PenPho on July 01, 2011, 02:47:30 PM
Quote from: BH on July 01, 2011, 01:23:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 01, 2011, 12:39:55 PM
God bless America.  Happy 4th of July, folks. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/?watchId=8fc448c2-7306-4e2e-a6eb-04893cd645df)

I'm surprised you celebrate the 4th of July.

He doesn't hate America, just everyone who lives in, supports, protects, and generally embiggens America. 

Hey! It's a perfectly cromulent viewpoint.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 03, 2011, 04:26:10 PM
Now THIS, is irony:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/parish_man_protesting_motorcyc.html

QuoteA Parish man who was participating in a motorcycle helmet protest ride was killed this afternoon when he went over the handlebars of his motorcycle and injured his head on the pavement, state police said.

Evidence at the scene and information from the attending physician indicate Contos would have survived if he had been wearing a Department of Transportation approved helmet, troopers said.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2011, 03:09:23 PM
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-marijuana-arrest-statistics/Content?oid=4198958

QuoteThe ratio of black to white arrests for marijuana possession in Chicago is 15 to 1, according to a Reader analysis of police and court data. And by the time the cases make their way through the court system, the gap widens even further: the ratio among those who plead or are found guilty is 40 to 1.

Here's another way to look at it: almost nine of every ten people who end up guilty of possessing marijuana in Chicago—86 percent, to be precise—are black men.

The racial gap has become so glaring that Cook County Board president Toni Preckwinkle says something has to change, if only because taxpayers can't afford to continue arresting, detaining, and prosecuting low-level marijuana offenders. In an interview last week, Preckwinkle, for the first time, said what no other high-ranking local official has dared: "I think we should decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, that's for sure."

Preckwinkle added that she recently told Chicago police superintendent Garry McCarthy to "stop arresting people for small amounts of drugs, because you're wasting our time."

McCarthy did not respond to our requests for comment on the racial disparity. Instead, a spokeswoman e-mailed a statement: "Crime and disorder issues emerge from a complicated web of social ills which law enforcement alone cannot correct."

...

Swanson and other activists want the police to stop making so many marijuana arrests, but Superintendent McCarthy's position on the issue is not clear—at times he's argued different sides of the same issue.

Cook County state's attorney Anita Alvarez, whose office is responsible for prosecuting the cases, puts the onus on McCarthy and the police. "We handle the cases that come in," she says. "As far as any specifics as to how people are getting arrested, that's not a question for me—that's a question for the police department."

Furthermore, Alvarez says she is not about to join the call to decriminalize marijuana, though she would be open to "sitting at the table" for a discussion of drug policies. "If the state wants to legalize marijuana, well, that will be the law, but it's not a discussion we've had here."

That leaves Preckwinkle as the only prominent elected official in Chicago speaking candidly about the matter. In June she spoke at a downtown rally decrying the 40-year-old war on drugs as a failure. No other elected officials showed up.

In our interview, Preckwinkle noted that it costs taxpayers $143 a day to house someone in the Cook County jail. "The drug policies in this country are stupid and extraordinarily expensive," she said.

When asked why marijuana laws have such a disproportionate impact on blacks, she simply said: "Poverty and racism."

Still, Preckwinkle says she realizes if anything builds support for changing marijuana and other drug laws, it's likely to be the cost to taxpayers of arresting, detaining, and incarcerating users.

"If you have no compassion for the people in the criminal justice system or their families or the communities from which they come, and all you care about is the money, I'll take you as an ally any day."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 07, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
"Toni Preckwinkle"?   I feel like I am back in the seventh grade.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 07, 2011, 06:10:16 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 07, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
"Toni Preckwinkle"?   I feel like I am back in the seventh grade.

Racist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 07, 2011, 10:30:25 PM
Read it and weep, Nixon-haters: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-importance-nixon-todays-gop-5577

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/opinion/06iht-edswitzer06.html?_r=3&ref=global
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 08, 2011, 12:10:49 AM
Quote from: CT III on July 07, 2011, 06:10:16 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 07, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
"Toni Preckwinkle"?   I feel like I am back in the seventh grade.

Racist.

Intrepid Reader: Wheezer

Something something something orthopaedic shoes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 08, 2011, 08:53:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 07, 2011, 10:30:25 PM
Read it and weep, Nixon-haters: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-importance-nixon-todays-gop-5577

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/opinion/06iht-edswitzer06.html?_r=3&ref=global

QuoteSuch wisdom should make a comeback in the GOP. Will it?

No. And it won't in the Democratic party either.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 08, 2011, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 07, 2011, 10:30:25 PM
Read it and weep, Nixon-haters: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/the-importance-nixon-todays-gop-5577

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/opinion/06iht-edswitzer06.html?_r=3&ref=global
Quote
In the past two decades, the accepted wisdom in Washington has embraced several expressions about the U.S. place in the post-Cold War world, from "indispensable nation" and "sole remaining superpower" to "benign hegemony" and "A New American Century."

Richard Nixon recognized the perils of such grandiose visions. For U.S. foreign policy, the key word was not "and" but "or," and the key question was not "how" but "why." Democrats and Republicans could do worse than reflect on Nixon's remarks 40 years ago.

For a guy who came to accept that America was in decline as a great power in the early 70s stuck with that view for the rest of his life, he had an odd way of showing it. (http://www.amazon.com/Seize-Moment-Americas-Challenge-One-Superpower/dp/0671743430/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_9)

QuoteWe now live in a world in which the United States is the only superpower.  We must recast our foreign policy to cope with this radically new situation.  For many on the American left and right, the knee-jerk response to the decline of the Soviet Union as a credible superpower is to withdraw to a new isolationism.  But in fact American world leadership will be indispensable in the coming decades.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 08, 2011, 09:31:11 AM
DPD.

There's also an entire Chapter in "Beyond Peace" (http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Peace-Richard-M-Nixon/dp/0517164442/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310134998&sr=1-1) called "Asia and the New American Century"

So yeah, the NYT article is right.  He never talked about a "new American Century" or referred to America as "indispensable" or the "only superpower" except for all the times that he said those things.

Have you ever even read anything Nixon wrote, Gil?  I think you're a Nixon fan poser.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 08, 2011, 11:42:26 AM
Some ugly, ugly numbers and charts here

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/07/08/the-july-jobs-numbers-there-is-no-silver-lining-51067/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 08, 2011, 12:36:37 PM
Quote from: R-V on July 08, 2011, 11:42:26 AM
Some ugly, ugly numbers and charts here

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/07/08/the-july-jobs-numbers-there-is-no-silver-lining-51067/

Damn, if the Bush tax cuts were extended and government jobs were cut, this never would of happened.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 11, 2011, 11:20:16 AM
God bless America: http://consumerist.com/2011/07/chase-gets-man-thrown-in-jail-for-fraudulent-check-except-the-check-is-legit.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on July 11, 2011, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 11, 2011, 11:20:16 AM
God bless America: http://consumerist.com/2011/07/chase-gets-man-thrown-in-jail-for-fraudulent-check-except-the-check-is-legit.html

Huey's brother really screwed the pooch on this one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2011, 09:55:50 AM
Tailor made for the Daily Show...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/the-most-incredible-thing-fox-news-has-ever-done/242037/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 17, 2011, 12:21:11 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 08, 2011, 12:10:49 AM
Quote from: CT III on July 07, 2011, 06:10:16 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 07, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
"Toni Preckwinkle"?   I feel like I am back in the seventh grade.

Racist.

Intrepid Reader: Wheezer

Something something something orthopaedic shoes.

And public child-whipping. Don't forget that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 18, 2011, 04:14:04 PM
While I am not a fan of cutting student aid (since it is profitable to the government via the higher income taxes people with college graduates pay vs. those with only a high school diploma), the general ideas in here are pretty good (http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9-trillion-deficit-cut-measure-192145582.html).

Pay for the aid by letting the Bush Tax Increases occur and I'm all for it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 19, 2011, 11:35:21 AM
http://youtu.be/UhKOPukWo8I (http://youtu.be/UhKOPukWo8I)

Best thing that could have happened to Murdoch - he can either lie his ass off or confess to anything up to and including the Lindbergh kidnapping, and all the headlines will be "Murdoch Hit With Pie".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 19, 2011, 11:47:43 PM
Now, wait, Coburn said nothing about, and voted for, Oetken, but Mikkanen is "unacceptable"? I don't know that I want to know.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 20, 2011, 12:24:17 AM
DPD. Am I totally behind the times in being hitherto unaware of the Deuteronomy 17 birther argument (http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4587/meet_the_christian_reconstructionists_behind_the_latest_birther_theory_)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 20, 2011, 08:21:11 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 20, 2011, 12:24:17 AM
DPD. Am I totally behind the times in being hitherto unaware of the Deuteronomy 17 birther argument (http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4587/meet_the_christian_reconstructionists_behind_the_latest_birther_theory_)?

Sounds like someone hasn't been to see their dentist in a while.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 21, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
WORST. CONGRESS. EVER. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/worst_congress_ever)

One of the commenters (GO FIGURE, GIL!!) makes a great point in advocating for the abolition of the primary election.  An interesting theory.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 21, 2011, 12:54:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 21, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
WORST. CONGRESS. EVER. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/worst_congress_ever)

One of the commenters (GO FIGURE, GIL!!) makes a great point in advocating for the abolition of the primary election.  An interesting theory.

So Congress got awful when the Republicans took control in the 1990s.  It stayed awful until the Democrats took control in 2006 when it got better.  And now it's even worse when Republicans are back in the majority.

I'm really shocked that Gil posted an article like this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 21, 2011, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 21, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
WORST. CONGRESS. EVER. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/worst_congress_ever)

One of the commenters (GO FIGURE, GIL!!) makes a great point in advocating for the abolition of the primary election.  An interesting theory.

Norman Ornstein (http://www.britishmusclebear.com)? Really?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 21, 2011, 03:06:56 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 21, 2011, 12:54:06 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 21, 2011, 12:01:30 PM
WORST. CONGRESS. EVER. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/worst_congress_ever)

One of the commenters (GO FIGURE, GIL!!) makes a great point in advocating for the abolition of the primary election.  An interesting theory.

So Congress got awful when the Republicans took control in the 1990s.  It stayed awful until the Democrats took control in 2006 when it got better.  And now it's even worse when Republicans are back in the majority.

You know... Occasionally, correlation is due to causation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 22, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Barack Obama: The Democrats' Richard Nixon? (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx)

An interesting read, at the very least.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on July 22, 2011, 10:22:01 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 22, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Barack Obama: The Democrats' Richard Nixon? (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx)

An interesting read, at the very least.

Is the article just about the fact that both dongs dangle from your mouth?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 25, 2011, 10:26:35 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

I agree.  This is an awful, awful idea.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 25, 2011, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 25, 2011, 11:48:13 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 25, 2011, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 11:54:18 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 25, 2011, 11:48:13 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 25, 2011, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

This all comes back to another solution: instead of a consolidated "Super Congress," how about just expanding the number of seats to something like 6,000? Then you cut Congressional pay and allowances to a  12th of what they are now, have Congressional sessions occur via teleconference so they don't even have to decamp in DC, and see how many parties are represented in Congress then.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 25, 2011, 12:44:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 11:54:18 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 25, 2011, 11:48:13 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 25, 2011, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

This all comes back to another solution: instead of a consolidated "Super Congress," how about just expanding the number of seats to something like 6,000? Then you cut Congressional pay and allowances to a  12th of what they are now, have Congressional sessions occur via teleconference so they don't even have to decamp in DC, and see how many parties are represented in Congress then.

This is exactly what SKO has been saying since "Attack of the Clones."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on July 25, 2011, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 25, 2011, 12:44:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 11:54:18 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 25, 2011, 11:48:13 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 25, 2011, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

This all comes back to another solution: instead of a consolidated "Super Congress," how about just expanding the number of seats to something like 6,000? Then you cut Congressional pay and allowances to a  12th of what they are now, have Congressional sessions occur via teleconference so they don't even have to decamp in DC, and see how many parties are represented in Congress then.

This is exactly what SKO has been saying since "Attack of the Clones."

Nay, but I am for consolidating the power of the legislature in the hands of one Emperor. Provided that he's divinely appointed and will drive Bort and his ilk back to their bomb-making cellars below the city streets.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Armchair_QB on July 25, 2011, 01:49:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on July 25, 2011, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 25, 2011, 12:44:39 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 11:54:18 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 25, 2011, 11:48:13 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 25, 2011, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 25, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 25, 2011, 09:42:48 AM
SUPER CONGRESS! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html)

QuoteThis "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Holy shit is this a pathetic and cowardly idea.

It would be a lot better if the SuperCongressmen would get to wear superhero costumes. Gridlock on the Hill? Bill getting fillibustered in the Senate? You could just see Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Clyburn, John Lewis, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa, and Eric Cantor step off the floor and into one of 12 strategically-placed phone booths to come out as their own super-action hero SuperCongressman!

I'd be impressed if they could find 12 phone booths.

Isn't the real story that there are 523 people with jobs in DC and all their supporting staff that are superfluous? Maybe we shrink the budget by firing them all and shuttering their offices.

This all comes back to another solution: instead of a consolidated "Super Congress," how about just expanding the number of seats to something like 6,000? Then you cut Congressional pay and allowances to a  12th of what they are now, have Congressional sessions occur via teleconference so they don't even have to decamp in DC, and see how many parties are represented in Congress then.

This is exactly what SKO has been saying since "Attack of the Clones."

Nay, but I am for consolidating the power of the legislature in the hands of one Emperor. Provided that he's divinely appointed and will drive Bort and his ilk back to their bomb-making cellars below the city streets.

(http://rlv.zcache.com/vote_for_kodos_tshirt-p235579143302933700qdd5_400.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 26, 2011, 04:54:53 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/08/01/110801ta_talk_surowiecki

QuoteThe truth is that the United States doesn't need, and shouldn't have, a debt ceiling. Every other democratic country, with the exception of Denmark, does fine without one. There's no debt limit in the Constitution. And, if Congress really wants to hold down government debt, it already has a way to do so that doesn't risk economic chaos—namely, the annual budgeting process. The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, we'll face an absurd scenario in which Congress will have ordered the President to execute two laws that are flatly at odds with each other. If he obeys the debt ceiling, he cannot spend the money that Congress has told him to spend, which is why most government functions will be shut down. Yet if he spends the money as Congress has authorized him to he'll end up violating the debt ceiling.

As it happens, the debt ceiling, which was adopted in 1917, did have a purpose once—it was a way for Congress to keep the President accountable. Congress used to exercise only loose control over the government budget, and the President was able to borrow money and spend money with little legislative oversight. But this hasn't been the case since 1974; Congress now passes comprehensive budget resolutions that detail exactly how the government will tax and spend, and the Treasury Department borrows only the money that Congress allows it to. (It's why TARP, for instance, required Congress to pass a law authorizing the Treasury to act.) This makes the debt ceiling an anachronism. These days, the debt limit actually makes the President less accountable to Congress, not more: if the ceiling isn't raised, it's President Obama who will be deciding which bills get paid and which don't, with no say from Congress.

...

Advocates of the ceiling like the way it turns the national debt into front-page news, focussing the minds of voters and politicians; they think it fosters accountability, straight talk, transparency. In reality, debt-ceiling votes merely perpetuate the illusion that balancing the budget is easy. That's why politicians like the debt ceiling: it allows them to rail against borrowing more money (which voters hate) without having to vote to cut any specific programs or raise taxes (which voters also hate).

You might think that there are benefits to putting negotiators under the gun. But, as the Dutch psychologist Carsten de Dreu has shown, time pressure tends to close minds, not open them. Under time pressure, negotiators tend to rely more on stereotypes and cognitive shortcuts. They don't consider as wide a range of alternatives, and are more likely to jump to conclusions based on scanty evidence. Time pressure also reduces the chances that an agreement will be what psychologists call "integrative"—taking everyone's interests and values into account.

In fact, by turning dealmaking into a game of chicken, the debt ceiling favors fanaticism. As the economist Thomas Schelling showed many years ago, "It does not always help to be, or to be believed to be, fully rational, coolheaded, and in control of oneself" when it comes to brinksmanship....
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 01, 2011, 09:14:39 AM
The bad news: SUPERCONGRESS is gonna hai (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-deal-that-found-the-lowest-common-denominator/2011/07/11/gIQAde9TmI_blog.html). The good news: if RegularCongress doesn't like what SUPERCONGRESS comes up with, they'll stop wasting my tax dollars on deadbeat troops like TEC.

QuoteIn his remarks on Friday, President Obama said he would support a trigger if it was done in "a smart and balanced way." The implication was that it had to include tax increases as well as spending cuts, as a trigger with just spending cuts wouldn't force Republicans to negotiate in good faith. The trigger in this deal does not include tax increases.

What it includes instead are massive cuts to the defense budget. If Congress doesn't pass a second round of deficit reduction, the trigger cuts $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Fully half of that comes from defense spending. And note that I didn't say "security spending." The Pentagon takes the full hit if the trigger goes off.

The other half of the trigger comes from domestic spending. But Social Security, Medicaid and a few other programs for the poor are exempted. So the trigger is effectively treating defense spending like it comprises more than half of all federal spending. If it goes off, the cuts to that sector will be tremendous -- particularly given that they will come on top of the initial round of cuts. Whether you think the trigger will work depends on whether you think the GOP would permit that level of cuts to defense.

If the trigger "works," of course, it's never used. Instead, the bipartisan committee produces $1.5 trillion (or more) in deficit reduction, Congress passes their plan and the president signs it. But why should we believe that will happen? If Republicans and Democrats couldn't agree on major deficit reduction this year, why is it going to be any easier in an election year?

And the National Review...is right (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/273256/debt-ceiling-deal-less-meets-eye-josh-barro)?

QuoteFinally, I would note that the president called for a "balanced" approach to fiscal adjustment, and this is one. We now have $2.5 trillion in automatic, scheduled spending cuts* over the next 10 years. That comes on top of $2.8 trillion in automatic tax increases that are already scheduled through the year 2022, due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012. Indeed, Republicans have a good case that the automatic deficit reduction plan is not balanced but a bit tax-heavy.

I brought this up on Twitter today, and I got a lot of harrumphing from Democrats. There's no way President Obama will ever let the Bush tax cuts expire, they say—he'll get rolled again, just like he did in 2010.

To that, I have two responses. First, it's not our fault you nominated this guy. Second, I'm not sure what good a balanced trigger as part of this compromise—one that included automatic tax increases, not just spending cuts—would have done, under this view. President Obama already has an automatic tax trigger that liberals believe he is afraid to use. What good would giving him a second trigger do?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 01, 2011, 10:01:10 AM
The Bush tax cuts get rolled on 1/1/13, after the election. At that point Obama is done being a candidate, win or lose. He can let them expire, although I don't see him letting them all go, just the top brackets.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 01, 2011, 09:32:40 PM
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/to-applause-giffords-returns-to-house-floor-20110801

QuoteRep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., may have captured the change in tone best.

"Who knew that the budget bill would be the second biggest story of the day?" he said.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on August 02, 2011, 12:53:53 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 01, 2011, 09:32:40 PM
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/to-applause-giffords-returns-to-house-floor-20110801

QuoteRep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., may have captured the change in tone best.

"Who knew that the budget bill would be the second biggest story of the day?" he said.

Intrepid Reader: Huey

Today, Congress.
Tomorrow, POTUS. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2011, 09:39:09 AM
This just sounds great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2011, 10:05:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2011, 09:39:09 AM
This just sounds great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/

Why does Gil hate the First Amendment?

Edit: by all accounts, Gil should be fer it, not agin it...

QuoteIt's one more example, he said, of how American political campaigns have gone "back to the future" and to the "pre-Watergate days (of 1972) when Richard Nixon was raising unlimited amounts of money without disclosure."

(How is that going "back to the future"?)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 04, 2011, 10:11:21 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2011, 10:05:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2011, 09:39:09 AM
This just sounds great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/

Why does Gil hate the First Amendment?

Edit: by all accounts, Gil should be fer it, not agin it...

QuoteIt's one more example, he said, of how American political campaigns have gone "back to the future" and to the "pre-Watergate days (of 1972) when Richard Nixon was raising unlimited amounts of money without disclosure."

(How is that going "back to the future"?)

Nixon was a time traveler. Clearly someone that handsome and wise couldn't have been born in the 1900s.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2011, 10:27:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 04, 2011, 10:11:21 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2011, 10:05:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 04, 2011, 09:39:09 AM
This just sounds great: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/

Why does Gil hate the First Amendment?

Edit: by all accounts, Gil should be fer it, not agin it...

QuoteIt's one more example, he said, of how American political campaigns have gone "back to the future" and to the "pre-Watergate days (of 1972) when Richard Nixon was raising unlimited amounts of money without disclosure."

(How is that going "back to the future"?)

Nixon was a time traveler. Clearly someone that handsome and wise couldn't have been born in the 1900s.

(http://i.imgur.com/45rsS.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2011, 10:45:36 AM
The GOP holds the FAA hostage. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/opinion/the-faa-after-the-republicans.html)

And good for them! As everyone knows, the only thing the "safety regulation" state is good for is holding back the development of the Jetsons shit we so rightly deserve.

(Speaking of which, by the by... Hurdle one (http://news.discovery.com/autos/flying-car-gets-faa-approval.html). Hurdle two (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20077249-1/buckle-up-terrafugia-flying-car-approved-for-roads/). Who's got $250K sitting idle?)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 04, 2011, 10:56:43 AM
How has Rick Perry not been karmically destroyed yet?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 04, 2011, 11:19:45 AM
Well, on the plus side, Chris Christie is not tolerating stupid bullshit from anybody.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/chris-christie-smacks-down-the-sharia-crowd/2011/03/04/gIQARsBBuI_blog.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 04, 2011, 01:36:35 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 04, 2011, 10:56:43 AM
How has Rick Perry not been karmically destroyed yet?

If he keeps swapping furtive yet tender caresses with AFA, it may just be a matter of time (http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147510309).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 04, 2011, 01:36:35 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 04, 2011, 10:56:43 AM
How has Rick Perry not been karmically destroyed yet?

If he keeps swapping furtive yet tender caresses with AFA, it may just be a matter of time (http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147510309).

BC assures us that "Perry's baggage is minimal" compared to the rest of the GOP field. (http://www.hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?highlight=p128286192&date=2011-7-22#p128286192)

So, yeah... he's clearly doomed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2011, 04:38:13 PM
Also: a generous 'holy shit' to Wheezer's link.

QuoteAs I have written before, God's word to ancient Israel was that a growing danger from wild animals is a sign of a nation in rebellion against God. "If you will not listen to me and will not do all these commandments...I will let loose the wild beasts against you, which shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock" (Leviticus 26:14, 22).

QuoteInstead of shooting these Jeffrey Dahmers of the animal kingdom, officials in Grand Teton National Park are now prohibiting people in cars from even watching grizzlies if they are less than 100 yards away.

So, God is sending the Jeffrey Dahmers of the animal kingdom on a mission to forcibly un-gay an America in rebellion against God? But big government is preventing Americans from shooting God's Jeffrey Dahmers with guns as God intended?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 05, 2011, 12:48:30 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2011, 04:38:13 PM
Also: a generous 'holy shit' to Wheezer's link.

It's a seemingly bottomless pit. I mean, if Perry doesn't have much baggage, it's not for lack of packing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 05, 2011, 12:53:02 AM
Don't miss the live stream (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=EV11H01&f=RF07B03)!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: JD on August 05, 2011, 03:51:56 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 05, 2011, 12:53:02 AM
Don't miss the live stream (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=EV11H01&f=RF07B03)!

Cool.  Thanks!  Shouldn't this be in the "The Only Site..." thread, though?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2011, 07:03:35 PM
The twitter is all aflutter reporting that S&P was preparing to downgrade the nation's debt as early as tonight. Reportedly, the downgrade message from S&P was to have taken congressional Republicans to task (or out to the woodshed, depending on your preferred cliche) for their opposition to tax increases.  The White House is pushing back against the report asserting that S&P made nearly 2 trillion dollars worth of errors in their computation.

Jake Tapper is all over this: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/govt-official-us-expecting-sp-downgrade.html

Yay! Enjoy the weekend.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2011, 07:09:58 PM
DPD, but some of the comments on that article are awesome.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 05, 2011, 08:18:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 05, 2011, 07:03:35 PM
The twitter is all aflutter reporting that S&P was preparing to downgrade the nation's debt as early as tonight. Reportedly, the downgrade message from S&P was to have taken congressional Republicans to task (or out to the woodshed, depending on your preferred cliche) for their opposition to tax increases.  The White House is pushing back against the report asserting that S&P made nearly 2 trillion dollars worth of errors in their computation.

Jake Tapper is all over this: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/govt-official-us-expecting-sp-downgrade.html

Yay! Enjoy the weekend.

Boom.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7746VF20110806
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 05, 2011, 08:40:25 PM
One of the reasons that the US and many other sovereigns have been able to maintain AAA ratings is that governments have the ability to raise taxes if hey need to raise revenue.  Given that on branch of the legislature has a majority that refuses to do that, the borrowing costs for the US government have now gone up. This means that we now have increased the deferred tax on future generations (debt) by capitalizing today's current interest.

Interest that is higher than it should be.

30 years of irresponsible government coming home to roost.

Something d-o-o economics.  Anyone?  Anyone?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 09:20:02 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/sp-downgrades-us-aa-outlook-negative-full-text

QuoteRepublicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Sounds pretty evenhanded to me.  Doesn't seem like S&P played around back there behind either side.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 09:23:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 05, 2011, 08:40:25 PM
One of the reasons that the US and many other sovereigns have been able to maintain AAA ratings is that governments have the ability to raise taxes if hey need to raise revenue.  Given that on branch of the legislature has a majority that refuses to do that, the borrowing costs for the US government have now gone up. This means that we now have increased the deferred tax on future generations (debt) by capitalizing today's current interest.

Interest that is higher than it should be.

30 years of irresponsible government coming home to roost.

Something d-o-o economics.  Anyone?  Anyone?

DPD. "Keynesdoo economics?". Never heard that expression.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 05, 2011, 09:37:53 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 09:23:32 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 05, 2011, 08:40:25 PM
One of the reasons that the US and many other sovereigns have been able to maintain AAA ratings is that governments have the ability to raise taxes if hey need to raise revenue.  Given that on branch of the legislature has a majority that refuses to do that, the borrowing costs for the US government have now gone up. This means that we now have increased the deferred tax on future generations (debt) by capitalizing today's current interest.

Interest that is higher than it should be.

30 years of irresponsible government coming home to roost.

Something d-o-o economics.  Anyone?  Anyone?

DPD. "Keynesdoo economics?". Never heard that expression.

It's found near the Laugher Curve.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 05, 2011, 10:03:07 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 05, 2011, 08:40:25 PM
One of the reasons that the US and many other sovereigns have been able to maintain AAA ratings is that governments have the ability to raise taxes if hey need to raise revenue.  Given that on branch of the legislature has a majority that refuses to do that, the borrowing costs for the US government have now gone up. This means that we now have increased the deferred tax on future generations (debt) by capitalizing today's current interest.

Interest that is higher than it should be.

30 years of irresponsible government coming home to roost.

Something d-o-o economics.  Anyone?  Anyone?

So I can blame this all on Grover "The Toad" Norquist? 

Sweet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 09:20:02 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/sp-downgrades-us-aa-outlook-negative-full-text

QuoteRepublicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Sounds pretty evenhanded to me.  Doesn't seem like S&P played around back there behind either side.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/joint-statement-fed-fdic-ncua-occ

QuotePresenting the joint statement by The Fed, the FDIC, NCUA, OCC. In essence: the Fed tells S&P to go fornicate itself.


Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 05, 2011, 10:36:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 09:20:02 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/sp-downgrades-us-aa-outlook-negative-full-text

QuoteRepublicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Sounds pretty evenhanded to me.  Doesn't seem like S&P played around back there behind either side.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/joint-statement-fed-fdic-ncua-occ

QuotePresenting the joint statement by The Fed, the FDIC, NCUA, OCC. In essence: the Fed tells S&P to go fornicate itself.

"(collectively, banking organizations)"

You know why they defined this but didn't bother to use it, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 06, 2011, 01:29:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 05, 2011, 09:20:02 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/sp-downgrades-us-aa-outlook-negative-full-text

QuoteRepublicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Sounds pretty evenhanded to me.  Doesn't seem like S&P played around back there behind either side.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/joint-statement-fed-fdic-ncua-occ

QuotePresenting the joint statement by The Fed, the FDIC, NCUA, OCC. In essence: the Fed tells S&P to go fornicate itself.




These are the parts that I thought were pretty damning...

QuoteStandard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 06, 2011, 12:53:57 PM
Will Yeti ever win?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-roadkillveto,0,7463218.story

QuoteQuinn blocks law letting people collect roadkill

SPRINGFIELD, Ill.— Forget about squirrel stew or a nice coyote-fur coat. Gov. Pat Quinn has vetoed legislation letting people collect animals killed along Illinois roads.

In his veto message Friday, Quinn said he was worried about the safety of drivers who stop to pick up roadkill. He encouraged lawmakers to come up with a version that includes safety measures.

The legislation said that if people have the proper permits and licenses, they could collect any furbearing mammal found during the appropriate hunting season.

People could do whatever they please with the carcasses, whether it's skin them for their hides or add them to a rustic stew.

Even without the legislation, people are allowed to collect deer killed by vehicles.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 06, 2011, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 06, 2011, 12:53:57 PM
Quote
People could do whatever they please with the carcasses, whether it's skin them for their hides or add them to a rustic stew.

Prion Disease, It's What's for Dinner.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on August 06, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 06, 2011, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 06, 2011, 12:53:57 PM
Quote
People could do whatever they please with the carcasses, whether it's skin them for their hides or add them to a rustic stew.

Prion Disease, It's What's for Dinner.

But the brain, spinal cord, eyes, spleen, tonsils, and lymph nodes are the best parts!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 06, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 06, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 06, 2011, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 06, 2011, 12:53:57 PM
Quote
People could do whatever they please with the carcasses, whether it's skin them for their hides or add them to a rustic stew.

Prion Disease, It's What's for Dinner.

But the brain, spinal cord, eyes, spleen, tonsils, and lymph nodes are the best parts!

We saved the gid hanasheh just for you!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 06, 2011, 03:11:08 PM
DPD. Only now I learn that Westboro was picketing "The Response"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 08, 2011, 07:27:58 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 06, 2011, 03:11:08 PM
DPD. Only now I learn that Westboro was picketing "The Response"?

how do we get those guys to picket the Cubs?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 08, 2011, 09:13:27 AM
This (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html) was ... depressing.

QuoteThe president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time — he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for at least a generation.

QuoteIn contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze.

QuoteLike most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction, one that weds "revenue enhancements" (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with "entitlement cuts" (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who've worked their whole lives are looking for handouts). But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president's storytelling. He announces in a speech on energy and climate change that we need to expand offshore oil drilling and coal production — two methods of obtaining fuels that contribute to the extreme weather Americans are now seeing. He supports a health care law that will use Medicaid to insure about 15 million more Americans and then endorses a budget plan that, through cuts to state budgets, will most likely decimate Medicaid and other essential programs for children, senior citizens and people who are vulnerable by virtue of disabilities or an economy that is getting weaker by the day. He gives a major speech on immigration reform after deporting a million immigrants in two years, breaking up families at a pace George W. Bush could never rival in all his years as president.

QuoteThe real conundrum is why the president seems so compelled to take both sides of every issue, encouraging voters to project whatever they want on him, and hoping they won't realize which hand is holding the rabbit. That a large section of the country views him as a socialist while many in his own party are concluding that he does not share their values speaks volumes — but not the volumes his advisers are selling: that if you make both the right and left mad, you must be doing something right.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 08, 2011, 11:08:32 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 06, 2011, 02:39:32 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 06, 2011, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 06, 2011, 01:09:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 06, 2011, 12:53:57 PM
Quote
People could do whatever they please with the carcasses, whether it's skin them for their hides or add them to a rustic stew.

Prion Disease, It's What's for Dinner.

But the brain, spinal cord, eyes, spleen, tonsils, and lymph nodes are the best parts!

We saved the gid hanasheh just for you!

I used to watch my grandmother kosher a chicken before cooking it.  Her knowledge of anatomy was limited so her practice was "when in doubt, throw it out."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 08, 2011, 09:26:13 PM
This has got to be like porn to Fork...

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/how-bad-news-corp-133928
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 08, 2011, 11:32:39 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 08, 2011, 09:26:13 PM
This has got to be like porn to Fork...

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/how-bad-news-corp-133928

Has anyone else noticed how closely Rupert Murdoch resembles a Shar Pei?



http://www.wallpaperweb.org/wallpaper/animals/shar-pei-pups_1600x1200_40252.htm
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2011, 11:00:44 AM
Great stuff from Bruce Bartlett:

Those ... who look only at the increase in nominal revenues in the 1980s and attribute all of it to some Laffer curve effect are like roosters who think the sun rises because of their crowing. Philosophers call this logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Unfortunately, the focus on revenues has distracted attention from what I think is the greatest achievement of the Reagan tax cut: It not only didn't raise inflation, as almost all economists thought it would, but it also helped the economy transition from high inflation to low inflation at a remarkably low economic cost. In 1978 Brookings Institution economist Arthur Okun said that to bring the basic inflation rate down by 1 percentage point would cost 10 percent of a year's GNP.14 That suggests that the 8 percentage point fall of inflation between 1980 and 1982 should have cost the economy something like 80 percent of its real output, which obviously didn't happen. I think the tax cut deserves much of the credit.

Although I believe the Reagan tax cut was a success, it doesn't necessarily follow that its replication today would achieve similar results. For one thing, tax rates are much lower and revenues as a share of GDP are 4 percentage points lower than they were when Reagan took office. For another, the economy's principal problem now is a lack of aggregate demand, whereas in the early 1980s it was excess demand. Bracket creep was a serious problem that does not exist today. Consequently, the economy needs different policies today than were appropriate in 1981. Unfortunately, it's in the nature of politics that when a policy works once, there are those who will insist that the same cookiecutter approach be followed over and over again until the idea is beaten into dust.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 09, 2011, 11:16:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2011, 11:00:44 AM
Great stuff from Bruce Bartlett:

Those ... who look only at the increase in nominal revenues in the 1980s and attribute all of it to some Laffer curve effect are like roosters who think the sun rises because of their crowing. Philosophers call this logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Unfortunately, the focus on revenues has distracted attention from what I think is the greatest achievement of the Reagan tax cut: It not only didn't raise inflation, as almost all economists thought it would, but it also helped the economy transition from high inflation to low inflation at a remarkably low economic cost. In 1978 Brookings Institution economist Arthur Okun said that to bring the basic inflation rate down by 1 percentage point would cost 10 percent of a year's GNP.14 That suggests that the 8 percentage point fall of inflation between 1980 and 1982 should have cost the economy something like 80 percent of its real output, which obviously didn't happen. I think the tax cut deserves much of the credit.

Although I believe the Reagan tax cut was a success, it doesn't necessarily follow that its replication today would achieve similar results. For one thing, tax rates are much lower and revenues as a share of GDP are 4 percentage points lower than they were when Reagan took office. For another, the economy's principal problem now is a lack of aggregate demand, whereas in the early 1980s it was excess demand. Bracket creep was a serious problem that does not exist today. Consequently, the economy needs different policies today than were appropriate in 1981. Unfortunately, it's in the nature of politics that when a policy works once, there are those who will insist that the same cookiecutter approach be followed over and over again until the idea is beaten into dust.


We clearly need more tax cuts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 09, 2011, 11:23:39 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 09, 2011, 11:00:44 AM
Great stuff from Bruce Bartlett:

For another, the economy's principal problem now is a lack of aggregate demand, whereas in the early 1980s it was excess demand.


Nothing will get better until people start wrapping their heads around this very simple fact. There is a fear of over-taxing revenue creators, but the revenue won't be created from the supply side.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2011, 06:32:13 PM
RV posted this in the shoutbox and it's beautiful...

http://bigjournalism.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/09/coach-ditka-praises-sarah-palin-again-but-mainstream-media-refuses-to-report-it-again/

QuoteWhen he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin "epitomizes all the good qualities of this country." He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough "put Country First" for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, "I am an American.")

Of course, I don't recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka's kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you'd at least think Ditka would have made the "Worst Person in the World" list.

But alas, just silence.

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing them talk about Ditka's kind words for Palin on the campaign trail in 2008 either. (I've got a feeling Matthews, Lauer, and Olbermann would rather pick fights with people who don't fight back, and they all know Ditka isn't the type to just shut up and take it. That's why they fear him and that's why we love him.)

That's also why we love Palin.

For the record, I won't be expecting any MSM outlets to cover Ditka's most recent praise of Palin at all. They'll be too busy carrying water for Obama's sinking ship or talking about how great it is to see Eric Holder sue another state for passing legislation aimed at protecting their borders.

SPORTS!

Go ahead and Gil the comments...

QuoteI would love to see Coach and the three "Nancy Boys" put into a phone booth and see what happens, I'm sure that the tingle in Spittle boys leg would extend through his backbone through Lauer's ugly hair cut out through Olby's big a$$ mouth.

QuoteLamestream media conglomerate is just afraid of an old white man with huge hands who was and is capable of successfully motivating other men to victory. You know, leadership in Gov Palin and coach Ditka is something that is inborn. You either have it or you don't. No amount of slobbering on the part of brown nosing media is going to change it when it comes to chaiman 0.

QuoteOlbermann, Matthews, and Lauer never mention Mike Ditka's kind words about Sarah for one simple reason:

If Ditka ever got his hands on them, he'd tear their f__king heads off.

Mike Ditka could squirt a stream of p!ss clear through all three of these commies together, lined up one behind the other.

That's the difference between a man and a metro.

QuoteI remember Coach Ditka(whom I met in Champaign in 1984, as his Bears team was practicing for the Super Bowl) was asked several years ago to run for the Senate by the GOP. He was willing, but his wife Donna talked him out of it. Apparently, she was afraid he might beat up Fat Commie Kennedy or go over to the house and beat up Barney F*g. or he might have a heart attack after listening to Carl Marx Levin or Harry Greed. Good to see you havent lost your common sense , Coach. How, BTW, do you put up with those idiots at ESPN?

NO HOMO!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 09, 2011, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2011, 06:32:13 PM
RV posted this in the shoutbox and it's beautiful...

http://bigjournalism.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/09/coach-ditka-praises-sarah-palin-again-but-mainstream-media-refuses-to-report-it-again/

QuoteWhen he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin "epitomizes all the good qualities of this country." He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough "put Country First" for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, "I am an American.")

Of course, I don't recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka's kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you'd at least think Ditka would have made the "Worst Person in the World" list.

But alas, just silence.

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing them talk about Ditka's kind words for Palin on the campaign trail in 2008 either. (I've got a feeling Matthews, Lauer, and Olbermann would rather pick fights with people who don't fight back, and they all know Ditka isn't the type to just shut up and take it. That's why they fear him and that's why we love him.)

That's also why we love Palin.

For the record, I won't be expecting any MSM outlets to cover Ditka's most recent praise of Palin at all. They'll be too busy carrying water for Obama's sinking ship or talking about how great it is to see Eric Holder sue another state for passing legislation aimed at protecting their borders.

SPORTS!

Go ahead and Gil the comments...

QuoteI would love to see Coach and the three "Nancy Boys" put into a phone booth and see what happens, I'm sure that the tingle in Spittle boys leg would extend through his backbone through Lauer's ugly hair cut out through Olby's big a$$ mouth.

QuoteLamestream media conglomerate is just afraid of an old white man with huge hands who was and is capable of successfully motivating other men to victory. You know, leadership in Gov Palin and coach Ditka is something that is inborn. You either have it or you don't. No amount of slobbering on the part of brown nosing media is going to change it when it comes to chaiman 0.

QuoteOlbermann, Matthews, and Lauer never mention Mike Ditka's kind words about Sarah for one simple reason:

If Ditka ever got his hands on them, he'd tear their f__king heads off.

Mike Ditka could squirt a stream of p!ss clear through all three of these commies together, lined up one behind the other.

That's the difference between a man and a metro.

QuoteI remember Coach Ditka(whom I met in Champaign in 1984, as his Bears team was practicing for the Super Bowl) was asked several years ago to run for the Senate by the GOP. He was willing, but his wife Donna talked him out of it. Apparently, she was afraid he might beat up Fat Commie Kennedy or go over to the house and beat up Barney F*g. or he might have a heart attack after listening to Carl Marx Levin or Harry Greed. Good to see you havent lost your common sense , Coach. How, BTW, do you put up with those idiots at ESPN?

NO HOMO!

Did I miss something?  Does Keith Olbermann have a TV show again?

And why were the Bears practicing for the Super Bowl in Champaign in 1984?

This guy's story doesn't check out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 09, 2011, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2011, 06:32:13 PM
RV posted this in the shoutbox and it's beautiful...

http://bigjournalism.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/09/coach-ditka-praises-sarah-palin-again-but-mainstream-media-refuses-to-report-it-again/

QuoteWhen he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin "epitomizes all the good qualities of this country." He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough "put Country First" for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, "I am an American.")

Of course, I don't recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka's kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you'd at least think Ditka would have made the "Worst Person in the World" list.

But alas, just silence.

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing them talk about Ditka's kind words for Palin on the campaign trail in 2008 either. (I've got a feeling Matthews, Lauer, and Olbermann would rather pick fights with people who don't fight back, and they all know Ditka isn't the type to just shut up and take it. That's why they fear him and that's why we love him.)

That's also why we love Palin.

For the record, I won't be expecting any MSM outlets to cover Ditka's most recent praise of Palin at all. They'll be too busy carrying water for Obama's sinking ship or talking about how great it is to see Eric Holder sue another state for passing legislation aimed at protecting their borders.

SPORTS!

Go ahead and Gil the comments...

QuoteI would love to see Coach and the three "Nancy Boys" put into a phone booth and see what happens, I'm sure that the tingle in Spittle boys leg would extend through his backbone through Lauer's ugly hair cut out through Olby's big a$$ mouth.

QuoteLamestream media conglomerate is just afraid of an old white man with huge hands who was and is capable of successfully motivating other men to victory. You know, leadership in Gov Palin and coach Ditka is something that is inborn. You either have it or you don't. No amount of slobbering on the part of brown nosing media is going to change it when it comes to chaiman 0.

QuoteOlbermann, Matthews, and Lauer never mention Mike Ditka's kind words about Sarah for one simple reason:

If Ditka ever got his hands on them, he'd tear their f__king heads off.

Mike Ditka could squirt a stream of p!ss clear through all three of these commies together, lined up one behind the other.

That's the difference between a man and a metro.

QuoteI remember Coach Ditka(whom I met in Champaign in 1984, as his Bears team was practicing for the Super Bowl) was asked several years ago to run for the Senate by the GOP. He was willing, but his wife Donna talked him out of it. Apparently, she was afraid he might beat up Fat Commie Kennedy or go over to the house and beat up Barney F*g. or he might have a heart attack after listening to Carl Marx Levin or Harry Greed. Good to see you havent lost your common sense , Coach. How, BTW, do you put up with those idiots at ESPN?

NO HOMO!

Holy shit are those comments golden. "Fat Commie Kennedy" is clear, concise, and to the point. I declare Gil's irrational love of comments: redeemed!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 09, 2011, 11:14:01 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 09, 2011, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2011, 06:32:13 PM
RV posted this in the shoutbox and it's beautiful...

http://bigjournalism.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/09/coach-ditka-praises-sarah-palin-again-but-mainstream-media-refuses-to-report-it-again/

QuoteWhen he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin "epitomizes all the good qualities of this country." He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough "put Country First" for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, "I am an American.")

Of course, I don't recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka's kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you'd at least think Ditka would have made the "Worst Person in the World" list.

But alas, just silence.

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing them talk about Ditka's kind words for Palin on the campaign trail in 2008 either. (I've got a feeling Matthews, Lauer, and Olbermann would rather pick fights with people who don't fight back, and they all know Ditka isn't the type to just shut up and take it. That's why they fear him and that's why we love him.)

That's also why we love Palin.

For the record, I won't be expecting any MSM outlets to cover Ditka's most recent praise of Palin at all. They'll be too busy carrying water for Obama's sinking ship or talking about how great it is to see Eric Holder sue another state for passing legislation aimed at protecting their borders.

SPORTS!

Go ahead and Gil the comments...

QuoteI would love to see Coach and the three "Nancy Boys" put into a phone booth and see what happens, I'm sure that the tingle in Spittle boys leg would extend through his backbone through Lauer's ugly hair cut out through Olby's big a$$ mouth.

QuoteLamestream media conglomerate is just afraid of an old white man with huge hands who was and is capable of successfully motivating other men to victory. You know, leadership in Gov Palin and coach Ditka is something that is inborn. You either have it or you don't. No amount of slobbering on the part of brown nosing media is going to change it when it comes to chaiman 0.

QuoteOlbermann, Matthews, and Lauer never mention Mike Ditka's kind words about Sarah for one simple reason:

If Ditka ever got his hands on them, he'd tear their f__king heads off.

Mike Ditka could squirt a stream of p!ss clear through all three of these commies together, lined up one behind the other.

That's the difference between a man and a metro.

QuoteI remember Coach Ditka(whom I met in Champaign in 1984, as his Bears team was practicing for the Super Bowl) was asked several years ago to run for the Senate by the GOP. He was willing, but his wife Donna talked him out of it. Apparently, she was afraid he might beat up Fat Commie Kennedy or go over to the house and beat up Barney F*g. or he might have a heart attack after listening to Carl Marx Levin or Harry Greed. Good to see you havent lost your common sense , Coach. How, BTW, do you put up with those idiots at ESPN?

NO HOMO!

Did I miss something?  Does Keith Olbermann have a TV show again?

And why were the Bears practicing for the Super Bowl in Champaign in 1984?

This guy's story doesn't check out.

Olberman is on CURRENT TV.  He is opposite O"Donnell.  He hasn't changed the show a bit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 10, 2011, 06:44:17 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 09, 2011, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2011, 06:32:13 PM
RV posted this in the shoutbox and it's beautiful...

http://bigjournalism.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/09/coach-ditka-praises-sarah-palin-again-but-mainstream-media-refuses-to-report-it-again/

QuoteWhen he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin "epitomizes all the good qualities of this country." He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough "put Country First" for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, "I am an American.")

Of course, I don't recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka's kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you'd at least think Ditka would have made the "Worst Person in the World" list.

But alas, just silence.

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing them talk about Ditka's kind words for Palin on the campaign trail in 2008 either. (I've got a feeling Matthews, Lauer, and Olbermann would rather pick fights with people who don't fight back, and they all know Ditka isn't the type to just shut up and take it. That's why they fear him and that's why we love him.)

That's also why we love Palin.

For the record, I won't be expecting any MSM outlets to cover Ditka's most recent praise of Palin at all. They'll be too busy carrying water for Obama's sinking ship or talking about how great it is to see Eric Holder sue another state for passing legislation aimed at protecting their borders.

SPORTS!

Go ahead and Gil the comments...

QuoteI would love to see Coach and the three "Nancy Boys" put into a phone booth and see what happens, I'm sure that the tingle in Spittle boys leg would extend through his backbone through Lauer's ugly hair cut out through Olby's big a$$ mouth.

QuoteLamestream media conglomerate is just afraid of an old white man with huge hands who was and is capable of successfully motivating other men to victory. You know, leadership in Gov Palin and coach Ditka is something that is inborn. You either have it or you don't. No amount of slobbering on the part of brown nosing media is going to change it when it comes to chaiman 0.

QuoteOlbermann, Matthews, and Lauer never mention Mike Ditka's kind words about Sarah for one simple reason:

If Ditka ever got his hands on them, he'd tear their f__king heads off.

Mike Ditka could squirt a stream of p!ss clear through all three of these commies together, lined up one behind the other.

That's the difference between a man and a metro.

QuoteI remember Coach Ditka(whom I met in Champaign in 1984, as his Bears team was practicing for the Super Bowl) was asked several years ago to run for the Senate by the GOP. He was willing, but his wife Donna talked him out of it. Apparently, she was afraid he might beat up Fat Commie Kennedy or go over to the house and beat up Barney F*g. or he might have a heart attack after listening to Carl Marx Levin or Harry Greed. Good to see you havent lost your common sense , Coach. How, BTW, do you put up with those idiots at ESPN?

NO HOMO!

Did I miss something?  Does Keith Olbermann have a TV show again?

And why were the Bears practicing for the Super Bowl in Champaign in 1984?

This guy's story doesn't check out.

Also, Ditker's wife's name is Diane, not Donna.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 10, 2011, 07:04:26 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 10, 2011, 06:44:17 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 09, 2011, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2011, 06:32:13 PM
RV posted this in the shoutbox and it's beautiful...

http://bigjournalism.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/09/coach-ditka-praises-sarah-palin-again-but-mainstream-media-refuses-to-report-it-again/

QuoteWhen he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin "epitomizes all the good qualities of this country." He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough "put Country First" for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, "I am an American.")

Of course, I don't recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka's kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you'd at least think Ditka would have made the "Worst Person in the World" list.

But alas, just silence.

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing them talk about Ditka's kind words for Palin on the campaign trail in 2008 either. (I've got a feeling Matthews, Lauer, and Olbermann would rather pick fights with people who don't fight back, and they all know Ditka isn't the type to just shut up and take it. That's why they fear him and that's why we love him.)

That's also why we love Palin.

For the record, I won't be expecting any MSM outlets to cover Ditka's most recent praise of Palin at all. They'll be too busy carrying water for Obama's sinking ship or talking about how great it is to see Eric Holder sue another state for passing legislation aimed at protecting their borders.

SPORTS!

Go ahead and Gil the comments...

QuoteI would love to see Coach and the three "Nancy Boys" put into a phone booth and see what happens, I'm sure that the tingle in Spittle boys leg would extend through his backbone through Lauer's ugly hair cut out through Olby's big a$$ mouth.

QuoteLamestream media conglomerate is just afraid of an old white man with huge hands who was and is capable of successfully motivating other men to victory. You know, leadership in Gov Palin and coach Ditka is something that is inborn. You either have it or you don't. No amount of slobbering on the part of brown nosing media is going to change it when it comes to chaiman 0.

QuoteOlbermann, Matthews, and Lauer never mention Mike Ditka's kind words about Sarah for one simple reason:

If Ditka ever got his hands on them, he'd tear their f__king heads off.

Mike Ditka could squirt a stream of p!ss clear through all three of these commies together, lined up one behind the other.

That's the difference between a man and a metro.

QuoteI remember Coach Ditka(whom I met in Champaign in 1984, as his Bears team was practicing for the Super Bowl) was asked several years ago to run for the Senate by the GOP. He was willing, but his wife Donna talked him out of it. Apparently, she was afraid he might beat up Fat Commie Kennedy or go over to the house and beat up Barney F*g. or he might have a heart attack after listening to Carl Marx Levin or Harry Greed. Good to see you havent lost your common sense , Coach. How, BTW, do you put up with those idiots at ESPN?

NO HOMO!

Did I miss something?  Does Keith Olbermann have a TV show again?

And why were the Bears practicing for the Super Bowl in Champaign in 1984?

This guy's story doesn't check out.

Also, Ditker's wife's name is Diane, not Donna.

to be fair, I'm guessing Da Coach gets it wrong 50% of the time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2011, 08:24:55 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 10, 2011, 06:44:17 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 09, 2011, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2011, 06:32:13 PM
RV posted this in the shoutbox and it's beautiful...

http://bigjournalism.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/09/coach-ditka-praises-sarah-palin-again-but-mainstream-media-refuses-to-report-it-again/

QuoteWhen he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin "epitomizes all the good qualities of this country." He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough "put Country First" for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, "I am an American.")

Of course, I don't recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka's kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you'd at least think Ditka would have made the "Worst Person in the World" list.

But alas, just silence.

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing them talk about Ditka's kind words for Palin on the campaign trail in 2008 either. (I've got a feeling Matthews, Lauer, and Olbermann would rather pick fights with people who don't fight back, and they all know Ditka isn't the type to just shut up and take it. That's why they fear him and that's why we love him.)

That's also why we love Palin.

For the record, I won't be expecting any MSM outlets to cover Ditka's most recent praise of Palin at all. They'll be too busy carrying water for Obama's sinking ship or talking about how great it is to see Eric Holder sue another state for passing legislation aimed at protecting their borders.

SPORTS!

Go ahead and Gil the comments...

QuoteI would love to see Coach and the three "Nancy Boys" put into a phone booth and see what happens, I'm sure that the tingle in Spittle boys leg would extend through his backbone through Lauer's ugly hair cut out through Olby's big a$$ mouth.

QuoteLamestream media conglomerate is just afraid of an old white man with huge hands who was and is capable of successfully motivating other men to victory. You know, leadership in Gov Palin and coach Ditka is something that is inborn. You either have it or you don't. No amount of slobbering on the part of brown nosing media is going to change it when it comes to chaiman 0.

QuoteOlbermann, Matthews, and Lauer never mention Mike Ditka's kind words about Sarah for one simple reason:

If Ditka ever got his hands on them, he'd tear their f__king heads off.

Mike Ditka could squirt a stream of p!ss clear through all three of these commies together, lined up one behind the other.

That's the difference between a man and a metro.

QuoteI remember Coach Ditka(whom I met in Champaign in 1984, as his Bears team was practicing for the Super Bowl) was asked several years ago to run for the Senate by the GOP. He was willing, but his wife Donna talked him out of it. Apparently, she was afraid he might beat up Fat Commie Kennedy or go over to the house and beat up Barney F*g. or he might have a heart attack after listening to Carl Marx Levin or Harry Greed. Good to see you havent lost your common sense , Coach. How, BTW, do you put up with those idiots at ESPN?

NO HOMO!

Did I miss something?  Does Keith Olbermann have a TV show again?

And why were the Bears practicing for the Super Bowl in Champaign in 1984?

This guy's story doesn't check out.

Also, Ditker's wife's name is Diane, not Donna.

You pussies are obviously just afraid of an old white man with huge hands.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 10, 2011, 08:27:32 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2011, 08:24:55 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 10, 2011, 06:44:17 AM
Quote from: CT III on August 09, 2011, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 09, 2011, 06:32:13 PM
RV posted this in the shoutbox and it's beautiful...

http://bigjournalism.com/awrhawkins/2011/08/09/coach-ditka-praises-sarah-palin-again-but-mainstream-media-refuses-to-report-it-again/

QuoteWhen he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin "epitomizes all the good qualities of this country." He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough "put Country First" for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, "I am an American.")

Of course, I don't recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka's kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you'd at least think Ditka would have made the "Worst Person in the World" list.

But alas, just silence.

Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing them talk about Ditka's kind words for Palin on the campaign trail in 2008 either. (I've got a feeling Matthews, Lauer, and Olbermann would rather pick fights with people who don't fight back, and they all know Ditka isn't the type to just shut up and take it. That's why they fear him and that's why we love him.)

That's also why we love Palin.

For the record, I won't be expecting any MSM outlets to cover Ditka's most recent praise of Palin at all. They'll be too busy carrying water for Obama's sinking ship or talking about how great it is to see Eric Holder sue another state for passing legislation aimed at protecting their borders.

SPORTS!

Go ahead and Gil the comments...

QuoteI would love to see Coach and the three "Nancy Boys" put into a phone booth and see what happens, I'm sure that the tingle in Spittle boys leg would extend through his backbone through Lauer's ugly hair cut out through Olby's big a$$ mouth.

QuoteLamestream media conglomerate is just afraid of an old white man with huge hands who was and is capable of successfully motivating other men to victory. You know, leadership in Gov Palin and coach Ditka is something that is inborn. You either have it or you don't. No amount of slobbering on the part of brown nosing media is going to change it when it comes to chaiman 0.

QuoteOlbermann, Matthews, and Lauer never mention Mike Ditka's kind words about Sarah for one simple reason:

If Ditka ever got his hands on them, he'd tear their f__king heads off.

Mike Ditka could squirt a stream of p!ss clear through all three of these commies together, lined up one behind the other.

That's the difference between a man and a metro.

QuoteI remember Coach Ditka(whom I met in Champaign in 1984, as his Bears team was practicing for the Super Bowl) was asked several years ago to run for the Senate by the GOP. He was willing, but his wife Donna talked him out of it. Apparently, she was afraid he might beat up Fat Commie Kennedy or go over to the house and beat up Barney F*g. or he might have a heart attack after listening to Carl Marx Levin or Harry Greed. Good to see you havent lost your common sense , Coach. How, BTW, do you put up with those idiots at ESPN?

NO HOMO!

Did I miss something?  Does Keith Olbermann have a TV show again?

And why were the Bears practicing for the Super Bowl in Champaign in 1984?

This guy's story doesn't check out.

Also, Ditker's wife's name is Diane, not Donna.

You pussies are obviously just afraid of an old white man with huge hands.

White?

(http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/sports/photos/2011/03/04/ditka_584.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on August 10, 2011, 09:21:15 AM
White?

(http://www.feelny.net/photo/Mike-Ditka72931.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2011, 09:43:05 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 10, 2011, 09:21:15 AM
White?

(http://www.feelny.net/photo/Mike-Ditka72931.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/VEvnV.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on August 10, 2011, 11:09:45 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2011, 09:43:05 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 10, 2011, 09:21:15 AM
White?

(http://www.feelny.net/photo/Mike-Ditka72931.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/VEvnV.jpg)

Thank you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 10, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
Who is that lady?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 10, 2011, 12:14:03 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 10, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
Who is that lady?

Better question.  What is the surface temperature of the asteroid that just coliided with her?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 10, 2011, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 10, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
Who is Who's that lady?

(Who's that la-dy)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 12, 2011, 10:13:31 AM
I hope Gil is an HBO subscriber...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Change_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Change_(film))
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 13, 2011, 04:58:54 PM
I somehow have never really noticed the curious prose stylings of Alan Keyes (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=332469) before:

QuoteBased on the evidence of both past experience and current events, I am bound by rational conviction to reach the verdict that the GOP offers no prospect but repeated bitter disappointment to those like me who seek the revival and perpetuation of constitutional, republican government in the United States. I suspect, though, that despite my head, my heart continues to hope that the GOP's flavor of the week presidential nominating process will reveal some candidate who represents, in word and fruitful deed, a forthright articulation of American principle and common sense. For America's sake I may still hope that some such GOP candidate will rouse and convince my spirit enough to justify the triumph of hope over experience. After all, as the Frenchman said, "The heart has its reason that reason does not know."

Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point. On le sent en mille choses. C'est le cœur qui sent Dieu, et non la raison. Voilà ce que c'est que la foi parfaite, Dieu sensible au cœur.

Naturally.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2011, 08:13:40 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 13, 2011, 04:58:54 PM
I somehow have never really noticed the curious prose stylings of Alan Keyes (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=332469) before:

Where were you in 2004?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 13, 2011, 08:22:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 13, 2011, 08:13:40 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 13, 2011, 04:58:54 PM
I somehow have never really noticed the curious prose stylings of Alan Keyes (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=332469) before:

Where were you in 2004?

Still listening to the numbers, I imagine.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 15, 2011, 09:23:02 AM
Some socialist. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html)

QuotePeople invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

...

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 15, 2011, 09:23:02 AM
Some socialist. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html)

QuotePeople invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

...

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can't fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

Buffett doesn't seem to understand how this works... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576466541882356616.html)

QuoteSo how does Mr. Buffett arrive at such a low personal tax rate? He may have been referring to a 2010 IRS study of the 400 richest American taxpayers, a list he's probably on. It showed those people paid an effective federal income tax of 18.1% in 2008.

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

Mr. Buffett owns about one-quarter of his investment company Berkshire Hathaway, and his shares are worth about $38 billion. This wealth is mostly stored in what are technically called "unrealized capital gains." Eventually when those gains are converted into income, he will pay a capital gains tax. Even so, in 2008 Berkshire paid $3 billion in corporate taxes. And since Mr. Buffett is the principal owner, he shoulders a big share of that tax.

The reason for the light capital gains and dividend tax is that corporations pay up to a 35% tax on their profits before a dime of it is passed on to shareholders. The real tax rate on corporate income paid to individuals through capital gains and dividends is not 15%. It is closer to 45% once you count the tax on corporate profits. If the dividend tax rises to 20% next year from 15% today, then the total tax on dividends paid to shareholders would be closer to 50%, and that doesn't include state and local taxes.

In case Buffett wants to feel a little better:
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576486452923418610.html)
QuoteMaking a reasonable assumption that much of Mr. Buffett's gains-income is from his Berkshire-Hathaway holdings which go back five or so decades, the following scenario is valid: Per U.S. government statistics, the annual national inflation rate averaged 4.44% from 1974 through 2010, a span of 37 years. I will be generous and use an average holding period of half that time for the buy-and-hold of Mr. Buffett's stock. His cost basis, from which a capital gain is calculated, depreciated in constant dollars by more than 82%. Adjusted for that fact, his effective federal tax rate paid on capital gains is over 27%. If Mr. Buffett uses a first-in, first-out method for identifying stock sold, his tax rate goes much higher. And don't forget one must hold any investment at least one year to qualify for the preferential long-term rate. In some years (1980 inflation: 13.58%), that time lag would add significantly to whatever tax rate applied. Yes, 27% is less than 35% or 39.6% or 70%, but is there to be no recognition for risk, investment to create economic activity, or simply the fact that one's capital is being tied up?

Finally, why is Buffett wasting time urging people to give to charities. Asshole. Give to the treasury first: (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm)

Feel you're undertaxed? Go ahead, you can remedy it, right here. (https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454)

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 15, 2011, 11:42:11 AM
Michelle is the BIG WINNER in the Iowa straw poll.  She had 29% of the vote.  157 votes more than number two, Ron Paul, who had 28%.  (A landslide if ever I saw one)  That means that around 160 votes is one percent of the gnumbgnuts who voted in that poll.  So about 16,000 people voted.   Why is this news?  The last person who won the straw poll in Iowa (Romney) didn't even win the Caucus six months later.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 11:43:46 AM
Quote from: CBStew on August 15, 2011, 11:42:11 AM
Michelle is the BIG WINNER in the Iowa straw poll.  She had 29% of the vote.  157 votes more than number two, Ron Paul, who had 28%.  (A landslide if ever I saw one)  That means that around 160 votes is one percent of the gnumbgnuts who voted in that poll.  So about 16,000 people voted.   Why is this news?  The last person who won the straw poll in Iowa (Romney) didn't even win the Caucus six months later. 

The GOP nominee might not have even announced a run. Hell, he might have already said he's not running.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

So... lower the corporate rate then?

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

QuoteWorking papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8280) find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 12:07:06 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

QuoteWorking papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8280) find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

And what if labor and capital are one in the same? That's not unusual.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 15, 2011, 12:09:40 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

Shocking.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 15, 2011, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

So... lower the corporate rate then?

[ rewinds clusterfuck ]

Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

QuoteWorking papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8280) find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:24:37 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 15, 2011, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

So... lower the corporate rate then?

[ rewinds clusterfuck ]

Quote from: R-V on April 15, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

Thrill gets a Kudos bar for backing up my gut feeling with HARD EVIDENCE.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

QuoteWorking papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8280) find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

We're really not as far apart as you think. I would support a reformed income tax system that eliminates most deductions and while lowers the marginal rates ultimately increases effective individual rates.

I think individuals are more rational than you think, R-V. People relocate, if possible, to places where their opportunities are greatest. For example, I don't think the immigration we're seeing now of Mexican immigrants to places that never before had a lot of Mexican immigration is not because people in Guadalajara had this romantic notion of living in Wichita. It just happens that they can't make any money in Mexico and the meager jobs available in Wichita offer more than what's in Mexico. It also explains why residents of Hong Kong fled en masse to other Commonwealth locales like Vancouver prior to the handover to the Chinese.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 15, 2011, 12:42:08 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:24:37 PM
backing up my gut feeling with HARD EVIDENCE.

Pause.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:58:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

QuoteWorking papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8280) find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

We're really not as far apart as you think. I would support a reformed income tax system that eliminates most deductions and while lowers the marginal rates ultimately increases effective individual rates.

I think individuals are more rational than you think, R-V. People relocate, if possible, to places where their opportunities are greatest. For example, I don't think the immigration we're seeing now of Mexican immigrants to places that never before had a lot of Mexican immigration is not because people in Guadalajara had this romantic notion of living in Wichita. It just happens that they can't make any money in Mexico and the meager jobs available in Wichita offer more than what's in Mexico. It also explains why residents of Hong Kong fled en masse to other Commonwealth locales like Vancouver prior to the handover to the Chinese.

I'm talking about deciding where to live based on tax rates. Of course people will gravitate towards where the financial opportunities are - but marginal tax rates, unless they're completely confiscatory, don't drive decisions made by individuals when choosing which country to live in. They're on the list somewhere, but they're overshadowed by things like income opportunities, number of Chili's, if you can buy beer before 11 a.m. on a Sunday, and whether or not the dildo shops stay open past midnight.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 01:14:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:58:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

QuoteWorking papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8280) find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

We're really not as far apart as you think. I would support a reformed income tax system that eliminates most deductions and while lowers the marginal rates ultimately increases effective individual rates.

I think individuals are more rational than you think, R-V. People relocate, if possible, to places where their opportunities are greatest. For example, I don't think the immigration we're seeing now of Mexican immigrants to places that never before had a lot of Mexican immigration is not because people in Guadalajara had this romantic notion of living in Wichita. It just happens that they can't make any money in Mexico and the meager jobs available in Wichita offer more than what's in Mexico. It also explains why residents of Hong Kong fled en masse to other Commonwealth locales like Vancouver prior to the handover to the Chinese.

I'm talking about deciding where to live based on tax rates. Of course people will gravitate towards where the financial opportunities are - but marginal tax rates, unless they're completely confiscatory, don't drive decisions made by individuals when choosing which country to live in. They're on the list somewhere, but they're overshadowed by things like income opportunities, number of Chili's, if you can buy beer before 11 a.m. on a Sunday, and whether or not the dildo shops stay open past midnight.

In a remarkable coincidence, that's RV's list of "City vs. Suburbs" criteria.  The dildo shop density of the city is unmatched.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 01:30:28 PM
DPD.  While the "true burden" of corporate taxes is shared, I think that we can all agree that calculation of the effective income tax rate on an individual, using IRS stats, without at least attempting to take into account the effect of corporate tax is misleading at best.  High income earners tend to earn a fair bit from capital gains and dividends, all of which have already been taxed at the corporate level, but are lower than ordinary income rates (that is, as long as the Bush tax regime remains in effect).  So, saying "the top 400 income earners paid an effective tax rate of 18.1%" while omitting the corporate income tax effect is not a very strong statement.  This number is not very comparable to someone else's, when that someone else earns 100% of their income as ordinary income.

I think this is the point of Brownie (and Moore)'s statements.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:58:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 12:41:23 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 12:23:42 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 15, 2011, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 15, 2011, 09:57:53 AMYet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf)

QuoteBurdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

QuoteWorking papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8280) find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

We're really not as far apart as you think. I would support a reformed income tax system that eliminates most deductions and while lowers the marginal rates ultimately increases effective individual rates.

I think individuals are more rational than you think, R-V. People relocate, if possible, to places where their opportunities are greatest. For example, I don't think the immigration we're seeing now of Mexican immigrants to places that never before had a lot of Mexican immigration is not because people in Guadalajara had this romantic notion of living in Wichita. It just happens that they can't make any money in Mexico and the meager jobs available in Wichita offer more than what's in Mexico. It also explains why residents of Hong Kong fled en masse to other Commonwealth locales like Vancouver prior to the handover to the Chinese.

I'm talking about deciding where to live based on tax rates. Of course people will gravitate towards where the financial opportunities are - but marginal tax rates, unless they're completely confiscatory, don't drive decisions made by individuals when choosing which country to live in. They're on the list somewhere, but they're overshadowed by things like income opportunities, number of Chili's, if you can buy beer before 11 a.m. on a Sunday, and whether or not the dildo shops stay open past midnight.

We're much closer in thinking than you (or I or Morph) might care to admit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 16, 2011, 09:34:11 AM
Truth to power?  Or just being a dick?  YOU DECIDE!! (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/15/obama-conversation-with-tea-partier-gets-heated/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2011, 10:15:04 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 16, 2011, 09:34:11 AM
Truth to power?  Or just being a dick?  YOU DECIDE!! (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/15/obama-conversation-with-tea-partier-gets-heated/)

Whatever your political affiliation, I think we call agree that attempting to get to the bottom of the question of whether or not Joe Biden may have once said something impertinent in a private meeting (or possible simply agreed with something impertinent that someone else said) clearly demonstrates a strong willingness on this gentleman's part to negotiate the deep political divide in this country without going after the other side.

And I know that if I had been at that town hall I would have personally thanked him for climbing up above the fray to ask the question that's keeping all of America up at night in these tough economic times.

Somewhat relatedly, any wagers on who Comar voted for in the straw poll?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 16, 2011, 10:23:53 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2011, 10:15:04 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 16, 2011, 09:34:11 AM
Truth to power?  Or just being a dick?  YOU DECIDE!! (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/15/obama-conversation-with-tea-partier-gets-heated/)

Whatever your political affiliation, I think we call agree that attempting to get to the bottom of the question of whether or not Joe Biden may have once said something impertinent in a private meeting (or possible simply agreed with something impertinent that someone else said) clearly demonstrates a strong willingness on this gentleman's part to negotiate the deep political divide in this country without going after the other side.

And I know that if I had been at that town hall I would have personally thanked him for climbing up above the fray to ask the question that's keeping all of America up at night in these tough economic times.

Somewhat relatedly, any wagers on who Comar voted for in the straw poll?

He's been rotting in his garage for months.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 17, 2011, 12:49:59 PM
Mitt Romney is getting confused out there.

Quote"I'm not for tax cuts for the rich. The rich can take care of themselves. I want to get America working again. And so I want to make sure that whatever we do in the tax code, we're not giving a windfall to the very wealthy."

-- Mitt Romney, quoted yesterday by the Concord Monitor (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/273842/romney-im-not-for-tax-cuts-for-the-rich?CSAuthResp=1313581727%3Av2hj9gruj1desr69i6f6gie756%3ACSUserId%7CCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3AD4BAE78A76282D886F1C95C90DD550BC&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1).

Quote"I do want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place."

-- Romney, quoted yesterday by the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/romney-calls-for-common-ground-hails-tea-party/LOY75w5ClWiDMV2beB5kfO/index.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 17, 2011, 01:26:15 PM
Probably better suited for the On-Hoops thread, but no one reads that, so I'm putting it here.

Barack Obama Ruined Rajon Rondo's Jump Shot (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Did-Barack-Obama-destroy-Rajon-Rondo-s-jump-shot?urn=nba-wp7524)

QuoteIn early March some of the guys went to the museum of Fine Arts for a fund-raiser and got to hang with President Barack Obama. Everyone was a little bit in awe. The President turns to Ray [Allen], points at Rondo, and says, "Hey, Ray, why don't you teach this kid how to shoot?" Everyone starts laughing.

KG told me he saw the look on Rondo's face and the kid was devastated, embarrassed. Dissed by the President, even though I'm sure Obama didn't mean any harm. Rondo smiled and went along with all of it, but KG told me he could see it in his eyes. It bothered Rondo. It killed him.

The next day Rondo shot the ball horribly. He stopped taking shots after that. He's so sensitive. I think it was a real jolt to hear the outside perception of a basketball fan who happens to be the President of the United States. It messed with his mind. I'm sure of it.

Fantastic.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 17, 2011, 04:32:43 PM
And the healthcare law continues to chip away at our freedoms (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904253204576512494056148396.html?mod=googlenews_wsj).

QuoteConsumers shopping for health insurance will soon get a peek at a new standard form—akin to the nutrition label on food products—that will lay out the details of each policy, from deductibles to how much it might cost to have a baby.

QuoteThe summary form has often been compared to the food-nutrition label, though it is substantially longer, and at six pages the draft offers considerable detail. For instance, it would not only tell consumers their overall deductibles, or the amount they must pay before coverage kicks in, but would also explain deductibles for specific categories, such as drug coverage. In addition to flagging the limit on a consumer's out-of-pocket expenses, the form would lay out which expenses don't count toward that limit.

If this kind of unconstitutional claptrap continues I'll be forced to go Galt to Peter Thiel's Floating Randian Utopia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peter-thiel-founder-of-paypal-invests-124-million-to-create-floating-micro-countries/2011/08/17/gIQA88AhLJ_blog.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 17, 2011, 05:22:01 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 17, 2011, 04:32:43 PM
If this kind of unconstitutional claptrap continues I'll be forced to go Galt to Peter Thiel's Floating Randian Utopia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/peter-thiel-founder-of-paypal-invests-124-million-to-create-floating-micro-countries/2011/08/17/gIQA88AhLJ_blog.html).

Look at those poor saps back on land with their laws and ethics! They'll never know the simple joys of a monkey knife fight.

(http://i.imgur.com/zOMyJ.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/VJ8wN.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/3WD9M.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/UWapr.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/O039D.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 17, 2011, 05:58:40 PM
Yeah, he ain't pretty no more.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 17, 2011, 06:43:52 PM
Another thoughtful aside brought to you by Richard Motherfucking Cohen...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-texas-gipper/2011/08/15/gIQA2SQGHJ_story.html

QuotePerry, who actually looks like a president (also the late Rory Calhoun)...

That's Rick Perry for you: always standing and walking.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 24, 2011, 11:23:40 AM
Jon Huntsman is dreamy! (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/jon-huntsman-the-no-drama-conservative/)

(Sets up fainting couch for morph and TJ)

QuoteHuntsman's tax reforms included $110 million in income-tax cuts, and would mandate a state-wide flat income-tax rate. Sales and food taxes were slashed too. The deal included tax credits aimed at attracting new business development, including mining.

QuoteHuntsman may be the pro-life cause's most accomplished executive. He signed bills banning second-trimester abortions, reclassifying third-trimester abortions as a third-degree felony, and requiring abortion providers to explain the pain unborn children can experience during abortion. He signed a trigger law that would ban abortion outright if Roe is overturned.

(Sets up fainting couch for flannj)

QuoteAnd Huntsman expanded the rights of Utah gun-owners, abolishing some concealed-carry restrictions and allowing for more transport of firearms on Utah's roads. He even signed a bill that would grant small-game hunting licenses to children under 12.

(Sets up fainting couch for Gil)

QuoteHuntsman also riled conservatives on some environmental issues. He has praised Nixon's creation of the EPA. His party's right wing castigated him for participating with other Western-state governors in a climate-change summit that yielded exactly nothing in terms of policy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on August 24, 2011, 11:51:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 24, 2011, 11:23:40 AM
Jon Huntsman is dreamy! (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/jon-huntsman-the-no-drama-conservative/)

(Sets up fainting couch for morph and TJ)

QuoteHuntsman's tax reforms included $110 million in income-tax cuts, and would mandate a state-wide flat income-tax rate. Sales and food taxes were slashed too. The deal included tax credits aimed at attracting new business development, including mining.

QuoteHuntsman may be the pro-life cause's most accomplished executive. He signed bills banning second-trimester abortions, reclassifying third-trimester abortions as a third-degree felony, and requiring abortion providers to explain the pain unborn children can experience during abortion. He signed a trigger law that would ban abortion outright if Roe is overturned.

(Sets up fainting couch for flannj)

QuoteAnd Huntsman expanded the rights of Utah gun-owners, abolishing some concealed-carry restrictions and allowing for more transport of firearms on Utah's roads. He even signed a bill that would grant small-game hunting licenses to children under 12.

(Sets up fainting couch for Gil)

QuoteHuntsman also riled conservatives on some environmental issues. He has praised Nixon's creation of the EPA. His party's right wing castigated him for participating with other Western-state governors in a climate-change summit that yielded exactly nothing in terms of policy.

He can have 1/2 of my vote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on August 24, 2011, 12:19:01 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 24, 2011, 11:51:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 24, 2011, 11:23:40 AM
Jon Huntsman is dreamy! (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/jon-huntsman-the-no-drama-conservative/)

(Sets up fainting couch for morph and TJ)

QuoteHuntsman's tax reforms included $110 million in income-tax cuts, and would mandate a state-wide flat income-tax rate. Sales and food taxes were slashed too. The deal included tax credits aimed at attracting new business development, including mining.

QuoteHuntsman may be the pro-life cause's most accomplished executive. He signed bills banning second-trimester abortions, reclassifying third-trimester abortions as a third-degree felony, and requiring abortion providers to explain the pain unborn children can experience during abortion. He signed a trigger law that would ban abortion outright if Roe is overturned.

(Sets up fainting couch for flannj)

QuoteAnd Huntsman expanded the rights of Utah gun-owners, abolishing some concealed-carry restrictions and allowing for more transport of firearms on Utah's roads. He even signed a bill that would grant small-game hunting licenses to children under 12.

(Sets up fainting couch for Gil)

QuoteHuntsman also riled conservatives on some environmental issues. He has praised Nixon's creation of the EPA. His party's right wing castigated him for participating with other Western-state governors in a climate-change summit that yielded exactly nothing in terms of policy.

He can have 1/2 of my vote.

Quote
Huntsman Jr. had a rebellious phase. He dropped out of high school to focus on his progressive-rock band, Wizard. Ask him about those days and he slips into semi-seriousness. He describes Emerson Lake and Palmer, Yes, and Genesis as "highly impactful in terms of [his] view of the music world." And he jokes that the '80s were a mostly "lost decade" in terms of music when explaining his fondness for '90s acts like the Foo Fighters and Ben Folds Five.

I need to hear more about this band, Wizard, before making a decision.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on August 24, 2011, 12:53:48 PM
Quote from: BH on August 24, 2011, 12:19:01 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 24, 2011, 11:51:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on August 24, 2011, 11:23:40 AM
Jon Huntsman is dreamy! (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/jon-huntsman-the-no-drama-conservative/)

(Sets up fainting couch for morph and TJ)

QuoteHuntsman's tax reforms included $110 million in income-tax cuts, and would mandate a state-wide flat income-tax rate. Sales and food taxes were slashed too. The deal included tax credits aimed at attracting new business development, including mining.

QuoteHuntsman may be the pro-life cause's most accomplished executive. He signed bills banning second-trimester abortions, reclassifying third-trimester abortions as a third-degree felony, and requiring abortion providers to explain the pain unborn children can experience during abortion. He signed a trigger law that would ban abortion outright if Roe is overturned.

(Sets up fainting couch for flannj)

QuoteAnd Huntsman expanded the rights of Utah gun-owners, abolishing some concealed-carry restrictions and allowing for more transport of firearms on Utah's roads. He even signed a bill that would grant small-game hunting licenses to children under 12.

(Sets up fainting couch for Gil)

QuoteHuntsman also riled conservatives on some environmental issues. He has praised Nixon's creation of the EPA. His party's right wing castigated him for participating with other Western-state governors in a climate-change summit that yielded exactly nothing in terms of policy.

He can have 1/2 of my vote.

Quote
Huntsman Jr. had a rebellious phase. He dropped out of high school to focus on his progressive-rock band, Wizard. Ask him about those days and he slips into semi-seriousness. He describes Emerson Lake and Palmer, Yes, and Genesis as "highly impactful in terms of [his] view of the music world." And he jokes that the '80s were a mostly "lost decade" in terms of music when explaining his fondness for '90s acts like the Foo Fighters and Ben Folds Five.

I need to hear more about this band, Wizard, before making a decision.

Okay, he's down to 2/5ths now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 24, 2011, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: BH on August 24, 2011, 12:19:01 PM
I need to hear more about this band, Wizard, before making a decision.

(http://sexedmusic.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/wizzard1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 24, 2011, 02:23:07 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/iLApW.jpg)

He's the one with helmet hair and a vest.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52454.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 25, 2011, 07:24:00 PM
Condoleezza has an admirer. (http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/25/7470058-in-the-ruins-of-gadhafis-lair-rebels-find-album-filled-with-photos-of-his-darling-condoleezza-rice)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 09:46:47 AM
So, in addition to paying employees, job creators now have to post a notice telling them of their rights too?!?

WHEN WILL THIS TYRANNY (which every other federal labor statute requires) END?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11238/1169998-84-0.stm
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on August 26, 2011, 10:49:50 AM
Has this been address (I don't read this thread often): http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

QuoteCost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free. That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

QuoteSo far, they say, about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test

Compared to:
QuoteAccording to the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, performed by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 8.7 percent of the population nationally over age 12 uses illicit drugs. The rate was 6.3 percent for those ages 26 and up.

And:
QuoteA 2008 study by the Office of National Drug Control Policy also showed that 8.13 percent of Floridians age 12 and up use illegal drugs.

So welfare recipients use drugs at a lower rate than their state and national counterparts? And the state of Florida is basically breaking even? Ok. Makes sense. A friend of mine posted this on Facebook last night and mentioned that if the government is going to maintain a "you don't get breaks/money from us unless you're drugfree" then they oughta test every executive of corporations that get tax breaks. It's only fair. They probably "cost" the government a shitload more money than those poor minorities welfare recipients do.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 26, 2011, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 09:46:47 AM
So, in addition to paying employees, job creators now have to post a notice telling them of their rights too?!?

WHEN WILL THIS TYRANNY (which every other federal labor statute requires) END?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11238/1169998-84-0.stm

Not a good time to own a business with any employees.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 26, 2011, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 09:46:47 AM
So, in addition to paying employees, job creators now have to post a notice telling them of their rights too?!?

WHEN WILL THIS TYRANNY (which every other federal labor statute requires) END?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11238/1169998-84-0.stm

Not a good time to own a business with any employees.

I just don't understand the uproar over this.

It's a bad thing for people to know their rights under the law?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 26, 2011, 01:44:23 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 26, 2011, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 09:46:47 AM
So, in addition to paying employees, job creators now have to post a notice telling them of their rights too?!?

WHEN WILL THIS TYRANNY (which every other federal labor statute requires) END?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11238/1169998-84-0.stm

Not a good time to own a business with any employees.

I just don't understand the uproar over this.

It's a bad thing for people to know their rights under the law?

Perhaps we could simply reproduce the entire Federal Register in poster form?  Or just the labor laws part?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 01:46:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 26, 2011, 01:44:23 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 26, 2011, 12:27:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 26, 2011, 09:46:47 AM
So, in addition to paying employees, job creators now have to post a notice telling them of their rights too?!?

WHEN WILL THIS TYRANNY (which every other federal labor statute requires) END?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11238/1169998-84-0.stm

Not a good time to own a business with any employees.

I just don't understand the uproar over this.

It's a bad thing for people to know their rights under the law?

Perhaps we could simply reproduce the entire Federal Register in poster form?  Or just the labor laws part?

Pocket-sized US Constitutions for all!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2011, 02:40:56 PM
I wonder what MikeC and his fellow brother cops think about this one...

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/26/first-circuit-panel-says-theres-a-clear-constitutional-right-to-record-cops/

From the decision:

QuoteThe First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw."...

The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press....

With a couple caveats from Radley Balko:

QuoteSecond, while I've only had time to quickly read the opinion online, I do find some possible cause for concern. From what I can tell, the opinion doesn't strike down the wiretapping law, or even its application in the context of recording cops, so much as find that Glik wasn't in violation of the law.  The opinion's discussion of Glik's Fourth Amendment rights, for example, spends a lot of time pointing out that Glik was clearly recording the cops openly, while the Massachusetts law only bars the surreptitious recording of cops. It would have been nice for the court to come right out and say either way whether the Massachusetts law itself passes First Amendment muster. But it didn't, I guess because it didn't need to...

...

Not to be a complete downer on what is really a pretty great decision, but the other thing to keep in mind is that the current Supreme Court lineup is awfully fond of qualified immunity. It's far from clear that they'd uphold this ruling. I do imagine that they will address the issue fairly soon. It will be interesting to see if that comes in the form of a challenge to an actual conviction, or in a civil rights claim for wrongful arrest.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 29, 2011, 04:36:19 PM
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/29/3869964/obamas-uncle-arrested-on-drunken.html

QuotePresident Obama's uncle has been charged with drunken driving in Massachusetts and is being held by immigration officials, the AP reports.

Police said that when asked if he wanted to make a phone call, Obama said: "I think I will call the White House."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on August 30, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2011, 02:40:56 PM
I wonder what MikeC and his fellow brother cops think about this one...

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/26/first-circuit-panel-says-theres-a-clear-constitutional-right-to-record-cops/

From the decision:

QuoteThe First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw."...

The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press....

With a couple caveats from Radley Balko:

QuoteSecond, while I've only had time to quickly read the opinion online, I do find some possible cause for concern. From what I can tell, the opinion doesn't strike down the wiretapping law, or even its application in the context of recording cops, so much as find that Glik wasn't in violation of the law.  The opinion's discussion of Glik's Fourth Amendment rights, for example, spends a lot of time pointing out that Glik was clearly recording the cops openly, while the Massachusetts law only bars the surreptitious recording of cops. It would have been nice for the court to come right out and say either way whether the Massachusetts law itself passes First Amendment muster. But it didn't, I guess because it didn't need to...

...

Not to be a complete downer on what is really a pretty great decision, but the other thing to keep in mind is that the current Supreme Court lineup is awfully fond of qualified immunity. It's far from clear that they'd uphold this ruling. I do imagine that they will address the issue fairly soon. It will be interesting to see if that comes in the form of a challenge to an actual conviction, or in a civil rights claim for wrongful arrest.

Talk about violation...  (http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-exists-surveillance-camera-catches-new-mexico-state-trooper-having-sex-on-the-hood-of-his-car/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 30, 2011, 07:22:34 PM
Time for the atheist registry. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:syJ9xWigOUAJ:pastorstahl.blogspot.com/2010/09/putting-atheists-on-national-registry.html+http://pastorstahl.blogspot.com/&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com")
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 31, 2011, 11:21:02 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 30, 2011, 07:22:34 PM
Time for the atheist registry. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:syJ9xWigOUAJ:pastorstahl.blogspot.com/2010/09/putting-atheists-on-national-registry.html+http://pastorstahl.blogspot.com/&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com")

I don't get this Wheezer link at all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 31, 2011, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 31, 2011, 11:21:02 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 30, 2011, 07:22:34 PM
Time for the atheist registry. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:syJ9xWigOUAJ:pastorstahl.blogspot.com/2010/09/putting-atheists-on-national-registry.html+http://pastorstahl.blogspot.com/&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com")

I don't get this Wheezer link at all.

It was formerly a link to Google's cache of a year-old blog post by a Evangelical pastor from Florida suggesting that we use the I-Net to wage war on the national atheist menace the same way we fight sexual predators and terrorist cells:

QuoteBrothers and Sisters , I have been seriously considering forming a ( Christian ) grassroots type of organization to be named "The Christian National Registry of Atheists" or something similar . I mean , think about it . There are already National Registrys for convicted sex offenders , ex-convicts , terrorist cells , hate groups like the KKK , skinheads , radical Islamists , etc..

This type of "National Registry" would merely be for information purposes . To inform the public of KNOWN ( i.e., self-admitted) atheists . For example , let's say you live in Colorado Springs , Colorado , you could simply scroll down ( from the I-Net site /Blog ) I would have , to the State of Colorado , and then when you see "Colorado Springs" , you will see the names of all the self-admitted atheist(s) who live there ( e.g., if an atheist's name happened to be "Phil Small" ) . The individual's physical address , and other known personal information would NOT be disclosed ( though , perhaps a photo could be ) .

Now , many (especially the atheists ) , may ask "Why do this , what's the purpose ?" Duhhh , Mr. Atheist , for the same purpose many States put the names and photos of convicted sex offenders and other ex-felons on the I-Net – to INFORM the public ! I mean , in the City of Miramar , Florida , where I live , the population is approx. 109,000 . My family and I would sure like to know how many of those 109,000 are ADMITTED atheists ! Perhaps we may actually know some . In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism . Or perhaps they are radical atheists , whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh's , in that case , if they are business owners , we would encourage all our Christian friends , as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be "feeding" Satan .

Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 31, 2011, 11:54:32 AM
Phil Small! What a delicious pun, Pastor!

And I, for one, appreciate being equated to terrorists and child molesters. Because those are the two tenets of my atheist faith.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2011, 11:56:08 AM
Quote
Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

Wouldn't the same logic apply to gun owners?  I wonder what this pastor thinks of those laws?

What about other things that people believe in?

How about a national registry of people who believe in only the Old Testament?

How about a national registry of people who believe the Cubs are good?

How about a national registry of people who believe Ballroom Dancing is fun?

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 31, 2011, 12:00:10 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2011, 11:56:08 AM

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

I, for one, would like to witness to them, or if their hearts are hardened, boycott their businesses.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 31, 2011, 12:02:36 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 31, 2011, 12:00:10 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2011, 11:56:08 AM

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

I, for one, would like to witness to them, or if their hearts are hardened, boycott their businesses.

But not those on the natiional registry of people who think the Cubs are good?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on August 31, 2011, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2011, 11:56:08 AM
Quote
Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

Wouldn't the same logic apply to gun owners?  I wonder what this pastor thinks of those laws?

What about other things that people believe in?

How about a national registry of people who believe in only the Old Testament?

How about a national registry of people who believe the Cubs are good?
How about a national registry of people who believe Ballroom Dancing is fun?

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

There isn't a list of people in mental institutions already?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 31, 2011, 12:11:09 PM
Quote from: thehawk on August 31, 2011, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2011, 11:56:08 AM
Quote
Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

Wouldn't the same logic apply to gun owners?  I wonder what this pastor thinks of those laws?

What about other things that people believe in?

How about a national registry of people who believe in only the Old Testament?

How about a national registry of people who believe the Cubs are good?
How about a national registry of people who believe Ballroom Dancing is fun?

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

There isn't a list of people in mental institutions already?

All people who think the Cubs are good are crazy, but not all crazy people think the Cubs are good.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2011, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 31, 2011, 12:11:09 PM
Quote from: thehawk on August 31, 2011, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 31, 2011, 11:56:08 AM
Quote
Frankly , I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.' ) .

Wouldn't the same logic apply to gun owners?  I wonder what this pastor thinks of those laws?

What about other things that people believe in?

How about a national registry of people who believe in only the Old Testament?

How about a national registry of people who believe the Cubs are good?
How about a national registry of people who believe Ballroom Dancing is fun?

How about a national registry of people who believe in national registries?

There isn't a list of people in mental institutions already?

All people who think the Cubs are good are crazy, but not all crazy people think the Cubs are good.

Maybe we could just get Maple Street Press to give us a list of subscribers to their magazine.  That would have the benefit of doubling as a sex offender list, as well.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 31, 2011, 01:37:43 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 31, 2011, 11:54:32 AM
Phil Small! What a delicious pun, Pastor!

And I, for one, appreciate being equated to terrorists and child molesters. Because those are the two tenets of my atheist faith.

I think that he has it backwards.  Those of us who are not atheists must identify ourselves and mark our houses so that the Angel of Death passes over our houses and spares our first born.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on August 31, 2011, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2011, 01:37:43 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 31, 2011, 11:54:32 AM
Phil Small! What a delicious pun, Pastor!

And I, for one, appreciate being equated to terrorists and child molesters. Because those are the two tenets of my atheist faith.

I think that he has it backwards.  Those of us who are not atheists must identify ourselves and mark our houses so that the Angel of Death passes over our houses and spares our first born.

No, too Jewish.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 31, 2011, 05:40:48 PM
Quote from: CT III on August 31, 2011, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 31, 2011, 01:37:43 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 31, 2011, 11:54:32 AM
Phil Small! What a delicious pun, Pastor!

And I, for one, appreciate being equated to terrorists and child molesters. Because those are the two tenets of my atheist faith.

I think that he has it backwards.  Those of us who are not atheists must identify ourselves and mark our houses so that the Angel of Death passes over our houses and spares our first born.

No, too Jewish.

The Jews are merely colorful props in the End Times garage play. (But, yes, I failed to notice that the original was so stale.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 03, 2011, 09:30:32 AM
Is there a lawyer around who can look over these documents (http://www.hapn.us/divorcingbaal)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 08, 2011, 08:57:32 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/HGTOy.jpg)

"Don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 08, 2011, 09:55:51 AM
QuoteWhat is chilling about Rick Perry is not simply that the same man who ended a public investigation into the innocence or guilt of Todd Willingham organized a huge spectacle of public prayer; it's that he ended the Willingham investigation and organized the spectacle of public prayer for the same reason, which was and is to run for president.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-perry-death-penalty-investigation-6389307#ixzz1XNC0THZW
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 08, 2011, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 08, 2011, 09:55:51 AM
QuoteWhat is chilling about Rick Perry is not simply that the same man who ended a public investigation into the innocence or guilt of Todd Willingham organized a huge spectacle of public prayer; it's that he ended the Willingham investigation and organized the spectacle of public prayer for the same reason, which was and is to run for president.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-perry-death-penalty-investigation-6389307#ixzz1XNC0THZW

Also chilling: the only evidence that Rick Perry exists is based on a computer simulation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BBM on September 08, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Quote from: CT III on September 08, 2011, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 08, 2011, 09:55:51 AM
QuoteWhat is chilling about Rick Perry is not simply that the same man who ended a public investigation into the innocence or guilt of Todd Willingham organized a huge spectacle of public prayer; it's that he ended the Willingham investigation and organized the spectacle of public prayer for the same reason, which was and is to run for president.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-perry-death-penalty-investigation-6389307#ixzz1XNC0THZW

Also chilling: the only evidence that Rick Perry exists is based on a computer simulation.

(http://i53.tinypic.com/j8z72b.jpg) 

Are we sure of that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 08, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: BBM on September 08, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Quote from: CT III on September 08, 2011, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 08, 2011, 09:55:51 AM
QuoteWhat is chilling about Rick Perry is not simply that the same man who ended a public investigation into the innocence or guilt of Todd Willingham organized a huge spectacle of public prayer; it's that he ended the Willingham investigation and organized the spectacle of public prayer for the same reason, which was and is to run for president.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-perry-death-penalty-investigation-6389307#ixzz1XNC0THZW

Also chilling: the only evidence that Rick Perry exists is based on a computer simulation.

(http://i53.tinypic.com/j8z72b.jpg) 

Are we sure of that.

Remind me to never eat a sausage in public.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 08, 2011, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 08, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: BBM on September 08, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Quote from: CT III on September 08, 2011, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 08, 2011, 09:55:51 AM
QuoteWhat is chilling about Rick Perry is not simply that the same man who ended a public investigation into the innocence or guilt of Todd Willingham organized a huge spectacle of public prayer; it's that he ended the Willingham investigation and organized the spectacle of public prayer for the same reason, which was and is to run for president.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-perry-death-penalty-investigation-6389307#ixzz1XNC0THZW

Also chilling: the only evidence that Rick Perry exists is based on a computer simulation.

(http://i53.tinypic.com/j8z72b.jpg) 

Are we sure of that.

Remind me to never eat a sausage in public.

(||)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 09, 2011, 07:18:46 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 08, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: BBM on September 08, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Quote from: CT III on September 08, 2011, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 08, 2011, 09:55:51 AM
QuoteWhat is chilling about Rick Perry is not simply that the same man who ended a public investigation into the innocence or guilt of Todd Willingham organized a huge spectacle of public prayer; it's that he ended the Willingham investigation and organized the spectacle of public prayer for the same reason, which was and is to run for president.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-perry-death-penalty-investigation-6389307#ixzz1XNC0THZW

Also chilling: the only evidence that Rick Perry exists is based on a computer simulation.

(http://i53.tinypic.com/j8z72b.jpg) 

Are we sure of that.

Remind me to never eat a sausage in public.

OK, you're reminded:

(http://www.womeneatingsausages.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BachmannCorndog.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:09:58 PM
So, if you can't win, cheat?  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11256/1174283-454.stm

COUNTRY FIRST!!

QuoteA new proposal is pushing the often-forgotten Electoral College into the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials ponder the state's role in next year's presidential race.

QuoteSenate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state's "winner-takes-all" approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.

Ahh, here's why...

QuoteAn analysis by the online news service Capitolwire noted that had the proposed distribution process been in place in Pennsylvania in 2008 before the state lost one congressional district due to a population decline in the 2010 census, Mr. Obama would have won only 11 of the state's 21 votes.

Wonderful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on September 13, 2011, 04:14:41 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 09, 2011, 07:18:46 AM
Quote from: CBStew on September 08, 2011, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: BBM on September 08, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Quote from: CT III on September 08, 2011, 10:12:01 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 08, 2011, 09:55:51 AM
QuoteWhat is chilling about Rick Perry is not simply that the same man who ended a public investigation into the innocence or guilt of Todd Willingham organized a huge spectacle of public prayer; it's that he ended the Willingham investigation and organized the spectacle of public prayer for the same reason, which was and is to run for president.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-perry-death-penalty-investigation-6389307#ixzz1XNC0THZW

Also chilling: the only evidence that Rick Perry exists is based on a computer simulation.

(http://i53.tinypic.com/j8z72b.jpg) 

Are we sure of that.

Remind me to never eat a sausage in public.

OK, you're reminded:

(http://www.womeneatingsausages.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BachmannCorndog.jpg)

She looks like the methhead chick from Breaking Bad's Season 2, the one that crushed her husbands head with the ATM
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 13, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:09:58 PM
So, if you can't win, cheat?  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11256/1174283-454.stm

COUNTRY FIRST!!

QuoteA new proposal is pushing the often-forgotten Electoral College into the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials ponder the state's role in next year's presidential race.

QuoteSenate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state's "winner-takes-all" approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.

Ahh, here's why...

QuoteAn analysis by the online news service Capitolwire noted that had the proposed distribution process been in place in Pennsylvania in 2008 before the state lost one congressional district due to a population decline in the 2010 census, Mr. Obama would have won only 11 of the state's 21 votes.

Wonderful.

Nebraska uses this system and Obama picked up an electoral vote he otherwise wouldn't have had because of it.  Was that cheating?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:34:35 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 13, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:09:58 PM
So, if you can't win, cheat?  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11256/1174283-454.stm

COUNTRY FIRST!!

QuoteA new proposal is pushing the often-forgotten Electoral College into the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials ponder the state's role in next year's presidential race.

QuoteSenate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state's "winner-takes-all" approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.

Ahh, here's why...

QuoteAn analysis by the online news service Capitolwire noted that had the proposed distribution process been in place in Pennsylvania in 2008 before the state lost one congressional district due to a population decline in the 2010 census, Mr. Obama would have won only 11 of the state's 21 votes.

Wonderful.

Nebraska uses this system and Obama picked up an electoral vote he otherwise wouldn't have had because of it.  Was that cheating?

And then Nebraska gerrymandered NE2 to mitigate the chances of that happening again.  The whole thing is bullshit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on September 13, 2011, 04:41:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:34:35 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 13, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:09:58 PM
So, if you can't win, cheat?  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11256/1174283-454.stm

COUNTRY FIRST!!

QuoteA new proposal is pushing the often-forgotten Electoral College into the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials ponder the state's role in next year's presidential race.

QuoteSenate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state's "winner-takes-all" approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.

Ahh, here's why...

QuoteAn analysis by the online news service Capitolwire noted that had the proposed distribution process been in place in Pennsylvania in 2008 before the state lost one congressional district due to a population decline in the 2010 census, Mr. Obama would have won only 11 of the state's 21 votes.

Wonderful.

Nebraska uses this system and Obama picked up an electoral vote he otherwise wouldn't have had because of it.  Was that cheating?

And then Nebraska gerrymandered NE2 to mitigate the chances of that happening again.  The whole thing is bullshit.

The best I can tell, the state of Illinois could decide to dole out its electoral votes based on whatever arbitrary measure it chose, provided it changes state law (and maybe the state constitution) to allow it. It so happens this state has chosen a statewide election. If there is enough of a popular movement to do so, Illinois could pass legislation awarding the votes over a game of ping pong between Pat Quinn and Mark Kirk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:49:11 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 13, 2011, 04:41:36 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:34:35 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 13, 2011, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2011, 04:09:58 PM
So, if you can't win, cheat?  http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11256/1174283-454.stm

COUNTRY FIRST!!

QuoteA new proposal is pushing the often-forgotten Electoral College into the spotlight as Pennsylvania officials ponder the state's role in next year's presidential race.

QuoteSenate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi is trying to gather support to change the state's "winner-takes-all" approach for awarding electoral votes. Instead, he's suggesting that Pennsylvania dole them out based on which candidate wins each of the 18 congressional districts, with the final two going to the contender with the most votes statewide.

Ahh, here's why...

QuoteAn analysis by the online news service Capitolwire noted that had the proposed distribution process been in place in Pennsylvania in 2008 before the state lost one congressional district due to a population decline in the 2010 census, Mr. Obama would have won only 11 of the state's 21 votes.

Wonderful.

Nebraska uses this system and Obama picked up an electoral vote he otherwise wouldn't have had because of it.  Was that cheating?

And then Nebraska gerrymandered NE2 to mitigate the chances of that happening again.  The whole thing is bullshit.

The best I can tell, the state of Illinois could decide to dole out its electoral votes based on whatever arbitrary measure it chose, provided it changes state law (and maybe the state constitution) to allow it. It so happens this state has chosen a statewide election. If there is enough of a popular movement to do so, Illinois could pass legislation awarding the votes over a game of ping pong between Pat Quinn and Mark Kirk.

To be fair, a Kirk/Quinn ping-pong match for 20 electoral votes would be more interesting than seeing three counties effectively decide Illinois' presidential electors.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 15, 2011, 02:30:21 PM
Perry's friends from the AFA seem to be getting ambitious. It's not just the damned Department of Education, we have to end the unconstitutional practice of maintaining highways (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-wants-departments-education-transportion-agriculture-and-hhs-eliminated). (Why do you think the L-rd makes pavement buckle in the first place?)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 16, 2011, 03:59:04 PM
Jeb Bush is going to be in charge of a for-profit disaster relief company because, why not?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/16/jeb-bush-to-lead-for-profit-disaster-response-company/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 16, 2011, 05:02:41 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-texas-death-20110916,0,3367730.story

QuoteThe U.S. Supreme Court stopped Texas officials Thursday evening from executing a Houston murderer who was sentenced to die after jurors were told he posed a greater danger to public safety because he is black.

The justices acted on an emergency appeal after Texas Gov. Rick Perry and state judges refused to intervene.

The high court's brief order said the "stay of execution of sentence of death ... is granted" while the justices decide whether to review the case of Duane Edward Buck.

...

The dispute dates back to 2000, when then-Texas Atty. Gen. John Cornyn acknowledged to the Supreme Court that prosecutors had violated the Constitution by relying on race-based arguments in six death penalty cases. Buck's case was one of them, and he was the only one who did not receive a new sentencing hearing.

The other cases had been pending in federal court, while Buck's was in state court. Later, after Cornyn was elected to the U.S. Senate and a new attorney general took over, state prosecutors argued that Buck's rights were not violated, and they won in the lower courts.

Last week, Perry said during a GOP presidential debate that he "never struggled" over the death penalty because "the state of Texas has a very thoughtful, very clear process in place." During Perry's 11 years in office, the state has carried out 235 executions.

The sentencing dispute arose because of an unusual provision in Texas' death penalty law. Jurors were required to consider whether a convicted murderer would pose a future danger if he were sentenced to life in prison rather than death. In a series of cases, Dr. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, testified that blacks posed a greater risk of "future dangerousness" than whites.

Buck's trial took place in 1997. During the sentencing phase, Quijano testified for the defense that Buck was not likely to be dangerous because he had no previous history of violence. But when a prosecutor asked about the "race factor," the psychologist said blacks posed more of a danger than whites. Prosecutors cited this testimony in their closing argument, and the jury voted for the death penalty.

...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 16, 2011, 06:26:40 PM
Well, Romans 12:19 doesn't say anything about killing out of sheer stupidity.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 16, 2011, 07:31:53 PM
Texas is definitely my favorite futuristic dystopian universe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on September 16, 2011, 07:40:34 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 16, 2011, 03:59:04 PM
Jeb Bush is going to be in charge of a for-profit disaster relief company because, why not?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/16/jeb-bush-to-lead-for-profit-disaster-response-company/

And now, reading the comments with GilTM

QuoteNow all he has to do is create the emergency.  Hmmmm.  Maybe,  planes into towers.

QuoteIf a Bush family member is running a "for profit disaster response company" you can bet your life savings, with extreme confidence of a very large gain, that they will be creating the disasters....

Quoteget ready for some profitable disasters...it seems to run in the family...where was jeb when marvin`s security needed him on 9/11?...luckily, controlled demolition made the cleanup much easier...rudy, what happened to the gold?...you didn`t accidentally melt it with thermate did ya`?...i`m sure marvin and the boys thought of that well ahead of time...right before they hedged airline stocks with it...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 23, 2011, 04:45:20 PM
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201110/leonardo-dicaprio-clint-eastwood-gq-october-2011-cover-story#slide=4

QuoteI was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War. And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone. These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of.... They go on and on with all this bullshit about "sanctity"—don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.

(http://i.imgur.com/92Mbm.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 23, 2011, 07:39:12 PM
But will it play with in Poughkeepsie (http://www.queerty.com/if-clint-eastwood-is-cool-with-homos-why-is-he-freaking-out-about-j-edgar-not-being-a-gay-movie-20110914/)?

QuoteNot even letting DiCaprio finish his thought, Eastwood interrupts:

"It's not a movie about two gay guys. It's a movie about how this guy manipulated everybody around him and managed to stay on through nine presidents. I mean, I don't give a crap if he was gay or not."

Right, why would his being a closeted homosexual shed any light on why Hoover persecuted LGBT Americans and other people on the fringes of society for decades? It's almost hard to believe that the script for J. Edgar, which his theaters on November 9, was written by screenwriter/activist Dustin Lance Black.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 26, 2011, 04:57:21 PM
Gov. Christie's smart and proper veto of the "Snooki Subsidy (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/chris_christie_vetoes_420k_snooki_subsidy_producti.php?ref=fpblg)" has caused Grover Norquist's head to spin.

See, cancellation of a tax subsidy is really a tax increase (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/165891-ethanol-subsidies-revive-coburn-norquist-battle).  So, we now have Gov. Christie outside the Norquist/GOP orthodoxy on tax policy.

And this guy is the great GOP hope?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 27, 2011, 09:26:46 PM
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/elections/2011/09/27/votinghack/index.html

QuoteIt could be one of the most disturbing e-voting machine hacks to date.

Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.

"We believe these man-in-the-middle attacks are potentially possible on a wide variety of electronic voting machines," said Roger Johnston, leader of the assessment team "We think we can do similar things on pretty much every electronic voting machine."

...

The team's video demonstrates how inserting the inexpensive electronic device into the voting machine can offer a "bad guy" virtually complete control over the machine. A cheap remote control unit can enable access to the voting machine from up to half a mile away.

"The cost of the attack that you're going to see was $10.50 in retail quantities," explains Warner in the video. "If you want to use the RF [radio frequency] remote control to stop and start the attacks, that's another $15. So the total cost would be $26."

...

In what Warner describes as "probably the most relevant attack for vote tampering," the intruder would allow the voter to make his or her selections. But when the voter actually attempts to push the Vote Now button, which records the voter's final selections to the system's memory card, he says, "we will simply intercept that attempt ... change a few of the votes," and  the changed votes would then be registered in the machine.

"In order to do this," Warner explains, "we blank the screen temporarily so that the voter doesn't see that there's some revoting going on prior to the final registration of the votes."

This type of attack is particularly troubling because the manipulation would occur after the voter has approved as "correct" the on-screen summaries of his or her intended selections. Team leader Johnson says that while such an attack could be mounted on Election Day, there would be "a high probability of being detected." But he explained that the machines could also be tampered with during so-called voting machine "sleepovers" when e-voting systems are kept by poll workers at their houses, often days and weeks prior to the election or at other times when the systems are  unguarded.

"The more realistic way to insert these alien electronics is to do it while the voting machines are waiting in the polling place a week or two prior to the election," Johnston said. "Often the polling places are in elementary schools or a church basement or some place that doesn't really have a great deal of security. Or the voting machines can be tampered while they're in transit to the polling place. Or while they're in storage in the warehouse between elections," says Johnston. He notes that the Argonne team had no owner's manual or circuit diagrams for either the Diebold or Sequoia voting systems they were able to access in these attacks.

...

Watch their video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMw2dn6K1oI

Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ClrHPShljM
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 27, 2011, 09:53:49 PM


QuoteIt could be one of the most disturbing e-voting machine hacks to date.

Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.

...

Big deal.  There are like what, 12 Americans that currently possess both these things?

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 27, 2011, 10:36:57 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 27, 2011, 09:53:49 PM


QuoteIt could be one of the most disturbing e-voting machine hacks to date.

Voting machines used by as many as a quarter of American voters heading to the polls in 2012 can be hacked with just $10.50 in parts and an 8th grade science education, according to computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. The experts say the newly developed hack could change voting results while leaving absolutely no trace of the manipulation behind.

...

Big deal.  There are like what, 12 Americans that currently possess both these things?

That's your Congressional Supercommittee.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 28, 2011, 12:12:30 PM
A masterstroke from "Judson Phillips" at Tea Party Nation. The tsunami image, while seemingly confused, is chilling.

QuoteThere is an absolute rule of human nature. Desperate people do stupid things. Desperate people say stupid things. The more desperate someone is, the more likely they are to do something that reveals their true intentions.

Nothing could be truer than with the Democrat Party right now.

Why are they desperate and what are the true intentions they are revealing?

They are desperate because they see the tsunami coming. As water recedes from a beach before the tidal wave, the signs are there that 2012 will be such a disaster for the Party of Treason that it may take a generation for it to recover, if it can ever recover.

Election forecasts show significant gains for the GOP in the House, expanding their margin. The GOP is poised to take control of the Senate and if trends continue, the only real question will be does the GOP get a super majority in the Senate. And the White House increasingly feels like the Titanic, inexorably sinking with nothing that can be done to stop it and no lifeboats for the socialist ideas the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis of fiscal evil wants to impose on this nation.

The desperation to impose socialism on America against the will of the American people is now being seen from members of the Party of Treason. They speak openly of the problems of liberty.

Peter Orszag was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Regime. In a recent interview in the left leaning The New Republic magazine, he said:

"So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."

Of course, there is the answer right there. Let's kill liberty. Let's take away the rights of the people to vote, to speak, to petition their government for redress of grievances.

Liberals love dictatorships. In a dictatorship, they can just push their crackpot ideas and not have to worry about the little people complaining about a few minor details like, the ideas don't work. The ideas suck.

Their model has worked so well in the past. History has the precedents of their ideas. Just look at the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and China under Mao, Eastern Europe under the Warsaw Pact, Vietnam after 1975, Cambodia and Cuba.

Seeing the handwriting on the wall, left wing North Carolina Governor and certifiable lunatic Bev Perdue said yesterday:

"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that."

What Bev Perdue and the left do not want is the next election that is going sweep them out of power. This is the moment where they will be the most dangerous. Between the unelected czars and the left's last desperate gasp, as they try to push socialism down our throats one last time, we face not only the time of greatest peril but also the time of greatest opportunity.

We must find new leaders to replace these bad leaders. The people we select must have as an overriding belief in the idea that big government must be dismantled and we must take steps to ensure that never again is a socialist in the White House.

We need to remember the words our founding fathers put in the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

We must make certain we have new leaders in 2012 to replace the bad leadership we have had. We must make certain that our new leaders are committed to liberty and the destruction of big government. Our government needs much altering. Let us alter government before it becomes destructive of these ends and requires abolition.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2011, 02:53:51 PM
Maybe you've seen it already, but this is fucked up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moD2JnGTToA

Keep your eye on the officer in the white who comes into frame at the top right around 18 seconds in.

In slo-mo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig). The lead up to it from a different angle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMoKsZp5iao).

The aftermath:

(http://i.imgur.com/pXpIP.jpg)

And here he is again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-eTi5-qNgA), giving a separate crowd a quick spritz of their own.

Context for both, starting at 2:40 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A#t=2m40s).

A job well done all around, Deputy Inspector Bologna (http://davidscameracraft.blogspot.com/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-march-violence.html).

QuoteI still haven't washed off the splattered milk from my shoes. We had to use milk to wash the pepper spray out the woman's eyes. I still hear her screaming in pain, I can't believe they pepper sprayed a deaf woman. Her sobbing, saying how much it hurt as we held her head spraying milk into her eyes and on her face. The last time I saw her, we had to flee from the police who were arresting everyone on 12th street. She escaped into a movie theater with the help of others because she still couldn't open her eyes. After witnessing how much pain she was in I will never forget what this man did on a physical and emotional level to many people on Saturday. He created a war zone. I don't want to think that all of the NYPD is like this because I also met some very fine members of our cities police force on Saturday. Officers who cared about people and the protesters. I looked around at the police officers who were holding the net around us right after the pepper spray was discharged and they were flabbergasted. Three policemen were in the line of fire and almost got hit. Many of them stared down with sad eyes, not able to let go off the orange barrier to help a human being. They had to do their job but I know concern was in their minds.

http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

QuoteThe white-shirted cops are shouting at us to get off the street as they corral us onto the sidewalk. One African American man gets on the curb but refuses to be pushed up against the wall of the building; they throw him into the street, and five cops tackle him. As he's being cuffed, a white kid with a video camera asks him "What's your name?! What's your name?!" One of the blue-shirted cops thinks he's too close and gives him a little shove. A white-shirt sees this, grabs the kid and without hesitation billy-clubs him in the stomach.

At this point, the crowd of twenty or so caught in the orange fence is shouting "Shame! Shame! Who are you protecting?! YOU are the 99 percent! You're fighting your own people!" A white-shirt, now known to be NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, comes from the left, walks straight up to the three young girls at the front of the crowd, and pepper-sprays them in the face for a few seconds, continuing as they scream "No! Why are you doing that?!" The rest of us in the crowd turn away from the spray, but it's unavoidable. My left eye burns and goes blind and tears start streaming down my face. Frank grabs my arm and shoves us through the small gap between the orange fence and the brick wall while everyone stares in shock and horror at the two girls on the ground and two more doubled over screaming as their eyes ooze. In the street I shout for water to rinse my eyes or give to the girls on the ground, but no one responds. One of the blue-shirts, tall and bald, stares in disbelief and says, "I can't believe he just fuckin' maced us." And it becomes clear that the white-shirts are a different species. We need to get out of there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 01, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2011, 02:53:51 PM
Maybe you've seen it already, but this is fucked up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moD2JnGTToA

Keep your eye on the officer in the white who comes into frame at the top right around 18 seconds in.

In slo-mo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig). The lead up to it from a different angle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMoKsZp5iao).

The aftermath:

(http://i.imgur.com/pXpIP.jpg)

And here he is again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-eTi5-qNgA), giving a separate crowd a quick spritz of their own.

Context for both, starting at 2:40 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A#t=2m40s).

A job well done all around, Deputy Inspector Bologna (http://davidscameracraft.blogspot.com/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-march-violence.html).

QuoteI still haven't washed off the splattered milk from my shoes. We had to use milk to wash the pepper spray out the woman's eyes. I still hear her screaming in pain, I can't believe they pepper sprayed a deaf woman. Her sobbing, saying how much it hurt as we held her head spraying milk into her eyes and on her face. The last time I saw her, we had to flee from the police who were arresting everyone on 12th street. She escaped into a movie theater with the help of others because she still couldn't open her eyes. After witnessing how much pain she was in I will never forget what this man did on a physical and emotional level to many people on Saturday. He created a war zone. I don't want to think that all of the NYPD is like this because I also met some very fine members of our cities police force on Saturday. Officers who cared about people and the protesters. I looked around at the police officers who were holding the net around us right after the pepper spray was discharged and they were flabbergasted. Three policemen were in the line of fire and almost got hit. Many of them stared down with sad eyes, not able to let go off the orange barrier to help a human being. They had to do their job but I know concern was in their minds.

http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

QuoteThe white-shirted cops are shouting at us to get off the street as they corral us onto the sidewalk. One African American man gets on the curb but refuses to be pushed up against the wall of the building; they throw him into the street, and five cops tackle him. As he's being cuffed, a white kid with a video camera asks him "What's your name?! What's your name?!" One of the blue-shirted cops thinks he's too close and gives him a little shove. A white-shirt sees this, grabs the kid and without hesitation billy-clubs him in the stomach.

At this point, the crowd of twenty or so caught in the orange fence is shouting "Shame! Shame! Who are you protecting?! YOU are the 99 percent! You're fighting your own people!" A white-shirt, now known to be NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, comes from the left, walks straight up to the three young girls at the front of the crowd, and pepper-sprays them in the face for a few seconds, continuing as they scream "No! Why are you doing that?!" The rest of us in the crowd turn away from the spray, but it's unavoidable. My left eye burns and goes blind and tears start streaming down my face. Frank grabs my arm and shoves us through the small gap between the orange fence and the brick wall while everyone stares in shock and horror at the two girls on the ground and two more doubled over screaming as their eyes ooze. In the street I shout for water to rinse my eyes or give to the girls on the ground, but no one responds. One of the blue-shirts, tall and bald, stares in disbelief and says, "I can't believe he just fuckin' maced us." And it becomes clear that the white-shirts are a different species. We need to get out of there.

Yes.  I believe they're called "lieutenants", no?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 01, 2011, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2011, 02:53:51 PM
http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

QuoteThe white-shirted cops are shouting at us to get off the street as they corral us onto the sidewalk. One African American man gets on the curb but refuses to be pushed up against the wall of the building; they throw him into the street, and five cops tackle him. As he's being cuffed, a white kid with a video camera asks him "What's your name?! What's your name?!" One of the blue-shirted cops thinks he's too close and gives him a little shove. A white-shirt sees this, grabs the kid and without hesitation billy-clubs him in the stomach.

At this point, the crowd of twenty or so caught in the orange fence is shouting "Shame! Shame! Who are you protecting?! YOU are the 99 percent! You're fighting your own people!" A white-shirt, now known to be NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, comes from the left, walks straight up to the three young girls at the front of the crowd, and pepper-sprays them in the face for a few seconds, continuing as they scream "No! Why are you doing that?!" The rest of us in the crowd turn away from the spray, but it's unavoidable. My left eye burns and goes blind and tears start streaming down my face. Frank grabs my arm and shoves us through the small gap between the orange fence and the brick wall while everyone stares in shock and horror at the two girls on the ground and two more doubled over screaming as their eyes ooze. In the street I shout for water to rinse my eyes or give to the girls on the ground, but no one responds. One of the blue-shirts, tall and bald, stares in disbelief and says, "I can't believe he just fuckin' maced us." And it becomes clear that the white-shirts are a different species. We need to get out of there.

Yes.  I believe they're called "lieutenants", no?

Lieutenants and above, yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department#Ranks_of_the_NYPD) In this case (as I mentioned) a Deputy Inspector, two ranks above Lieutenant.

But your condescension is noted.

Then again, I suppose that your literalist PANK brain might not take for granted that she wasn't actually calling them a different "species".

Really, Huey, she just was looking to express in first person narrative the way that it became apparent to her, on the ground and in the moment, that the titled officers in white shirts had a generally different attitude towards the protesters than the rank-and-file in blue shirts, even if she didn't have Wikipedia readily at hand to look up their actual respective ranks.

The point was that the arrival of a "new group of police officers arrives in white shirts, as opposed to dark blue" who were "completely undiscerning in their aggression" represented a noticeable and irrevocable shift in status quo from her previous experience of the police presence at the protest:

QuoteAll in all, it starts out as a pretty good time. There are police, but for the most part they are walking behind the group casually, just beat cops bantering and laughing, keeping an eye on things. There are around 30 of them.

Hope that clears it up. If you find yourself stuck on any other confusingly figurative uses of language that you need explained, please let us know.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 01, 2011, 02:41:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 01, 2011, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 01, 2011, 10:12:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2011, 02:53:51 PM
http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

QuoteThe white-shirted cops are shouting at us to get off the street as they corral us onto the sidewalk. One African American man gets on the curb but refuses to be pushed up against the wall of the building; they throw him into the street, and five cops tackle him. As he's being cuffed, a white kid with a video camera asks him "What's your name?! What's your name?!" One of the blue-shirted cops thinks he's too close and gives him a little shove. A white-shirt sees this, grabs the kid and without hesitation billy-clubs him in the stomach.

At this point, the crowd of twenty or so caught in the orange fence is shouting "Shame! Shame! Who are you protecting?! YOU are the 99 percent! You're fighting your own people!" A white-shirt, now known to be NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, comes from the left, walks straight up to the three young girls at the front of the crowd, and pepper-sprays them in the face for a few seconds, continuing as they scream "No! Why are you doing that?!" The rest of us in the crowd turn away from the spray, but it's unavoidable. My left eye burns and goes blind and tears start streaming down my face. Frank grabs my arm and shoves us through the small gap between the orange fence and the brick wall while everyone stares in shock and horror at the two girls on the ground and two more doubled over screaming as their eyes ooze. In the street I shout for water to rinse my eyes or give to the girls on the ground, but no one responds. One of the blue-shirts, tall and bald, stares in disbelief and says, "I can't believe he just fuckin' maced us." And it becomes clear that the white-shirts are a different species. We need to get out of there.

Yes.  I believe they're called "lieutenants", no?

Lieutenants and above, yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department#Ranks_of_the_NYPD) In this case (as I mentioned) a Deputy Inspector, two ranks above Lieutenant.

But your condescension is noted.

Then again, I suppose that your literalist PANK brain might not take for granted that she wasn't actually calling them a different "species".

Really, Huey, she just was looking to express in first person narrative the way that it became apparent to her, on the ground and in the moment, that the titled officers in white shirts had a generally different attitude towards the protesters than the rank-and-file in blue shirts, even if she didn't have Wikipedia readily at hand to look up their actual respective ranks.

The point was that the arrival of a "new group of police officers arrives in white shirts, as opposed to dark blue" who were "completely undiscerning in their aggression" represented a noticeable and irrevocable shift in status quo from her previous experience of the police presence at the protest:

QuoteAll in all, it starts out as a pretty good time. There are police, but for the most part they are walking behind the group casually, just beat cops bantering and laughing, keeping an eye on things. There are around 30 of them.

Hope that clears it up. If you find yourself stuck on any other confusingly figurative uses of language that you need explained, please let us know.

I'm sorry your granola friends got maced by the brownshirts, but there's no need to get SO asshurt about it, is there?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 02, 2011, 02:03:30 PM
My favorite part of any thread is the inevitable pedant's pissing match between Huey and Tank.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 02, 2011, 02:19:55 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2011, 02:53:51 PM
Maybe you've seen it already, but this is fucked up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moD2JnGTToA

Keep your eye on the officer in the white who comes into frame at the top right around 18 seconds in.

In slo-mo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig). The lead up to it from a different angle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMoKsZp5iao).

The aftermath:

(http://i.imgur.com/pXpIP.jpg)

And here he is again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-eTi5-qNgA), giving a separate crowd a quick spritz of their own.

Context for both, starting at 2:40 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A#t=2m40s).

A job well done all around, Deputy Inspector Bologna (http://davidscameracraft.blogspot.com/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-march-violence.html).

QuoteI still haven't washed off the splattered milk from my shoes. We had to use milk to wash the pepper spray out the woman's eyes. I still hear her screaming in pain, I can't believe they pepper sprayed a deaf woman. Her sobbing, saying how much it hurt as we held her head spraying milk into her eyes and on her face. The last time I saw her, we had to flee from the police who were arresting everyone on 12th street. She escaped into a movie theater with the help of others because she still couldn't open her eyes. After witnessing how much pain she was in I will never forget what this man did on a physical and emotional level to many people on Saturday. He created a war zone. I don't want to think that all of the NYPD is like this because I also met some very fine members of our cities police force on Saturday. Officers who cared about people and the protesters. I looked around at the police officers who were holding the net around us right after the pepper spray was discharged and they were flabbergasted. Three policemen were in the line of fire and almost got hit. Many of them stared down with sad eyes, not able to let go off the orange barrier to help a human being. They had to do their job but I know concern was in their minds.

http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

QuoteThe white-shirted cops are shouting at us to get off the street as they corral us onto the sidewalk. One African American man gets on the curb but refuses to be pushed up against the wall of the building; they throw him into the street, and five cops tackle him. As he's being cuffed, a white kid with a video camera asks him "What's your name?! What's your name?!" One of the blue-shirted cops thinks he's too close and gives him a little shove. A white-shirt sees this, grabs the kid and without hesitation billy-clubs him in the stomach.

At this point, the crowd of twenty or so caught in the orange fence is shouting "Shame! Shame! Who are you protecting?! YOU are the 99 percent! You're fighting your own people!" A white-shirt, now known to be NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, comes from the left, walks straight up to the three young girls at the front of the crowd, and pepper-sprays them in the face for a few seconds, continuing as they scream "No! Why are you doing that?!" The rest of us in the crowd turn away from the spray, but it's unavoidable. My left eye burns and goes blind and tears start streaming down my face. Frank grabs my arm and shoves us through the small gap between the orange fence and the brick wall while everyone stares in shock and horror at the two girls on the ground and two more doubled over screaming as their eyes ooze. In the street I shout for water to rinse my eyes or give to the girls on the ground, but no one responds. One of the blue-shirts, tall and bald, stares in disbelief and says, "I can't believe he just fuckin' maced us." And it becomes clear that the white-shirts are a different species. We need to get out of there.

Seriously, though - would it have killed that bird to buy a fucking bra?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 02, 2011, 03:36:13 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 02, 2011, 02:19:55 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 29, 2011, 02:53:51 PM
Maybe you've seen it already, but this is fucked up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moD2JnGTToA

Keep your eye on the officer in the white who comes into frame at the top right around 18 seconds in.

In slo-mo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig). The lead up to it from a different angle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMoKsZp5iao).

The aftermath:

(http://i.imgur.com/pXpIP.jpg)

And here he is again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-eTi5-qNgA), giving a separate crowd a quick spritz of their own.

Context for both, starting at 2:40 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU9Dx0x9h4A#t=2m40s).

A job well done all around, Deputy Inspector Bologna (http://davidscameracraft.blogspot.com/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-march-violence.html).

QuoteI still haven't washed off the splattered milk from my shoes. We had to use milk to wash the pepper spray out the woman's eyes. I still hear her screaming in pain, I can't believe they pepper sprayed a deaf woman. Her sobbing, saying how much it hurt as we held her head spraying milk into her eyes and on her face. The last time I saw her, we had to flee from the police who were arresting everyone on 12th street. She escaped into a movie theater with the help of others because she still couldn't open her eyes. After witnessing how much pain she was in I will never forget what this man did on a physical and emotional level to many people on Saturday. He created a war zone. I don't want to think that all of the NYPD is like this because I also met some very fine members of our cities police force on Saturday. Officers who cared about people and the protesters. I looked around at the police officers who were holding the net around us right after the pepper spray was discharged and they were flabbergasted. Three policemen were in the line of fire and almost got hit. Many of them stared down with sad eyes, not able to let go off the orange barrier to help a human being. They had to do their job but I know concern was in their minds.

http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

QuoteThe white-shirted cops are shouting at us to get off the street as they corral us onto the sidewalk. One African American man gets on the curb but refuses to be pushed up against the wall of the building; they throw him into the street, and five cops tackle him. As he's being cuffed, a white kid with a video camera asks him "What's your name?! What's your name?!" One of the blue-shirted cops thinks he's too close and gives him a little shove. A white-shirt sees this, grabs the kid and without hesitation billy-clubs him in the stomach.

At this point, the crowd of twenty or so caught in the orange fence is shouting "Shame! Shame! Who are you protecting?! YOU are the 99 percent! You're fighting your own people!" A white-shirt, now known to be NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, comes from the left, walks straight up to the three young girls at the front of the crowd, and pepper-sprays them in the face for a few seconds, continuing as they scream "No! Why are you doing that?!" The rest of us in the crowd turn away from the spray, but it's unavoidable. My left eye burns and goes blind and tears start streaming down my face. Frank grabs my arm and shoves us through the small gap between the orange fence and the brick wall while everyone stares in shock and horror at the two girls on the ground and two more doubled over screaming as their eyes ooze. In the street I shout for water to rinse my eyes or give to the girls on the ground, but no one responds. One of the blue-shirts, tall and bald, stares in disbelief and says, "I can't believe he just fuckin' maced us." And it becomes clear that the white-shirts are a different species. We need to get out of there.

Seriously, though - would it have killed that bird to buy a fucking bra?

And that upsets you because...?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 03, 2011, 06:41:15 AM

Fuck Dallas.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on October 03, 2011, 07:36:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2011, 02:40:56 PM
I wonder what MikeC and his fellow brother cops think about this one...

http://www.universalhub.com/2011/court-says-state-law-banning-recording-police-offi
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/08/26/first-circuit-panel-says-theres-a-clear-constitutional-right-to-record-cops/

Your a public officer and you assume your being recorded at all times anyways. Only if you think your doing something wrong would an officer want to stop a recording.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 03, 2011, 10:27:15 AM
Thanks, Dick. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-01/news/ct-edit-durbin-20111001_1_interchange-fees-debit-cards-retailers)  Like no one could have seen that coming.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 03, 2011, 10:30:47 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 03, 2011, 10:27:15 AM
Thanks, Dick. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-01/news/ct-edit-durbin-20111001_1_interchange-fees-debit-cards-retailers)  Like no one could have seen that coming.

Quote from: Old White GuysFunny, but no one's handed us a free Slurpee yet.

What are these guys doing working for the Trib Editorial Board? They should be writing a humor blog!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 03, 2011, 10:36:53 AM
QuoteIn essence, this strips money from banks and hands it to retailers, who will pay sharply lower fees. There's no guarantee that retailers will pass the savings on to customers.

There's no guaranty they won't, either.  In fact, a smart retailer could try to gain market share by offering a discount for those paying with a debit card over a credit card.  Eventually, all retail stores could offer that.  Interestingly, those savings to the consumer would be offset by the charges the bank imposes for use of the debit card.

Net effect: Nothing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 03, 2011, 10:58:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 03, 2011, 10:36:53 AM
QuoteIn essence, this strips money from banks and hands it to retailers, who will pay sharply lower fees. There's no guarantee that retailers will pass the savings on to customers.

There's no guaranty they won't, either.  In fact, a smart retailer could try to gain market share by offering a discount for those paying with a debit card over a credit card.  Eventually, all retail stores could offer that.  Interestingly, those savings to the consumer would be offset by the charges the bank imposes for use of the debit card.

Net effect: Nothing.

No. (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110929/ZNYT01/109293017/1003/news04?Title=Banks-Are-Adding-Fees-for-Debit-Card-Users)

QuoteWhile consumers are seeing the impact of the change in their bank accounts, any potential savings benefit at stores is likely to be muted. "I don't expect there to be any visible effects at the cash register," said Aaron McPherson, practice director for payments at IDC Financial Insights. When similar caps were put in place in Australia, he said, merchants there didn't pass along savings, so it's unlikely that will happen here either...  That's because, retail groups say, stores aren't going to benefit as much as they had originally hoped under the new cap, and some merchants may actually pay higher fees.

Bottom line: government yet again interferes in something that wasn't broken, having unintended consequences that at a minimum offset any benefit to the intended beneficiaries.  Moreover, Durbin's response to the easily predicted attempts by banks to recoup their lost revenues has been nothing short of breathtakingly stupid, yet unsurprising, I suppose.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 03, 2011, 12:23:53 PM
Mike C.!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 03, 2011, 01:03:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 03, 2011, 10:58:27 AM
No. (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110929/ZNYT01/109293017/1003/news04?Title=Banks-Are-Adding-Fees-for-Debit-Card-Users)

QuoteWhile consumers are seeing the impact of the change in their bank accounts, any potential savings benefit at stores is likely to be muted.

Not, "No." Probably.  As I said.


QuoteBottom line: government yet again interferes in something that wasn't broken, having unintended consequences that at a minimum offset any benefit to the intended beneficiaries.  Moreover, Durbin's response to the easily predicted attempts by banks to recoup their lost revenues has been nothing short of breathtakingly stupid, yet unsurprising, I suppose.

Now, that is true.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 03, 2011, 01:30:07 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 03, 2011, 01:03:20 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 03, 2011, 10:58:27 AM
No. (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110929/ZNYT01/109293017/1003/news04?Title=Banks-Are-Adding-Fees-for-Debit-Card-Users)

QuoteWhile consumers are seeing the impact of the change in their bank accounts, any potential savings benefit at stores is likely to be muted.

Not, "No." Probably.  As I said.


QuoteBottom line: government yet again interferes in something that wasn't broken, having unintended consequences that at a minimum offset any benefit to the intended beneficiaries.  Moreover, Durbin's response to the easily predicted attempts by banks to recoup their lost revenues has been nothing short of breathtakingly stupid, yet unsurprising, I suppose.

Now, that is true.

Aw, just behead the bankers! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaU3wX6N1Tc&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 04, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/tcETT.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 04, 2011, 08:34:25 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 04, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/tcETT.jpg)

Not if Michelle has anything to say about it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 05, 2011, 07:31:32 AM
Quote from: CBStew on October 04, 2011, 08:34:25 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 04, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/tcETT.jpg)

Not if Michelle has anything to say about it.

Also: is Dr. Obama's Root Injection "what's next in Healthcare"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2011, 07:32:59 PM
OH MAN I WONDER WHY NONE OF YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS LATEST PROOF THAT OBAMA IS A SECRET NEW BLACK PANTHER. JUST MORE CORRUPTION FROM ERIC HOLDER AND THE REST OF THE DEM'S AND MORE OBVIOUS SILENCE FROM THE LIBERAL MEDIA. WHAT A SURPRISE. OHHH RIGHT I FORGOT ONLY CONSERVATIVES ARE THE RACISTS. FUNNY HOW THAT WORKS. BUT GO AHEAD AND STICK YOUR HEAD'S IN THE SAND BECAUSE THE REAL FACTS WILL CONTINUE TO DESTROY YOU'RE REALITY WHEN MORE AND MORE VIDEOS DROP.

(http://i.imgur.com/Cfbd3.jpg)

WHO'S PLAYING THE RACE CARD NOW DEM'S?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot. That's not hypocrisy at all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 06, 2011, 10:46:26 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gLiy14uYns/To2ZQiQsH5I/AAAAAAAAJaI/95HA1uYSUMk/s400/fartsmeller.jpg)

I got nothin'.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:52:15 AM
It's a good thing we have these new voter ID laws in parts of the country now.  We wouldn't want elderly citizens who have been voting since the fifties and who possess multiple forms of ID to be denied: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111006/NEWS21/310060034/Chattanooga-woman-96-denied-voter-ID
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 11:27:47 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

Yeah, except it's not.  At all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 06, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:21:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.

I'm pretty sure that that's the very policy that's under scrutiny here, Fork.

I recall once reading something somewhere to the effect of "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not sure of the source, though.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.

Obviously someone didn't get the memo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 06, 2011, 01:33:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:21:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.

I'm pretty sure that that's the very policy that's under scrutiny here, Fork.

I recall once reading something somewhere to the effect of "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not sure of the source, though.

...aaaaaaaand that's why the Patriot Act is such shit. But it's still law.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 06, 2011, 01:34:32 PM
Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 06, 2011, 01:34:32 PM
Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

There's the rub, though. It's a question of the evidence backing this up. And the due process and secrecy thereof.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 06, 2011, 01:51:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 06, 2011, 01:34:32 PM
Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

There's the rub, though. It's a question of the evidence backing this up. And the due process and secrecy thereof.

Again, the Patriot Act strips away 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights from "terrorists", without ever clearly defining what a terrorist is.

The 8th got taken away just for fun.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 06, 2011, 01:52:03 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 06, 2011, 01:34:32 PM
Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

This.  If an American citizen enlisted in the Iraqi army and he was killed by an American tank shell, good work tank crew.  Now, Al Quida doesn't wear uniforms like traditional military of sovereign nations.  But this guy was clearly part of an organization that has attacked the US Government in multiple locations.

Good job drone. Good job military.  Good job Obama for signing off.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:33:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:21:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.

I'm pretty sure that that's the very policy that's under scrutiny here, Fork.

I recall once reading something somewhere to the effect of "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not sure of the source, though.

...aaaaaaaand that's why the Patriot Act is such shit. But it's still law.

Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:51:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 06, 2011, 01:34:32 PM
Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

There's the rub, though. It's a question of the evidence backing this up. And the due process and secrecy thereof.

Again, the Patriot Act strips away 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights from "terrorists", without ever clearly defining what a terrorist is.

The 8th got taken away just for fun.

Okay. But you seem to be arguing in favor of this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 06, 2011, 01:59:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:33:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:21:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 11:26:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 10:45:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 06, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 06, 2011, 10:13:53 AM
This is terrifying: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-cia-killlisttre79475c-20111005,0,5971732.story#start

Death panels!

QuoteThey accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process

We don't want cops tuning up perps in custody, but there's nothing wrong with a righteous shoot the deliberate, premeditated extra-legal targeting of a US citizen for death. That's not hypocrisy at all.

I doubt they even bothered to sprinkle some crack on him afterward.

Speaking in police terms, nobody doubts there was probable cause. It's the same thing as sending in a SWAT team.

I don't think probable cause works like that, counselor.

I'm as much of a lawyer as Gil is, but if a government agency (whether it be the cops, army, black ops, ISIS, whatever) determines someone to be a large enough threat, they can give a "shoot to kill" order. All the legal ramifications factor into that decision. Especially when you're a President that is 13 months from an election.

I'm pretty sure that that's the very policy that's under scrutiny here, Fork.

I recall once reading something somewhere to the effect of "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not sure of the source, though.

...aaaaaaaand that's why the Patriot Act is such shit. But it's still law.

Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:51:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 06, 2011, 01:34:32 PM
Killing these assholes is no different from killing the volksdeutch in World War II.  American citizenship does not protect you from military action when you are actively involved in waging war against the United States.

There's the rub, though. It's a question of the evidence backing this up. And the due process and secrecy thereof.

Again, the Patriot Act strips away 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights from "terrorists", without ever clearly defining what a terrorist is.

The 8th got taken away just for fun.

Okay. But you seem to be arguing in favor of this.

I am. He was within the law. Doesn't make it a good law.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 02:03:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:59:58 PM
Doesn't make it a good law.

But that's precisely the point.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 06, 2011, 02:10:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2011, 02:03:59 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 06, 2011, 01:59:58 PM
Doesn't make it a good law.

But that's precisely the point.

It's been the law for a decade. Now the people who rammed it through are butthurt because it's not one of their own using it.

Maybe the authors of the law should sue the US Government, to get SCOTUS to determine the constitutionality of it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 07, 2011, 09:17:20 AM
Speaking of ramming through... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65383.html

Regardless of anyone's opinions on the merits of the proposed amendments in question, I wonder how Harry will feel about this precedent after the 2012 elections?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on October 07, 2011, 09:36:22 AM
The Volcker Rule: because we just have to do something. Right?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ)

Edit: for those who can't get in...


Quote

Volcker Rule: sicknesses and cures confused
Whether it's because Paul Volcker has reached an age beyond criticism, or there are few details, or banks are utterly friendless these days, the so-called Volcker Rule rumbles forward, in spite of being one of the silliest bits of the Dodd-Frank Act. This week, more details of the new legislation emerged and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is expected to release the full proposal on October 11.

The Volcker Rule is silly for two reasons. First, it fundamentally confuses sicknesses and cures. The financial crisis had nothing to do whatsoever with proprietary trading desks, nor with bank investments in private equity. Rather it was due to direct as well as related bets on an asset class – property – which eventually went the wrong way. While the FDIC wastes time trying to define "short-term", Bank of America, for example, still has $450bn of real estate related loans on its balance sheet.


Nor are the arguments that banks should not be gambling with depositors' capital and that rogue trading will be harder under Volcker, clever or consistent. Deposits can be protected by ring fencing. Better still, remove the distortion of deposit guarantees altogether. And why is it okay for banks to take huge mortgage positions, lend to small companies and underwrite internet start-ups, for example, using depositors' money? These are all pretty risky activities, too.

The second big problem with the Volcker Rule is that it roundly fails the simplicity test. Regulators and banks are pulling their hair out trying to understand where it applies. Exemptions abound and multiple geographies confuse things further. Additional compliance standards will be burdensome beyond belief. Elegant this legislation is not. Unfortunately, however, nobody cares much if banks are inconvenienced these days.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 07, 2011, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: flannj on October 07, 2011, 09:36:22 AM
The Volcker Rule: because we just have to do something. Right?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ)

Edit: for those who can't get in...


Quote

Volcker Rule: sicknesses and cures confused
Whether it's because Paul Volcker has reached an age beyond criticism, or there are few details, or banks are utterly friendless these days, the so-called Volcker Rule rumbles forward, in spite of being one of the silliest bits of the Dodd-Frank Act. This week, more details of the new legislation emerged and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is expected to release the full proposal on October 11.

The Volcker Rule is silly for two reasons. First, it fundamentally confuses sicknesses and cures. The financial crisis had nothing to do whatsoever with proprietary trading desks, nor with bank investments in private equity. Rather it was due to direct as well as related bets on an asset class – property – which eventually went the wrong way. While the FDIC wastes time trying to define "short-term", Bank of America, for example, still has $450bn of real estate related loans on its balance sheet.


Nor are the arguments that banks should not be gambling with depositors' capital and that rogue trading will be harder under Volcker, clever or consistent. Deposits can be protected by ring fencing. Better still, remove the distortion of deposit guarantees altogether. And why is it okay for banks to take huge mortgage positions, lend to small companies and underwrite internet start-ups, for example, using depositors' money? These are all pretty risky activities, too.

The second big problem with the Volcker Rule is that it roundly fails the simplicity test. Regulators and banks are pulling their hair out trying to understand where it applies. Exemptions abound and multiple geographies confuse things further. Additional compliance standards will be burdensome beyond belief. Elegant this legislation is not. Unfortunately, however, nobody cares much if banks are inconvenienced these days.

Yep.  The Volcker Rule is a terrible idea, but typical of the misunderstanding of the financial crisis exhibited by the powers that be in Washington.  Also, in re: the bolded part, this is only partly true in that it doesn't really address the root cause: *why* did those bets go bad?  Because loans were made to people who couldn't pay them back.  Government (Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA's 'reinterpretation' to promote homeownership at the cost of credit standards), the banks (creating ever-more-complex and easily abused products), and the rating agencies (sure, a pile of C-rated loans can turn into AAA with the right "enhancements") partnered to make this happen.  Reckless Endangerment covers these linkages well.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on October 07, 2011, 10:03:28 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 07, 2011, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: flannj on October 07, 2011, 09:36:22 AM
The Volcker Rule: because we just have to do something. Right?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ)

Edit: for those who can't get in...


Quote

Volcker Rule: sicknesses and cures confused
Whether it's because Paul Volcker has reached an age beyond criticism, or there are few details, or banks are utterly friendless these days, the so-called Volcker Rule rumbles forward, in spite of being one of the silliest bits of the Dodd-Frank Act. This week, more details of the new legislation emerged and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is expected to release the full proposal on October 11.

The Volcker Rule is silly for two reasons. First, it fundamentally confuses sicknesses and cures. The financial crisis had nothing to do whatsoever with proprietary trading desks, nor with bank investments in private equity. Rather it was due to direct as well as related bets on an asset class – property – which eventually went the wrong way. While the FDIC wastes time trying to define "short-term", Bank of America, for example, still has $450bn of real estate related loans on its balance sheet.


Nor are the arguments that banks should not be gambling with depositors' capital and that rogue trading will be harder under Volcker, clever or consistent. Deposits can be protected by ring fencing. Better still, remove the distortion of deposit guarantees altogether. And why is it okay for banks to take huge mortgage positions, lend to small companies and underwrite internet start-ups, for example, using depositors' money? These are all pretty risky activities, too.

The second big problem with the Volcker Rule is that it roundly fails the simplicity test. Regulators and banks are pulling their hair out trying to understand where it applies. Exemptions abound and multiple geographies confuse things further. Additional compliance standards will be burdensome beyond belief. Elegant this legislation is not. Unfortunately, however, nobody cares much if banks are inconvenienced these days.

Yep.  The Volcker Rule is a terrible idea, but typical of the misunderstanding of the financial crisis exhibited by the powers that be in Washington.  Also, in re: the bolded part, this is only partly true in that it doesn't really address the root cause: *why* did those bets go bad?  Because loans were made to people who couldn't pay them back.  Government (Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA's 'reinterpretation' to promote homeownership at the cost of credit standards), the banks (creating ever-more-complex and easily abused products), and the rating agencies (sure, a pile of C-rated loans can turn into AAA with the right "enhancements") partnered to make this happen.  Reckless Endangerment covers these linkages well.

I agree that part doesn't address the underlying reasons for the financial crisis. And that's the point, those underliers have nothing to do with proprietary trading desks.

Edit: Additionally, a fair amount of that "misunderstanding" done by Washington has been on purpose. Because that's a lot easier than self analysis and owning up to your own mistakes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 07, 2011, 10:14:54 AM
Also,

Quote from: flannj on October 07, 2011, 10:03:28 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 07, 2011, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: flannj on October 07, 2011, 09:36:22 AM
The Volcker Rule: because we just have to do something. Right?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/8038ed9e-f04c-11e0-96d2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a6e9i1cJ)

Edit: for those who can't get in...


Quote

Volcker Rule: sicknesses and cures confused
Whether it's because Paul Volcker has reached an age beyond criticism, or there are few details, or banks are utterly friendless these days, the so-called Volcker Rule rumbles forward, in spite of being one of the silliest bits of the Dodd-Frank Act. This week, more details of the new legislation emerged and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is expected to release the full proposal on October 11.

The Volcker Rule is silly for two reasons. First, it fundamentally confuses sicknesses and cures. The financial crisis had nothing to do whatsoever with proprietary trading desks, nor with bank investments in private equity. Rather it was due to direct as well as related bets on an asset class – property – which eventually went the wrong way. While the FDIC wastes time trying to define "short-term", Bank of America, for example, still has $450bn of real estate related loans on its balance sheet.


Nor are the arguments that banks should not be gambling with depositors' capital and that rogue trading will be harder under Volcker, clever or consistent. Deposits can be protected by ring fencing. Better still, remove the distortion of deposit guarantees altogether. And why is it okay for banks to take huge mortgage positions, lend to small companies and underwrite internet start-ups, for example, using depositors' money? These are all pretty risky activities, too.

The second big problem with the Volcker Rule is that it roundly fails the simplicity test. Regulators and banks are pulling their hair out trying to understand where it applies. Exemptions abound and multiple geographies confuse things further. Additional compliance standards will be burdensome beyond belief. Elegant this legislation is not. Unfortunately, however, nobody cares much if banks are inconvenienced these days.

Yep.  The Volcker Rule is a terrible idea, but typical of the misunderstanding of the financial crisis exhibited by the powers that be in Washington.  Also, in re: the bolded part, this is only partly true in that it doesn't really address the root cause: *why* did those bets go bad?  Because loans were made to people who couldn't pay them back.  Government (Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA's 'reinterpretation' to promote homeownership at the cost of credit standards), the banks (creating ever-more-complex and easily abused products), and the rating agencies (sure, a pile of C-rated loans can turn into AAA with the right "enhancements") partnered to make this happen.  Reckless Endangerment covers these linkages well.

I agree that part doesn't address the underlying reasons for the financial crisis. And that's the point, those underliers have nothing to do with proprietary trading desks.

(||)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 11, 2011, 09:04:28 PM
Finally, an Occupy Wall Street scheme that even Gil can get behind...

http://www.suitsforwallstreet.org/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 11, 2011, 09:41:48 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 11, 2011, 09:04:28 PM
Finally, an Occupy Wall Street scheme that even Gil can get behind...

http://www.suitsforwallstreet.org/

I AIN'T GIVING MY BROOKS BROTHERS SUITS TO THOSE DIRTY HIPPIES!!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 12, 2011, 07:30:56 PM
Michael Sneed is really phoning it in (http://"http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/8154366-452/maggie-daley-has-faced-some-tough-times.html").

Quoteasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfdasddfasddf
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: MikeC on October 15, 2011, 04:32:19 PM
Remember our health care debate on Desipio and how some of you swore up and down that it would actually reduce the deficit and was gonna be super awesome?

QuoteRepublicans on Capitol Hill are having an I-told-you-so moment after the Obama administration admitted late Friday that the CLASS Act, a major component of Obamacare, is unworkable.

CLASS, which stood for Community Living Assistance Services and Supports, was a pet project of the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy.  It was supposed to help Americans pay the cost of long-term care.  During the health care debate in 2009 and 2010, Democrats claimed that the program would not only pay for itself but would actually reduce the federal budget deficit.  At the time Obamacare passed, Democrats claimed the law overall would cut the deficit by $140 billion over the next ten years; about $70 billion of that was supposed to come from the CLASS Act.

But even then, lawmakers of both parties knew that CLASS was unworkable.  Democrats structured the program to collect premiums for years before beginning to pay out benefits -- thus, it appeared to reduce the deficit when it would in fact greatly increase the deficit once it began making payments.  As a voluntary program, it would become acutely unworkable if, as expected, only those in need of long term care signed up for it.  Everyone knew that; during the Obamacare debate, Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad called CLASS "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of."  Yet Conrad and all his fellow Democrats voted for Obamacare, including CLASS.

Finally, on Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted it won't work.  "Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius wrote in a letter to Congress.

So what now?  The Obama administration, which had set up CLASS offices inside the Department of Health and Human Services and devoted great resources to its implementation, would apparently like to just shut it down and pretend CLASS never existed.  But it is in the Obamacare law.  And in light of the administration's admission Friday, Republicans will soon move to repeal CLASS altogether.  "Though it won't be implemented, it would be good to get it off the books," says one well-connected Senate source.  In a statement released late Friday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "The Obama administration today acknowledged what they refused to admit when they passed their partisan health bill: the CLASS Act was a budget gimmick that might enhance the numbers on a Washington bureaucrat's spreadsheet but was destined to fail in the real world."

Health care reform is almost officially dead on arrival. Not because of GOP opposition but from Democratic law makers who apparently can't do simple math when creating their bills.

Just group that with the GunWalker scandal/Eric Holder stonewalling and the ever evolving Solyndra scandal. I especially like how he took care of his campaign contributors 1st and told the american tax payer to go fuck himself. Smooth Obama. Now they are stonewalling in releasing documents on it.

Though i will give props for Obama sending troops to Uganda and will be operating in Sudan and Congo as well. Bout time to try and attempt to stop some of the crazy people killing innocents over there. Sudan we should have intervened long ago. But i do not like the pre-determined time schedule of them only being there a couple months. The enemy will wait it out, and the local population will not assist for fear of being targeted after we are gone. Our troops are gonna go for a little bit of time, probably accomplish very little and come on home and for what? A PR stunt? A mini Somali without the Black Hawk Down hopefully. Lets just hope they do some major killing before they are recalled.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on October 15, 2011, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: MikeC on October 15, 2011, 04:32:19 PM
LESS OF THIS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. MORE OF THIS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

(http://i.imgur.com/WjgT3.gif)

TL; DR'D

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 20, 2011, 04:40:59 PM
The conspiracy grows ever deeper...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 21, 2011, 10:26:43 PM
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/santorum-says-hed-die-to-prevent-marriage-equality.html

QuoteGOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said he'd die to prevent same-sex couples from getting married.

"I'll die on that hill," GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said when asked about his pledge to fight for a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

OK... So, uh, where might this hill be located?

QuoteHe said that he felt equally strongly about repealing all federal funding for contraception, calling it "a license to do things in a sexual realm."

We need a sex license now? Big government really has gone too far this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690#t=17m54s

Rest assured that President Santorum will not relent until each and every one of us has experienced the perfect, special, undiminished sexual union that is our God-given birthright.

As he says, "these are important policy issues."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 21, 2011, 11:11:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 21, 2011, 10:26:43 PM
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/santorum-says-hed-die-to-prevent-marriage-equality.html

QuoteGOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said he'd die to prevent same-sex couples from getting married.

"I'll die on that hill," GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said when asked about his pledge to fight for a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

OK... So, uh, where might this hill be located?

QuoteHe said that he felt equally strongly about repealing all federal funding for contraception, calling it "a license to do things in a sexual realm."

We need a sex license now? Big government really has gone too far this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690#t=17m54s

Rest assured that President Santorum will not relent until each and every one of us has experienced the perfect, special, undiminished sexual union that is our God-given birthright.

As he says, "these are important policy issues."

To summarize, Rick Santorum is still a complete asshole and still pretending he could be elected President.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on October 22, 2011, 09:06:00 AM
Quote from: CT III on October 21, 2011, 11:11:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 21, 2011, 10:26:43 PM
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/santorum-says-hed-die-to-prevent-marriage-equality.html

QuoteGOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said he'd die to prevent same-sex couples from getting married.

"I'll die on that hill," GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said when asked about his pledge to fight for a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

OK... So, uh, where might this hill be located?

QuoteHe said that he felt equally strongly about repealing all federal funding for contraception, calling it "a license to do things in a sexual realm."

We need a sex license now? Big government really has gone too far this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690#t=17m54s

Rest assured that President Santorum will not relent until each and every one of us has experienced the perfect, special, undiminished sexual union that is our God-given birthright.

As he says, "these are important policy issues."

To summarize, Rick Santorum is still a complete asshole the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex, and still pretending he could be elected President.

I expected better, CT
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 22, 2011, 11:00:12 AM
Quote from: thehawk on October 22, 2011, 09:06:00 AM
Quote from: CT III on October 21, 2011, 11:11:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 21, 2011, 10:26:43 PM
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/santorum-says-hed-die-to-prevent-marriage-equality.html

QuoteGOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said he'd die to prevent same-sex couples from getting married.

"I'll die on that hill," GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said when asked about his pledge to fight for a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

OK... So, uh, where might this hill be located?

QuoteHe said that he felt equally strongly about repealing all federal funding for contraception, calling it "a license to do things in a sexual realm."

We need a sex license now? Big government really has gone too far this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690#t=17m54s

Rest assured that President Santorum will not relent until each and every one of us has experienced the perfect, special, undiminished sexual union that is our God-given birthright.

As he says, "these are important policy issues."

To summarize, Rick Santorum is still a complete asshole the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex, and still pretending he could be elected President.

I expected better, CT

I have no idea why you would expect better, but how about this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123800-503544/obama-announces-end-of-iraq-war-troops-to-return-home-by-year-end/

Just posting it for official entry into the thread.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 10:09:50 AM
I guess someone had a bulge in his back pocket...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-police-involved-shootings-1023-20111022,0,2860489,full.story

QuoteIn the video, Flint Farmer was lying on the grass between the curb and the sidewalk. It was shortly before 2 a.m. on a June morning in the West Englewood neighborhood, and Farmer had been shot by a Chicago police officer. Then, according to the video, the veteran officer, Gildardo Sierra, stepped onto the parkway and walked a semicircle about the prone Farmer as three bright flashes went off.

The flashes, captured by a police car video camera, were fatal shots fired into Farmer's back, officials say.

That shooting was the third by the officer since January — and the second fatality in those six months, records show.

Sierra fired 16 shots at Farmer, hitting him seven times, autopsy reports show. A Cook County deputy medical examiner, after performing an autopsy and later reviewing the video, said the three shots in the back were the fatal wounds.

Sierra told investigators he feared for his life because he believed Farmer had a gun.

In fact, Farmer was only holding a cellphone.

Despite the video, the Police Department ruled Farmer's June 7 death justified, just as it had Sierra's other two shootings this year. But police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said he considers the Farmer case "a big problem" and told the Tribune that the officer involved should not have been on the street given his history of shootings.

The shooting is under investigation by the FBI, the Tribune has learned.

...

Confronted by the officers about beating his girlfriend and her 3-year-old daughter, Farmer allegedly fled through an empty lot to South Wolcott Avenue, one street over.

He got as far as the parkway when the officer yelled at him.

"Don't do it," a witness heard an officer shout.

The warning was followed by gunfire.

Farmer, 29, an unemployed store clerk with a small child and a prior domestic-violence arrest, fell to the ground, according to police reports. The bullets that pierced his abdomen and thigh had been fired by Sierra, who was standing in the street, records show. Moments later, a squad car responded to the scene, officials say, and captured video of Sierra as he stepped onto the parkway, walked about the unarmed Farmer in a semicircle and fired three more shots.

Farmer was pronounced dead at the scene.

Dr. Mitra Kalelkar, who performed the autopsy on Farmer, said he could have survived the shots in the abdomen and thigh, but the shots in the back killed him. Those shots, which coursed downward, hit Farmer's heart and lung, according to Kalelkar's report.

"All three were definitely fatal wounds," she told the Tribune.

Kalelkar said she viewed the video of the shooting after the lawyer for Farmer's survivors brought it to her. She recalled seeing the bright muzzle flash that accompanied each shot. When she considered the video in context with her autopsy report, she said it was evident that Farmer was on the ground when shot, that he was shot in the back and that those were the fatal shots.

"If I put it together with the video, he was definitely shot while on the ground," she said.

...

This left me curious about whether MEATBALL COP had any thoughts on the incident...

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2011/10/stop-shooting-criminals.html

Quote
QuoteAn organizer of a downtown protest against police brutality Saturday said Flint Farmer's death in June was "just another case of a young black man shot to death by police for no reason."

Farmer, 29, was fatally shot by police June 7 in the 6200 block of South Wolcott. Police have defended the shooting, saying he "aggressively came at" an officer responding to a domestic battery call.

But protest organizer Grant Neuberger, reading from a letter from Farmer's father, said the younger Farmer carried a cell phone, not a weapon, when he was shot.

Hey Grant? Too fucking bad. Daddy Farmer wasn't there and neither were you. And even if Flint was unarmed, he advances on an armed man and somehow wrestles the gun away? Now we have a big fucking problem. In our book (and fortunately in the laws on the books), the officer is given plenty of leeway to eliminate the threat and protect him/herself from great bodily harm and harm to others.

When it comes down to it, and the choice is between a cop going home in one piece and an ignorant piece of garbage with no impulse control advancing in an attempt to take a cop's gun, we're going to support the cop every time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 02:24:28 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 10:09:50 AM
I guess someone had a bulge in his back pocket...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-police-involved-shootings-1023-20111022,0,2860489,full.story

QuoteIn the video, Flint Farmer was lying on the grass between the curb and the sidewalk. It was shortly before 2 a.m. on a June morning in the West Englewood neighborhood, and Farmer had been shot by a Chicago police officer. Then, according to the video, the veteran officer, Gildardo Sierra, stepped onto the parkway and walked a semicircle about the prone Farmer as three bright flashes went off.

The flashes, captured by a police car video camera, were fatal shots fired into Farmer's back, officials say.

That shooting was the third by the officer since January — and the second fatality in those six months, records show.

Sierra fired 16 shots at Farmer, hitting him seven times, autopsy reports show. A Cook County deputy medical examiner, after performing an autopsy and later reviewing the video, said the three shots in the back were the fatal wounds.

Sierra told investigators he feared for his life because he believed Farmer had a gun.

In fact, Farmer was only holding a cellphone.

Despite the video, the Police Department ruled Farmer's June 7 death justified, just as it had Sierra's other two shootings this year. But police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said he considers the Farmer case "a big problem" and told the Tribune that the officer involved should not have been on the street given his history of shootings.

The shooting is under investigation by the FBI, the Tribune has learned.

...

Confronted by the officers about beating his girlfriend and her 3-year-old daughter, Farmer allegedly fled through an empty lot to South Wolcott Avenue, one street over.

He got as far as the parkway when the officer yelled at him.

"Don't do it," a witness heard an officer shout.

The warning was followed by gunfire.

Farmer, 29, an unemployed store clerk with a small child and a prior domestic-violence arrest, fell to the ground, according to police reports. The bullets that pierced his abdomen and thigh had been fired by Sierra, who was standing in the street, records show. Moments later, a squad car responded to the scene, officials say, and captured video of Sierra as he stepped onto the parkway, walked about the unarmed Farmer in a semicircle and fired three more shots.

Farmer was pronounced dead at the scene.

Dr. Mitra Kalelkar, who performed the autopsy on Farmer, said he could have survived the shots in the abdomen and thigh, but the shots in the back killed him. Those shots, which coursed downward, hit Farmer's heart and lung, according to Kalelkar's report.

"All three were definitely fatal wounds," she told the Tribune.

Kalelkar said she viewed the video of the shooting after the lawyer for Farmer's survivors brought it to her. She recalled seeing the bright muzzle flash that accompanied each shot. When she considered the video in context with her autopsy report, she said it was evident that Farmer was on the ground when shot, that he was shot in the back and that those were the fatal shots.

"If I put it together with the video, he was definitely shot while on the ground," she said.


The officer in question should not have been back out on the streets after one shooting, much less two. That said, the video doesn't show what the suspect did in the moments before the officer put the last three shots into him. It is unknown whether or not he was lunging for something or if he was going after the officer.  Considering that 007 is the worst district in the city, I don't blame the officer for being on edge to the point where he'd feel his life was in danger.  However, the city and the department are going to be paying this suspect's family some money; it is inexcusable that an officer with a history of two shootings is put back onto the streets in one of the worst neighborhoods.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 03:23:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 02:24:28 PM
The officer in question should not have been back out on the streets after one shooting, much less two. That said, the video doesn't show what the suspect did in the moments before the officer put the last three shots into him. It is unknown whether or not he was lunging for something or if he was going after the officer.

It doesn't show what happened beforehand, but it certainly does seem to show that the suspect was on the ground when those three fatal shots were fired. And, as the autopsy found that the fatal shots were in his back, he was apparently facing down.

I'm not really sure how "lunging for something" or "going after" anyone factors into anything at that point.

This officer killed a man by shooting him in the back while he was face down on the ground. No excuses.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 03:28:13 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 03:23:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 02:24:28 PM
The officer in question should not have been back out on the streets after one shooting, much less two. That said, the video doesn't show what the suspect did in the moments before the officer put the last three shots into him. It is unknown whether or not he was lunging for something or if he was going after the officer.

It doesn't show what happened beforehand, but it certainly does seem to show that the suspect was on the ground when those three fatal shots were fired. And, as the autopsy found that the fatal shots were in his back, he was apparently facing down.

I'm not really sure how "lunging for something" or "going after" anyone factors into anything at that point.

This officer killed a man by shooting him in the back while he was face down on the ground. No excuses.

There are some people on the Trib site and the SCC message boards asserting that the flashes of light aren't muzzle flashes.  Hmmm.

I'd be curious to see a ballistics report on the victim.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 03:29:13 PM
DPD, it's a good thing we have have these new Voter ID laws to keep the scourge of 91-year old women from voting.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111021/NEWS02/111021018/1969/NEWS
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 03:28:13 PM
I'd be curious to see a ballistics report on the victim.

Chuck doesn't have the data in front of him at the moment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 03:28:13 PM
I'd be curious to see a ballistics report on the victim.

Chuck doesn't have the data in front of him at the moment.

He's too busy working his shining with Bernstein.

"I was thinking the exact same thing @dan_bernstein That sack looked just like Fencik getting Phil Simms in the '85 playoffs"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 23, 2011, 05:20:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 03:30:19 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 03:28:13 PM
I'd be curious to see a ballistics report on the victim.

Chuck doesn't have the data in front of him at the moment.

He's too busy working his shining with Bernstein.

"I was thinking the exact same thing @dan_bernstein That sack looked just like Fencik getting Phil Simms in the '85 playoffs"

SHINNING. You wanna get sued?

Also, Dan Bernstein is a really slick troll.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 08:15:15 PM
Aliens...and not the one who are there to take American jorbs.

(http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/10/24/1226174/935588-alien.jpg)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3886122/Alien-filmed-in-Brazil-rainforest.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 10:09:50 AM
This left me curious about whether MEATBALL COP had any thoughts on the incident...

Officer Meatball somehow failed to include my own comment in the most recent unleashing of the meatballs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:06:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 08:33:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2011, 10:09:50 AM
This left me curious about whether MEATBALL COP had any thoughts on the incident...

Officer Meatball somehow failed to include my own comment in the most recent unleashing of the meatballs.

I don't dispute the ME's report - that three fatal shots to the back took out the suspect - however, I am curious as to whether or not the flashes of light were the officer's flashlight or his sidearm.

Standard issue sidearm for officers of recent vintage (<15 years or so) is either a 9 mm Beretta or a Glock 22.

Here is the former's muzzle flash at night.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apW8X5QqOos

From the video, it appears as if the officer shoots the suspect as he is walking above him and out of frame behind the tree.

This is obviously a heinous act, but the video - in my opinion - is far from conclusive.  The FBI and IPRA reports should have ballistic reports included in their final analysis.

However, arguing against the so-called flashlight theory is the fact that the other officers, upon their arrival at the scene, have their weapons drawn, so I doubt Officer Sierra simply used his flashlight while walking over the suspect.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:06:44 PM
Here is the former's muzzle flash at night.

Terrific. It's not commensurate with the video, though, so yes, ballistics. Maybe those shots came from someplace else.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:06:44 PM
Here is the former's muzzle flash at night.

Terrific. It's not commensurate with the video, though, so yes, ballistics. Maybe those shots came from someplace else.

[sarcasm] Maybe from some of the fine, upstanding citizens of that neighborhood, most of whom are better armed than the police. [/sarcasm]

I don't dispute that the officer's actions were outrageous and reprehensible, but let's not canonize the suspect.  Englewood is a fucking war zone.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 11:04:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:06:44 PM
Here is the former's muzzle flash at night.

Terrific. It's not commensurate with the video, though, so yes, ballistics. Maybe those shots came from someplace else.

[sarcasm] Maybe from some of the fine, upstanding citizens of that neighborhood, most of whom are better armed than the police. [/sarcasm]

I don't dispute that the officer's actions were outrageous and reprehensible, but let's not canonize the suspect.  Englewood is a fucking war zone.

Tell me what it is after you've been there.

[Edit.--Oh, wait, the Welcome Wagon left something (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXxIcvi9DJc").]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 11:58:41 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 11:04:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:06:44 PM
Here is the former's muzzle flash at night.

Terrific. It's not commensurate with the video, though, so yes, ballistics. Maybe those shots came from someplace else.

[sarcasm] Maybe from some of the fine, upstanding citizens of that neighborhood, most of whom are better armed than the police. [/sarcasm]

I don't dispute that the officer's actions were outrageous and reprehensible, but let's not canonize the suspect.  Englewood is a fucking war zone.

Tell me what it is after you've been there.

[Edit.--Oh, wait, the Welcome Wagon left something (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXxIcvi9DJc").]

Yeah, you're right.  I've never been there...ever.  Nor have both of my parents worked in that district or two of my friends.

It's such a paradise; everyone should move there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 24, 2011, 12:40:34 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 11:58:41 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 11:04:05 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:06:44 PM
Here is the former's muzzle flash at night.

Terrific. It's not commensurate with the video, though, so yes, ballistics. Maybe those shots came from someplace else.

[sarcasm] Maybe from some of the fine, upstanding citizens of that neighborhood, most of whom are better armed than the police. [/sarcasm]

I don't dispute that the officer's actions were outrageous and reprehensible, but let's not canonize the suspect.  Englewood is a fucking war zone.

Tell me what it is after you've been there.

[Edit.--Oh, wait, the Welcome Wagon left something (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXxIcvi9DJc").]

Yeah, you're right.  I've never been there...ever.  Nor have both of my parents worked in that district or two of my friends.

It's such a paradise; everyone should move there.

So you're going to flop between extremes to preserve rhetorical effect?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 24, 2011, 08:42:06 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:06:44 PM
Here is the former's muzzle flash at night.

Terrific. It's not commensurate with the video, though, so yes, ballistics. Maybe those shots came from someplace else.

[sarcasm] Maybe from some of the fine, upstanding citizens of that neighborhood, most of whom are better armed than the police. [/sarcasm]

I don't dispute that the officer's actions were outrageous and reprehensible, but let's not canonize the suspect.  Englewood is a fucking war zone.

Strawman much?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 24, 2011, 08:59:13 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 24, 2011, 08:42:06 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:37:46 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 23, 2011, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2011, 10:06:44 PM
Here is the former's muzzle flash at night.

Terrific. It's not commensurate with the video, though, so yes, ballistics. Maybe those shots came from someplace else.

[sarcasm] Maybe from some of the fine, upstanding citizens of that neighborhood, most of whom are better armed than the police. [/sarcasm]

I don't dispute that the officer's actions were outrageous and reprehensible, but let's not canonize the suspect.  Englewood is a fucking war zone.

Strawman much?

Meh.

QuoteAn organizer of a downtown protest against police brutality Saturday said Flint Farmer's death in June was "just another case of a young black man shot to death by police for no reason."

Quote"These police chiefs from around the world have used their forces to brutalize," organizer Jay Becker said. "They have brought violence down on people struggling for their human rights."

http://www.suntimes.com/8359348-417/protesters-take-aim-at-shootings-by-cops-decry-police-brutality.html

I didn't see that Mr. Farmer was just a young, black man struggling for human rights.

Dang.

Does anyone remember when officer Thor Soderberg was killed in the parking lot of 007 leaving work?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2011, 01:06:40 AM
TDubbs as teacher:

(http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/files/2011/10/teacher-joke.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2011, 08:23:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2011, 01:06:40 AM
TDubbs as teacher:

(http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/files/2011/10/teacher-joke.jpg)

Except TDubbs isn't funny.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 26, 2011, 09:31:00 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2011, 01:06:40 AM
TDubbs as teacher:

(http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/files/2011/10/teacher-joke.jpg)

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/08/20/news/doc4e4ff7a8aa504499828975.txt
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 26, 2011, 09:42:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 26, 2011, 09:31:00 AM
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/08/20/news/doc4e4ff7a8aa504499828975.txt
They haven't been able to figure out what to do with him since November 2010?

Here's a suggestion: Fire that school board.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 26, 2011, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 26, 2011, 09:42:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 26, 2011, 09:31:00 AM
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/08/20/news/doc4e4ff7a8aa504499828975.txt
They haven't been able to figure out what to do with him since November 2010?

Here's a suggestion: Fire that school board.

Hey, he has Asperger's IDITO! ADA FTW!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2011, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 26, 2011, 09:42:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 26, 2011, 09:31:00 AM
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/08/20/news/doc4e4ff7a8aa504499828975.txt
They haven't been able to figure out what to do with him since November 2010?

Here's a suggestion: Fire that school board.

Hey, he has Asperger's IDITO! ADA FTW!

I blame the ridiculous stranglehold public school unions have on cities and municipalities across the country.

Schools aren't factories.

EDIT: the ADA angle may be a big deal.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2011, 10:49:39 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2011, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 26, 2011, 09:42:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 26, 2011, 09:31:00 AM
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/08/20/news/doc4e4ff7a8aa504499828975.txt
They haven't been able to figure out what to do with him since November 2010?

Here's a suggestion: Fire that school board.

Hey, he has Asperger's IDITO! ADA FTW!

I blame the ridiculous stranglehold public school unions have on cities and municipalities across the country.

Schools aren't factories.

EDIT: the ADA angle may be a big deal.

Don't forget the pussification of the Western male.

Quit yer crying and lose some weight, fatty.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 26, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2011, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 26, 2011, 09:42:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 26, 2011, 09:31:00 AM
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/08/20/news/doc4e4ff7a8aa504499828975.txt
They haven't been able to figure out what to do with him since November 2010?

Here's a suggestion: Fire that school board.

Hey, he has Asperger's IDITO! ADA FTW!

I blame the ridiculous stranglehold public school unions have on cities and municipalities across the country.

Schools aren't factories.

EDIT: the ADA angle may be a big deal.

The guy's 68. Asperger's Disorder only appeared as a diagnostic category with DSM-IV. When, pray tell, did he obtain this diagnosis that is normally made in childhood? It doesn't get easier with the march of time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 26, 2011, 12:45:47 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 26, 2011, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2011, 10:07:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 26, 2011, 09:42:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 26, 2011, 09:31:00 AM
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/08/20/news/doc4e4ff7a8aa504499828975.txt
They haven't been able to figure out what to do with him since November 2010?

Here's a suggestion: Fire that school board.

Hey, he has Asperger's IDITO! ADA FTW!

I blame the ridiculous stranglehold public school unions have on cities and municipalities across the country.

Schools aren't factories.

EDIT: the ADA angle may be a big deal.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 26, 2011, 01:11:17 PM
Joe the Plumber: Congressional Candidate. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/joe-the-plumber-launches-bid-for-congress/)

Quote"I don't have to remember what I said five years ago because I believe it. That's what it comes down to," he said. "They're not going to catch me in a lie. I'm not concerned about that at all. You've got to keep it simple and that's what it comes down to running for Congress."

I'd say they don't get any more simple than this personification of asshattery.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 26, 2011, 01:43:28 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2011, 01:11:17 PM
Joe the Plumber: Congressional Candidate. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/joe-the-plumber-launches-bid-for-congress/)

Quote"I don't have to remember what I said five years ago because I believe it. That's what it comes down to," he said. "They're not going to catch me in a lie. I'm not concerned about that at all. You've got to keep it simple and that's what it comes down to running for Congress."

I'd say they don't get any more simple than this personification of asshattery.



As long as he keeps his ass out of NC-4th. That's GEORGE HUTCHINS country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2011, 06:26:20 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/iraq-war-vet-injured-oakland-protests-14821510

QuoteThe clash between Oakland police and Occupy Wall Street protesters left a Marine veteran who served two Iraq tours in critical condition Wednesday after he was struck by a police projectile, a veterans group said.

Scott Olsen, 24, suffered a fracture skull Tuesday as he marched with other protesters toward City Hall, said Dottie Guy, of the Iraq Veterans Against the War. The demonstrators had been making an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of a disbanded protesters' camp when they were met by police officers in riot gear.

Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.

(http://i.imgur.com/fwqkC.jpg?3571)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/scott-olsen-occupy-oakland-review

QuoteA source at the Oakland citizen's police review board said it had not yet received a formal complaint, but would be "looking into" the circumstances surrounding Olsen's injuries. The board will decide whether to launch an official investigation over the next couple of days.

Jay Finneburgh, an activist photographer who was at the protest, published pictures of Olsen lying bloodied on the ground, while video footage appeared to show police throwing a 'flash bang' explosive close to fellow protesters trying to provide aid.

"[Olsen] stood behind me," Finneburgh told the Guardian. "I looked to my left and he hit the ground, and he hit it hard.

"A woman went to look down at him, and he was bleeding from the head. She started screaming," he said.

Video footage posted to YouTube shows Olsen (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-protests-live#block-5) lying motionless in front of a police line after apparently having been hit. A group of up to 10 protesters gather around him, but a police officer can be seen throwing a device close to the group which then explodes with a bright flash and loud bang, scattering the protesters. The video then cuts to footage of protesters carrying Olsen away as he bleeds from the head.

...

Shannon said Olsen was hit in the head by a tear gas canister or smoke canister shot by a police officer. He said Olsen had a curved gash on his forehead.

Veterans for Police said Olsen was "struck by a police projectile fired into a crowd in downtown Oakland".

"Police in the majority of cities are acting with restraint and humanity towards the encampments, but Veterans For Peace will not be deterred by police who choose to use brutal tactics," the organisation said in a statement (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/news_detail.php?idx=123).

Oakland police confirmed at a press conference that they used tear gas and baton rounds, but said they did not use flash bang grenades. Police could not be reached for comment, but Finneburgh, who said he had been "present in many protests" where flash bang grenades had been used, said they had been deployed.

Finneburgh said he had returned to where Olsen had originally lain injured later in the evening, and close to a pool of blood had found a beanbag round, apparently fired by police. The controversial projectile, a small fabric pillow filled with around 40 grammes of lead shot, is one of the most commonly used projectiles in US policing, though it was withdrawn for 18 years after a fatal incident in 1971 (http://www.policeone.com/columnists/steve-ijames/articles/118328/).

Direct link to the Youtube video showing what certainly appears to be flashbang grenades tossed directly at protesters attempting to help the injured man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on October 26, 2011, 10:05:30 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2011, 06:26:20 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/iraq-war-vet-injured-oakland-protests-14821510

QuoteThe clash between Oakland police and Occupy Wall Street protesters left a Marine veteran who served two Iraq tours in critical condition Wednesday after he was struck by a police projectile, a veterans group said.

Scott Olsen, 24, suffered a fracture skull Tuesday as he marched with other protesters toward City Hall, said Dottie Guy, of the Iraq Veterans Against the War. The demonstrators had been making an attempt to re-establish a presence in the area of a disbanded protesters' camp when they were met by police officers in riot gear.

Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.

(http://i.imgur.com/fwqkC.jpg?3571)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/scott-olsen-occupy-oakland-review

QuoteA source at the Oakland citizen's police review board said it had not yet received a formal complaint, but would be "looking into" the circumstances surrounding Olsen's injuries. The board will decide whether to launch an official investigation over the next couple of days.

Jay Finneburgh, an activist photographer who was at the protest, published pictures of Olsen lying bloodied on the ground, while video footage appeared to show police throwing a 'flash bang' explosive close to fellow protesters trying to provide aid.

"[Olsen] stood behind me," Finneburgh told the Guardian. "I looked to my left and he hit the ground, and he hit it hard.

"A woman went to look down at him, and he was bleeding from the head. She started screaming," he said.

Video footage posted to YouTube shows Olsen (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-protests-live#block-5) lying motionless in front of a police line after apparently having been hit. A group of up to 10 protesters gather around him, but a police officer can be seen throwing a device close to the group which then explodes with a bright flash and loud bang, scattering the protesters. The video then cuts to footage of protesters carrying Olsen away as he bleeds from the head.

...

Shannon said Olsen was hit in the head by a tear gas canister or smoke canister shot by a police officer. He said Olsen had a curved gash on his forehead.

Veterans for Police said Olsen was "struck by a police projectile fired into a crowd in downtown Oakland".

"Police in the majority of cities are acting with restraint and humanity towards the encampments, but Veterans For Peace will not be deterred by police who choose to use brutal tactics," the organisation said in a statement (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/news_detail.php?idx=123).

Oakland police confirmed at a press conference that they used tear gas and baton rounds, but said they did not use flash bang grenades. Police could not be reached for comment, but Finneburgh, who said he had been "present in many protests" where flash bang grenades had been used, said they had been deployed.

Finneburgh said he had returned to where Olsen had originally lain injured later in the evening, and close to a pool of blood had found a beanbag round, apparently fired by police. The controversial projectile, a small fabric pillow filled with around 40 grammes of lead shot, is one of the most commonly used projectiles in US policing, though it was withdrawn for 18 years after a fatal incident in 1971 (http://www.policeone.com/columnists/steve-ijames/articles/118328/).

Direct link to the Youtube video showing what certainly appears to be flashbang grenades tossed directly at protesters attempting to help the injured man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ

maybe those dumb fucks should just go the fuck home. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 26, 2011, 10:12:23 PM
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on October 26, 2011, 10:05:30 PM
maybe those dumb fucks should just go the fuck home. 

This is why you'll never know the hippie superchicks, Dubbs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2011, 07:01:00 PM
An actual small business owner discusses the NLRB's actions of late: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/189879-small-business-owner-questions-fury-over-nlrb

QuoteAs a small business owner, I have an odd experience nearly every time I open a newspaper. Day after day, pundits and politicians — most of whom have no actual experience running a business — rattle off talking points on what I supposedly need. It's strange. Even though I've never hired a K Street consultant, there's an army of them ready to speak for me.

QuoteI run a sheet metal company in Sterling, Va., where we fabricate and install sheet metal duct work for ventilation, air conditioning, and heating systems. My workers are an integral part of my business and an important asset to its success. They are my business partners, not a line item on my accounting forms.

My employees are members of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 100 and collective bargaining helps us work together.

QuoteReviewing the NLRB's decisions this summer, I fail to see a single action that will negatively impact my business. I have strained to see how informing workers of their right to form a union or modernizing the outdated union election process will hurt my business. The connection simply isn't there. These seemingly minor changes certainly do not create uncertainty for me and they will not affect my ability to create jobs. In fact, if the NLRB standardizes the election process, it seems to me that this will reduce uncertainty and turmoil in the workplace — especially for small businesses.

Clearly this small business owner was strong-armed by his pro-union workforce into saying nice things about that crazy labor board going after American businesses with the strength of a budget that is roughly equivalent to what the Defense Department spends on post-its.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 27, 2011, 10:10:13 PM
Brace yourselves (http://www.urigeller.com/articles/11.htm), and synchronize your pedometers.

QuoteHOWEVER, if you count the fingers on your hands in unary arithmetic - no zeros - then 10 fingers, in unary mathematics, = 11111111111 - EXACTLY 11 ONES
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 28, 2011, 01:23:03 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 27, 2011, 10:10:13 PM
Brace yourselves (http://www.urigeller.com/articles/11.htm), and synchronize your pedometers.

QuoteHOWEVER, if you count the fingers on your hands in unary arithmetic - no zeros - then 10 fingers, in unary mathematics, = 11111111111 - EXACTLY 11 ONES

Again... What's the deal?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 28, 2011, 07:17:03 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 27, 2011, 10:10:13 PM
Brace yourselves (http://www.urigeller.com/articles/11.htm), and synchronize your pedometers.

QuoteHOWEVER, if you count the fingers on your hands in unary arithmetic - no zeros - then 10 fingers, in unary mathematics, = 11111111111 - EXACTLY 11 ONES

(http://i44.tinypic.com/mw5pgy.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 28, 2011, 08:29:24 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 27, 2011, 10:10:13 PM
Brace yourselves (http://www.urigeller.com/articles/11.htm), and synchronize your pedometers.

QuoteHOWEVER, if you count the fingers on your hands in unary arithmetic - no zeros - then 10 fingers, in unary mathematics, = 11111111111 - EXACTLY 11 ONES

QuoteThe second is that Brian Greene has 11 letters in his name.
Is it wrong that I initially read this as "Brian Griese" and wondered what Uri Geller had to say about future Hall of Fame Quarterbacks?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 28, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
DPD.  I thought this article (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/herman-cain-and-the-hubris-of-experts/?hp) (and the one it references from yesterday (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/herman-cain-outlier/)) was excellent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 28, 2011, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2011, 07:01:00 PM
An actual small business owner discusses the NLRB's actions of late: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/189879-small-business-owner-questions-fury-over-nlrb

QuoteAs a small business owner, I have an odd experience nearly every time I open a newspaper. Day after day, pundits and politicians — most of whom have no actual experience running a business — rattle off talking points on what I supposedly need. It's strange. Even though I've never hired a K Street consultant, there's an army of them ready to speak for me.

QuoteI run a sheet metal company in Sterling, Va., where we fabricate and install sheet metal duct work for ventilation, air conditioning, and heating systems. My workers are an integral part of my business and an important asset to its success. They are my business partners, not a line item on my accounting forms.

My employees are members of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 100 and collective bargaining helps us work together.

QuoteReviewing the NLRB's decisions this summer, I fail to see a single action that will negatively impact my business. I have strained to see how informing workers of their right to form a union or modernizing the outdated union election process will hurt my business. The connection simply isn't there. These seemingly minor changes certainly do not create uncertainty for me and they will not affect my ability to create jobs. In fact, if the NLRB standardizes the election process, it seems to me that this will reduce uncertainty and turmoil in the workplace — especially for small businesses.

Clearly this small business owner was strong-armed by his pro-union workforce into saying nice things about that crazy labor board going after American businesses with the strength of a budget that is roughly equivalent to what the Defense Department spends on post-its.

Or maybe there's a bit more than meets the eye.

QuoteI represent management in labor matters and can read between the lines of Mr. West's testimony.

Willie West owns a company that operates in the construction industry. The construction industry works a little differently from the rest of the private sector.

In the construction industry, all unionized companies sign onto the same contract - that keeps wages and other terms and conditions of employment equal. These companies are then awarded contracts to work on prevailing wage projects (projects where government money is used). In the past 5 years, prevailing wage jobs dominated the construction industry as privately funded construction projects virtually dried up due to the economy and difficulty in securing private loans.

Mr. West forgot to mention in his testimony that he was in the union for 10 years before starting his own company, and he still carries a Sheetmetal Union card.

The downside of being signatory to the area standards contracts is that current underfunded pension withdrawal liability will preclude West Sheet Metal from ever withdrawing from the union. The withdrawal liability check will likely be cost prohibitive. Further, as Mr. West approaches retirement age and contemplates selling the company, that withdrawal liability debt is a number that comes right off the top of the sale price.

Another thing West mentioned is that he wanted guild workers as the guild provides extra training he's unable to provide. So in this case, you have two sides voluntarily exchanging in a transaction. Union workers provide a perceived premium which the business owner is happy to pay for.  But what if the employer says, "Fuck that, I don't see the benefit in having unionized employees as plenty of other jobless out there are happy to work for the same or less and provide more or the same value?" Shouldn't he have the right to make that call?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 28, 2011, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 28, 2011, 09:01:42 AM
But what if the employer says, "Fuck that, I don't see the benefit in having unionized employees as plenty of other jobless out there are happy to work for the same or less and provide more or the same value?" Shouldn't he have the right to make that call?

What does this have to do with informing workers of their existing rights under the law?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 28, 2011, 09:54:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 28, 2011, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2011, 07:01:00 PM
An actual small business owner discusses the NLRB's actions of late: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/189879-small-business-owner-questions-fury-over-nlrb

QuoteAs a small business owner, I have an odd experience nearly every time I open a newspaper. Day after day, pundits and politicians — most of whom have no actual experience running a business — rattle off talking points on what I supposedly need. It's strange. Even though I've never hired a K Street consultant, there's an army of them ready to speak for me.

QuoteI run a sheet metal company in Sterling, Va., where we fabricate and install sheet metal duct work for ventilation, air conditioning, and heating systems. My workers are an integral part of my business and an important asset to its success. They are my business partners, not a line item on my accounting forms.

My employees are members of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 100 and collective bargaining helps us work together.

QuoteReviewing the NLRB's decisions this summer, I fail to see a single action that will negatively impact my business. I have strained to see how informing workers of their right to form a union or modernizing the outdated union election process will hurt my business. The connection simply isn't there. These seemingly minor changes certainly do not create uncertainty for me and they will not affect my ability to create jobs. In fact, if the NLRB standardizes the election process, it seems to me that this will reduce uncertainty and turmoil in the workplace — especially for small businesses.

Clearly this small business owner was strong-armed by his pro-union workforce into saying nice things about that crazy labor board going after American businesses with the strength of a budget that is roughly equivalent to what the Defense Department spends on post-its.

Or maybe there's a bit more than meets the eye.

QuoteI represent management in labor matters and can read between the lines of Mr. West's testimony.

Willie West owns a company that operates in the construction industry. The construction industry works a little differently from the rest of the private sector.

In the construction industry, all unionized companies sign onto the same contract - that keeps wages and other terms and conditions of employment equal. These companies are then awarded contracts to work on prevailing wage projects (projects where government money is used). In the past 5 years, prevailing wage jobs dominated the construction industry as privately funded construction projects virtually dried up due to the economy and difficulty in securing private loans.

Mr. West forgot to mention in his testimony that he was in the union for 10 years before starting his own company, and he still carries a Sheetmetal Union card.

The downside of being signatory to the area standards contracts is that current underfunded pension withdrawal liability will preclude West Sheet Metal from ever withdrawing from the union. The withdrawal liability check will likely be cost prohibitive. Further, as Mr. West approaches retirement age and contemplates selling the company, that withdrawal liability debt is a number that comes right off the top of the sale price.

Another thing West mentioned is that he wanted guild workers as the guild provides extra training he's unable to provide. So in this case, you have two sides voluntarily exchanging in a transaction. Union workers provide a perceived premium which the business owner is happy to pay for.  But what if the employer says, "Fuck that, I don't see the benefit in having unionized employees as plenty of other jobless out there are happy to work for the same or less and provide more or the same value?" Shouldn't he have the right to make that call?

No one in my agency contends that an employer has to hire union employees.  It's another myth that we are out to force unionism on small businesses out there.  The employer in the instant case does not *have* to sign the area standards contract, nor does he have to use a unionized workforce, that is unless his employees wish to join a union.

If you were trying to turn this into a Boeing argument, rather than the notice posting and Board orders issued in the past year - as was the OP's thesis, then I'd be happy to provide you with over fifty years of case law and precedent illustrating the theory behind the Boeing case.

A case, by the way, that no one from the White House or the DNC or anything else Democratic ever saw before complaint issued.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 28, 2011, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 28, 2011, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2011, 07:01:00 PM
An actual small business owner discusses the NLRB's actions of late: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/189879-small-business-owner-questions-fury-over-nlrb

QuoteAs a small business owner, I have an odd experience nearly every time I open a newspaper. Day after day, pundits and politicians — most of whom have no actual experience running a business — rattle off talking points on what I supposedly need. It's strange. Even though I've never hired a K Street consultant, there's an army of them ready to speak for me.

QuoteI run a sheet metal company in Sterling, Va., where we fabricate and install sheet metal duct work for ventilation, air conditioning, and heating systems. My workers are an integral part of my business and an important asset to its success. They are my business partners, not a line item on my accounting forms.

My employees are members of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 100 and collective bargaining helps us work together.

QuoteReviewing the NLRB's decisions this summer, I fail to see a single action that will negatively impact my business. I have strained to see how informing workers of their right to form a union or modernizing the outdated union election process will hurt my business. The connection simply isn't there. These seemingly minor changes certainly do not create uncertainty for me and they will not affect my ability to create jobs. In fact, if the NLRB standardizes the election process, it seems to me that this will reduce uncertainty and turmoil in the workplace — especially for small businesses.

Clearly this small business owner was strong-armed by his pro-union workforce into saying nice things about that crazy labor board going after American businesses with the strength of a budget that is roughly equivalent to what the Defense Department spends on post-its.

Or maybe there's a bit more than meets the eye.

QuoteI represent management in labor matters and can read between the lines of Mr. West's testimony.

Willie West owns a company that operates in the construction industry. The construction industry works a little differently from the rest of the private sector.

In the construction industry, all unionized companies sign onto the same contract - that keeps wages and other terms and conditions of employment equal. These companies are then awarded contracts to work on prevailing wage projects (projects where government money is used). In the past 5 years, prevailing wage jobs dominated the construction industry as privately funded construction projects virtually dried up due to the economy and difficulty in securing private loans.

Mr. West forgot to mention in his testimony that he was in the union for 10 years before starting his own company, and he still carries a Sheetmetal Union card.

The downside of being signatory to the area standards contracts is that current underfunded pension withdrawal liability will preclude West Sheet Metal from ever withdrawing from the union. The withdrawal liability check will likely be cost prohibitive. Further, as Mr. West approaches retirement age and contemplates selling the company, that withdrawal liability debt is a number that comes right off the top of the sale price.

Another thing West mentioned is that he wanted guild workers as the guild provides extra training he's unable to provide. So in this case, you have two sides voluntarily exchanging in a transaction. Union workers provide a perceived premium which the business owner is happy to pay for.  But what if the employer says, "Fuck that, I don't see the benefit in having unionized employees as plenty of other jobless out there are happy to work for the same or less and provide more or the same value?" Shouldn't he have the right to make that call?

DPD, but does the fact that this small business owner happen to work well with unions and may have been a member of a union before mitigate his opinion on these matters as a small business owner?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 28, 2011, 10:04:40 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 28, 2011, 10:02:00 AM
DPD, but does the fact that this small business owner happen to work well with unions and may have been a member of a union before mitigate his opinion on these matters as a small business owner?

Clearly it makes him a Communist.

And the next Red I trust will be the first.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 28, 2011, 11:59:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 28, 2011, 10:02:00 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 28, 2011, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 27, 2011, 07:01:00 PM
An actual small business owner discusses the NLRB's actions of late: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/189879-small-business-owner-questions-fury-over-nlrb

QuoteAs a small business owner, I have an odd experience nearly every time I open a newspaper. Day after day, pundits and politicians — most of whom have no actual experience running a business — rattle off talking points on what I supposedly need. It's strange. Even though I've never hired a K Street consultant, there's an army of them ready to speak for me.

QuoteI run a sheet metal company in Sterling, Va., where we fabricate and install sheet metal duct work for ventilation, air conditioning, and heating systems. My workers are an integral part of my business and an important asset to its success. They are my business partners, not a line item on my accounting forms.

My employees are members of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 100 and collective bargaining helps us work together.

QuoteReviewing the NLRB's decisions this summer, I fail to see a single action that will negatively impact my business. I have strained to see how informing workers of their right to form a union or modernizing the outdated union election process will hurt my business. The connection simply isn't there. These seemingly minor changes certainly do not create uncertainty for me and they will not affect my ability to create jobs. In fact, if the NLRB standardizes the election process, it seems to me that this will reduce uncertainty and turmoil in the workplace — especially for small businesses.

Clearly this small business owner was strong-armed by his pro-union workforce into saying nice things about that crazy labor board going after American businesses with the strength of a budget that is roughly equivalent to what the Defense Department spends on post-its.

Or maybe there's a bit more than meets the eye.

QuoteI represent management in labor matters and can read between the lines of Mr. West's testimony.

Willie West owns a company that operates in the construction industry. The construction industry works a little differently from the rest of the private sector.

In the construction industry, all unionized companies sign onto the same contract - that keeps wages and other terms and conditions of employment equal. These companies are then awarded contracts to work on prevailing wage projects (projects where government money is used). In the past 5 years, prevailing wage jobs dominated the construction industry as privately funded construction projects virtually dried up due to the economy and difficulty in securing private loans.

Mr. West forgot to mention in his testimony that he was in the union for 10 years before starting his own company, and he still carries a Sheetmetal Union card.

The downside of being signatory to the area standards contracts is that current underfunded pension withdrawal liability will preclude West Sheet Metal from ever withdrawing from the union. The withdrawal liability check will likely be cost prohibitive. Further, as Mr. West approaches retirement age and contemplates selling the company, that withdrawal liability debt is a number that comes right off the top of the sale price.

Another thing West mentioned is that he wanted guild workers as the guild provides extra training he's unable to provide. So in this case, you have two sides voluntarily exchanging in a transaction. Union workers provide a perceived premium which the business owner is happy to pay for.  But what if the employer says, "Fuck that, I don't see the benefit in having unionized employees as plenty of other jobless out there are happy to work for the same or less and provide more or the same value?" Shouldn't he have the right to make that call?

DPD, but does the fact that this small business owner happen to work well with unions and may have been a member of a union before mitigate his opinion on these matters as a small business owner?

No, but it does mitigate the supposed credibility he has as a "small business owner." Unions in and of themselves are not a negative thing. They can be a positive thing, as he showed. I can bring in 10 small business owners to say that unionization would cause him or her to close the doors.

As for employers needing to tell employees their rights, why not make it a requirement for EVERYONE transacting ANYTHING to inform the other of their rights at all times? That should solve everything. It will for sure create work that creates value!

As for the Boeing argument, fine. If the law says that, then the law's an ass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 28, 2011, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 28, 2011, 11:59:16 AM
As for employers needing to tell employees their rights, why not make it a requirement for EVERYONE transacting ANYTHING to inform the other of their rights at all times? That should solve everything. It will for sure create work that creates value!

I still feel like I've never been told what exactly is so onerous about being required to display an 11x17 poster on a wall.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 28, 2011, 12:37:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 28, 2011, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 28, 2011, 11:59:16 AM
As for employers needing to tell employees their rights, why not make it a requirement for EVERYONE transacting ANYTHING to inform the other of their rights at all times? That should solve everything. It will for sure create work that creates value!

I still feel like I've never been told what exactly is so onerous about being required to display an 11x17 poster on a wall.

Rules about posters are a slippery slope, my friend. Before you know it I'd be forced to put a David Freese poster up on my bedroom wall.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 28, 2011, 12:49:30 PM
Quote

No, but it does mitigate the supposed credibility he has as a "small business owner." Unions in and of themselves are not a negative thing. They can be a positive thing, as he showed. I can bring in 10 small business owners to say that unionization would cause him or her to close the doors.

As for employers needing to tell employees their rights, why not make it a requirement for EVERYONE transacting ANYTHING to inform the other of their rights at all times? That should solve everything. It will for sure create work that creates value!

As for the Boeing argument, fine. If the law says that, then the law's an ass.

Several transactions done on a day-to-day basis, especially in the great socialist paradise that is the state of Illinois, have notices to customers informing them about their rights and responsibilities under the law.  I believe gas stations contain notices about the product that one is buying, stores have notices from the dept. of agriculture on weights and measures, etc.

However, I think that the workplace is a very specific type of arrangement, uniquely distinguishable from the above-referenced.  Employees derive much of - if not all - of their economic and, indeed, personal livelihood from the money they earn by virtue of being employed.  Many employees are loathe to do anything to disrupt such an arrangement, especially in the current economic climate.  I would think that some things that, from an employees' perspective, would potentially endanger that relationship are an employee asking about their rights from the manager, a group of employees protesting about working conditions, etc.

I just don't know why the NLRA is so different from other federal labor statutes (including the FLSA which doesn't even contain a notice posting rule, but is posted nevertheless) in that citizens cannot learn about their rights at the very place where they are free to exercise them?  I understand they can learn about them on the internet, but an official posting from the government at the place of work carries much more significance than someone going to Google and finding out.  It even mitigates a potential bad-apple manager or supervisor from saying to an employee who looked something up online that such-and-such action is against the law when in reality it is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 28, 2011, 03:28:27 PM
Speaking as a Union lawyer I can tell you that the NLRB is by and large a conservative, employer oriented agency that has historically done organized labor more harm than good.  As for the posting requirement, think of it as a half-assed effort to remedy years of many employers' (not all) efforts to mislead employees with regard to their rights.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 31, 2011, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 04:40:59 PM
The conspiracy grows ever deeper...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html

I see what you mean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 31, 2011, 08:57:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 31, 2011, 08:54:25 AM
I see what you mean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

QuoteProf Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America's prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no  scientific basis.

What bug is up her ass?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E974B4700000578-656_306x423.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2011, 09:14:42 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 31, 2011, 08:57:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 31, 2011, 08:54:25 AM
I see what you mean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

QuoteProf Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America's prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no  scientific basis.

What bug is up her ass?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E974B4700000578-656_306x423.jpg)

Probably one of those new fangled enemas paid for with Exxon petro-dollars.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 31, 2011, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 31, 2011, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 20, 2011, 04:40:59 PM
The conspiracy grows ever deeper...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html

I see what you mean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

QuoteHer comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious 'Climategate' scandal two years ago.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/):

QuoteI did not say that "the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago," this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed "hide the decline," but I honestly can't recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph "hides the decline." There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate.

Well, I can think of one comparison.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 01, 2011, 10:52:52 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 26, 2011, 01:43:28 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2011, 01:11:17 PM
Joe the Plumber: Congressional Candidate. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/joe-the-plumber-launches-bid-for-congress/)

Quote"I don't have to remember what I said five years ago because I believe it. That's what it comes down to," he said. "They're not going to catch me in a lie. I'm not concerned about that at all. You've got to keep it simple and that's what it comes down to running for Congress."

I'd say they don't get any more simple than this personification of asshattery.

As long as he keeps his ass out of NC-4th. That's GEORGE HUTCHINS country.

Before I forget: http://www.ajsmidi.com/patriotic/midi/god_bless.mid

It's a gold mine. (http://www.ajsmidi.com/patriotic/usasongs.html)

[Edit.--The disco-beat Marines' Hymn (http://www.ajsmidi.com/patriotic/midi/marine.mid) with triangle and massed oboe (well, maybe it's supposed to be the fearsome recorder) is not to be missed.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2011, 12:07:14 PM
This could be a game changer. (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2011/10/juggalos_scott_olsen_insane_clown_posse.php)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on November 03, 2011, 07:33:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2011, 12:07:14 PM
This could be a game changer. (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2011/10/juggalos_scott_olsen_insane_clown_posse.php)

Ninja down.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 04, 2011, 05:12:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2011, 12:07:14 PM
This could be a game changer. (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2011/10/juggalos_scott_olsen_insane_clown_posse.php)

Dude was a gang-banger, then?  Can't wait to hear what Birch Barlow has to say about this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2011, 11:53:22 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/cops-with-machine-guns-how-the-war-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/

QuoteThe most serious consequence of the rapid militarization of American police forces, however, is the subtle evolution in the mentality of the "men in blue" from "peace officer" to soldier. This development is absolutely critical and represents a fundamental change in the nature of law enforcement. The primary mission of a police officer traditionally has been to "keep the peace." Those whom an officer suspects to have committed a crime are treated as just that - suspects. Police officers are expected, under the rule of law, to protect the civil liberties of all citizens, even the "bad guys." For domestic law enforcement, a suspect in custody remains innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, police officers operate among a largely friendly population and have traditionally been trained to solve problems using a complex legal system; the deployment of lethal violence is an absolute last resort.

Soldiers, by contrast, are trained to identify people they encounter as belonging to one of two groups -- the enemy and the non-enemy -- and they often reach this decision while surrounded by a population that considers the soldier an occupying force. Once this identification is made, a soldier's mission is stark and simple: kill the enemy, "try" not to kill the non-enemy. Indeed, the Soldier's Creed declares, "I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat." This is a far cry from the peace officer's creed that expects its adherents "to protect and serve."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 08, 2011, 09:05:16 AM
No one notice just how great Herman Cain accuser Sharon Bialek's (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-07/news/ct-met-herman-cain-accuser-1108-20111108_1_herman-cain-accuser-legal-troubles) visibility has been?

QuoteAs well as becoming acquainted with Cain, Bialek has had at least one more famous friend over the years. Current White Sox analyst Steve Stone confirmed Monday night that he dated Bialek in the 1980s.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2011, 11:49:09 AM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/gps-tracker-times-two/all/1

QuoteOn Tuesday, November 1, Wired photographer Jon Snyder went to San Jose to photograph the device. The next day, two males and one female appeared suddenly at the business where Greg's girlfriend works, driving a Crown Victoria with tinted windows. A witness reported to Greg that one of the men jumped out of the car, bent under the front of the girlfriend's car for a few seconds, then jumped back into the Crown Victoria and drove off. Wired was unable to confirm the story.

...

When this reporter drove down to meet Greg and photograph the second tracker with photographer Snyder, three police cars appeared at the location that had been pre-arranged with Greg, at various points driving directly behind me without making any verbal contact before leaving.

After moving the photo shoot to a Rotten Robbies gas station a mile away from the first location, another police car showed up. In this case, the officer entered the station smiling at me and turned his car around to face the direction of Greg's car, a couple hundred yards away. He remained there while the device was photographed. A passenger in the police car, dressed in civilian clothes, stepped out of the vehicle to fill a gas container, then the two left shortly before the photo shoot was completed.

Good work, boys.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 10, 2011, 06:22:29 AM
Picking up the slack for MikeC (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/president-obamas-plan-seize-power-today-flounders-after-alert-system-glitch).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 10, 2011, 07:15:53 AM
DPD.

Rick Perry, pick up your parting gifts on the way out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 10, 2011, 11:08:50 AM
I've managed to find some non-contrarian content at Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/11/the_outsized_influence_of_judge_laurence_silberman_s_decision_upholding_obamacare_.single.html):

QuoteSilberman boasts a history of service to Republican presidents and conservative causes unmatched by any member of any court, including the current Supreme Court. Among many other entries, his résumé includes stints as acting attorney general during the Watergate crisis and as co-chair of George W. Bush's 2004 blue-ribbon commission to investigate U.S. intelligence prior to the Iraq invasion. His judicial decisions include a vote to strike down the independent counsel statute threatening the Reagan presidency (in 1988) and the District of Columbia handgun ban in 2002.He was also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008 by George W. Bush. Without question, Silberman's decision will be perused by all members of the court, most particularly its five conservatives, prior to Thursday's conference and, more importantly, before they render a final decision in 2012.

His opinion is not equivocal: He openly scorns the Affordable Care Act's opponents as unable to "find real support [for their case] in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent." And while Silberman's vote for upholding the mandate took most media observers off guard, it is neither isolated nor necessarily surprising. Until the ACA neared enactment in late 2009, almost all mainstream legal conservatives had—for nearly six decades—endorsed the post-New Deal Supreme Court's consistent deference to legislators' judgments about how best to regulate the national economy.

Robert Bork and the generation of conservative constitutionalists for whom he spoke once called the activist Supreme Court of the Lochner era, during which early 20th century pro-business justices struck down multiple economic regulatory reform laws, "the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power." During the post-New Deal decades, only a handful of libertarian academics championed the idea of aggressive Supreme Court-imposed constraints on federal economic regulatory authority. The ACA lawsuits have suddenly catapulted these recently marginalized zealots to center stage, convincing many observers that libertarian activism has captured control of legal conservativism, just as Tea Party take-no-prisoners anti-government rigidity dominates Republican political ranks.

Silberman's decision signals that this media-fueled impression is at best premature. Despite intense short-term political pressures and long-term ideological stakes, leading conservative jurists appear likely to stick to their traditional judicial restraint canon when deciding the fate of the ACA.

Noted legal scholar Brian Crozier no doubt disagrees.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 11, 2011, 10:13:06 AM
John Derbyshire may be the most consistently quotable asshole on the right...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282007/first-thing-we-do-john-derbyshire

QuoteIs there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing? Is there anyone who doesn't know it's all a lawyers' ramp, like "racial discrimination"? You pay a girl a compliment nowadays, she runs off and gets lawyered up. Is this any way to live?

...

There has never in the history of the world been a people better mannered and less inclined to insulting acts of prejudice than today's Americans, yet we're supposed to believe that the nation is seething with "harassment" and "discrimination," women being groped in every business office and crosses burning on every lawn. For Heaven's sake. Aren't there any grown-ups around?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 11, 2011, 11:07:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 11, 2011, 10:13:06 AM
John Derbyshire may be the most consistently quotable asshole on the right...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282007/first-thing-we-do-john-derbyshire

QuoteIs there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing? Is there anyone who doesn't know it's all a lawyers' ramp, like "racial discrimination"? You pay a girl a compliment nowadays, she runs off and gets lawyered up. Is this any way to live?

...

There has never in the history of the world been a people better mannered and less inclined to insulting acts of prejudice than today's Americans, yet we're supposed to believe that the nation is seething with "harassment" and "discrimination," women being groped in every business office and crosses burning on every lawn. For Heaven's sake. Aren't there any grown-ups around?

"You go up to a pretty broad, you know, and honk honk you give her titties a bit of a squeeze, you know, what kinda lady doesn't like that, you know? That's a compliment. We're all a bunch of pussies these days. I don't wanna live in a world where I can't tell a tasty dame her ass looks like a Christmas ham."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2011, 06:48:57 PM
http://www.peachpundit.com/2011/11/07/newt's-back-this-time-with-forward-momentum/ (http://www.peachpundit.com/2011/11/07/newt's-back-this-time-with-forward-momentum/)

QuoteI had the opportunity to meet with Gingrich in Atlanta last week, and it is clear things have changed in the campaign. He is again surrounded with staff, and there is a certain buzz & energy about their business. New polls show Gingrich in third place, behind Cain and Romney, but ahead of Perry and the others. There also seemed to be the discipline that was so lacking under the former structure. Gingrich is once again poised to make a move in this race.

For this to happen, however, he must convince the voters currently backing Cain, Perry, and Bachmann that he can be the "anti-establishment" candidate. I asked him how someone who was once Speaker of the House becomes anti-establishment. He reminded me that real conservatism is anti-establishment, just as Reagan was the anti-establishment candidate when he ran, and further argued that Reagan was still anti-establishment when he left office. He believes the ideas in his new Contract With America are sufficiently anti-establishment, and that as voters learn about them, he'll be able present a choice that is a break with the status quo.

Forget newspeak. We've got Newtspeak.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/2011_1107romney_right_enough/

QuoteWhy are so many conservatives out to destroy Mitt Romney — the only candidate with the unusual combination of intellectual firepower, professional experience and good old-fashioned competence needed to resuscitate the economy and challenge the liberal welfare-state paradigm?

In part, it's a control issue. Conservatives are inherently anti-establishment. And because Romney is the establishment favorite, some movement conservatives reflexively view him as suspect.

Edmund Burke is spinning in his mick grave.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 14, 2011, 09:03:13 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2011, 06:48:57 PM
Edmund Burke is spinning in his mick grave.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TdzTOMBlKco/Tf-dIx8Ce_I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/mmjODIN64W4/s1600/hockey%2Bdipshit.jpg)

QuoteThe sporting world has long since abandoned the sportsmanship and camaraderie that are supposed to be athletics' defining characteristics and has instead embraced a culture of cheaters, bullies and cry babies. From the hard-Right franchise owners who, hypocritically, can't seem to keep their mouths off the public teat, to the over-indulged steroid junkies they employ, to the perpetually scandalized International Olympic Committee and FIFA and the Tour de France and the NCAA, etc., etc., sports is infested from top to bottom with humanity's darkest elements.

http://bigdaddymalcontent.blogspot.com/2011/06/stop-watching-sports-go-outside-and.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2011, 10:12:49 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-kornbluth/the-police-riot-at-berkel_b_1091208.html

QuoteHere, you can see the police suddenly start to attack the protesters without cause. The young man in the front that they keep beating even after he's unable to get up is a first-year graduate student in my department named Josh Anderson. He was the first of a number of students that had to be taken to the hospital that day. As you can see from the video, neither he, nor any of the other students being beaten with batons strike back at the police with violence. Instead, you can see him, barely able to stand, gingerly raise a peace sign after being repeatedly struck on the head, neck, ribs, and legs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ

In the following video, the first woman (in pink) that the police drag out of the crowd by her hair is Professor Celeste Langan, a beloved professor of British Romanticism and media studies in my department and director of the UC Townsend Center of the Humanities. As she places herself in front of students, the police approach her with batons. She repeatedly told the police not to beat her but arrest her instead. As you can see here, they respond by dragging her out by force and throw her to the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNHXuf6qJas

When the police violence occurred again later that night, they broke the ribs of another English professor, poet Geoffrey O'Brien. When the police wouldn't stop beating him even after he too had fallen to the ground, a good friend and fellow graduate student, Ben Cullen, rushed in and demanded that they stop. The police, in turn, rained multiple blows on him, bruising his ribs as well. And just in case it's not clear yet that the violence was not only against 'some kids looking to make a fuss,' the police also thought it necessary to jab 70-year-old former Poet Laureate and Pulitzer Prize winner Robert Hass several times in the stomach with a baton as well.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/11/MNH21LTC4D.DTL

QuoteUniversity police say the students, who chanted "You're beating students" during the incident, were not innocent bystanders, and that the human fence they tried to build around seven tents amounted to a violent stance against police.

But many law enforcement experts said Thursday that the officers' tactics appeared to be a severe overreaction.

...

"The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence," UC police Capt. Margo Bennett said. "I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest."

Bennett said police merely wanted to enforce the ban on camping on Sproul Plaza, but were prevented from doing so by students.

"Students who linked arms were interfering with the officers who were attempting to remove those tents," she said.

Sgt. J.D. Nelson, a spokesman for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, said he saw nothing inappropriate in how one deputy shown in a video used his baton. Nelson said it appeared the deputy was trying to keep students from breaching a police line.

"You see that one guy there? His technique is spot on."

Edit...

Geoffrey O'Brien explains his broken ribs: (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8430351)

QuoteLater in the evening, police moved in to forcefully dismantle any tents that were set up. O'Brien said he was injured when he tried to intervene with what he said was the brutal arrest by an Alameda County Sheriff's deputy.

"I said, 'if you're going to hit somebody, hit a professor,'" O'Brien admitted. "The cop said, 'you want some?' It was a rhetorical question, and I was hit viciously in the ribs and went to the ground."

When he tells this story years from now in the literati old folks home, that line will have changed to: "If you're going to hit somebody, hit a poet."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 12:29:55 AM
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/the-grass-is-closed-what-i-have-learned-about-power-from-the-police-chancellor-birgeneau-and-occupy-cal/

Quote
QuoteWe want to clarify our position on "no encampments" so you better understand why we do not allow this to occur on our campus.  When the no-encampment policy was enacted, it was born out of past experiences that grew beyond our control and ability to manage safely.  Past experiences at UC Berkeley, along with the present struggles with entrenched encampments in Oakland, San Francisco, and New York City, led us to conclude that we must uphold our policy.

In order to prevent a situation "beyond our control and ability to manage safely" from arising, he empowered the Alameda County Sheriff's department to bring riot cops in to do what riot cops do, which is control people by hurting them until they comply. This triumvirate of administrators feel that what happened was a controlled and safely managed situation.

...

... A sentence like this one:

QuoteWe are not equipped to manage the hygiene, safety, space, and conflict issues that emerge when an encampment takes hold and the more intransigent individuals gain control.

is just another way of saying that when "intransigent" individuals refuse to acknowledge the university's authority, the administration won't be able to exercise its authority, so it will therefore need to exercise its authority. This is exactly as tautological and contradictory a line of "reasoning" as it sounds, a rhetorical snake eating its own tail. To maintain hygiene, the students cannot use tents to keep themselves warm; to manage the space, students must be kept out; to address "conflict issues," students had to be attacked; and to keep the students safe, they will be beaten.

The beatings will continue until safety improves.

Quote
QuoteIt is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience.  By contrast, some of the protesters chose to be arrested peacefully; they were told to leave their tents, informed that they would be arrested if they did not, and indicated their intention to be arrested. They did not resist arrest or try physically to obstruct the police officers' efforts to remove the tent.  These protesters were acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience, and we honor them.

What he describes — occupying space in a way that nonviolently prevents the police from doing what they want — is actually the very definition of "non-violent civil disobedience." On the one hand, it is utterly non-violent: linking arms and holding on to each other as the police try to knock you apart is not "violent" but is precisely the opposite. It is the endurance of violence. And second, it is civil disobedience, again, precisely by definition. They were disobeying civil authorities, obeying the authority of their own consciences and solidarity instead

I want to skim past this sentence on to the next part, however which is in some ways the most remarkable part: he argues that the "tradition of peaceful civil disobedience," which deserves honor, is a tradition of obedience to civil authorities. He says that "we honor" those who do not obstruct the administration's decisions, and that those who are "acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience" are, it turns out, those who obey authority.

..."Civil Disobedience" has always been, manifestly and unmistakably, a tradition of disobeying the civil authorities. I feel silly even needing to spell that out. And I feel embarrassed to work as an educator in the employ of anyone who would stand behind such specious stupidity. Linking arms and occupying the space between the police and their objective is a tactic used by just about every example of civil disobedience I can think of. It is, quite frankly the single best and most iconic example of the thing he says it is not. He is chewing up these words until they have become meaningless. Calling this language "Orwellian" is not hyperbole or exaggeration.

(http://i.imgur.com/CkxVa.jpg)

HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!

"The rule is what the people with the force to enforce it say it is. And it becomes the rule when you either obey it, or when they use their force to make you obey it."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 01:07:16 AM
Justice Kennedy to the white courtesy telephone...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/supreme-court-to-hear-case-challenging-health-law.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obama's signature legislative achievement, setting the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June as the 2012 presidential campaign enters its crucial final months.

...

The court scheduled five and a half hours of arguments instead of the usual one, a testament to the importance of the case, and the court's ruling a few months later will present opportunities and challenges for the presidential contenders as well as for candidates in the battle for control of Congress.

...

The justices will hear two hours of argument on whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority, 90 minutes on whether the mandate may be severed from the balance of the law if Congress did go too far, and an hour each on the Medicaid and Anti-Injunction Act questions.

In all, the Supreme Court agreed to hear three appeals, two from challengers to the law and a third from the Obama administration.

Timing-wise, this could turn into a regular electoral clusterfuck.

And Gilboners will become hard to avoid.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 15, 2011, 03:10:01 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 01:07:16 AM
Justice Kennedy to the white courtesy telephone...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/supreme-court-to-hear-case-challenging-health-law.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obama's signature legislative achievement, setting the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June as the 2012 presidential campaign enters its crucial final months.

...

The court scheduled five and a half hours of arguments instead of the usual one, a testament to the importance of the case, and the court's ruling a few months later will present opportunities and challenges for the presidential contenders as well as for candidates in the battle for control of Congress.

...

The justices will hear two hours of argument on whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority, 90 minutes on whether the mandate may be severed from the balance of the law if Congress did go too far, and an hour each on the Medicaid and Anti-Injunction Act questions.

In all, the Supreme Court agreed to hear three appeals, two from challengers to the law and a third from the Obama administration.

Timing-wise, this could turn into a regular electoral clusterfuck.

And Gilboners will become hard to avoid.

It's already turgid. However, Kennedy won't be the one to watch; it'll be Scalia.  Read his opinion in Gonzales v. Raich regarding the regulation of commerce jurisdiction in purely intrastate affairs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 15, 2011, 07:45:23 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 15, 2011, 03:10:01 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 01:07:16 AM
Justice Kennedy to the white courtesy telephone...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/supreme-court-to-hear-case-challenging-health-law.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obama's signature legislative achievement, setting the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June as the 2012 presidential campaign enters its crucial final months.

...

The court scheduled five and a half hours of arguments instead of the usual one, a testament to the importance of the case, and the court's ruling a few months later will present opportunities and challenges for the presidential contenders as well as for candidates in the battle for control of Congress.

...

The justices will hear two hours of argument on whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority, 90 minutes on whether the mandate may be severed from the balance of the law if Congress did go too far, and an hour each on the Medicaid and Anti-Injunction Act questions.

In all, the Supreme Court agreed to hear three appeals, two from challengers to the law and a third from the Obama administration.

Timing-wise, this could turn into a regular electoral clusterfuck.

And Gilboners will become hard to avoid.

It's already turgid. However, Kennedy won't be the one to watch; it'll be Scalia.  Read his opinion in Gonzales v. Raich regarding the regulation of commerce jurisdiction in purely intrastate affairs.

I will do no such thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-police-raid-eviction

Quote"Can I help you?" an burly officer asked me, his helpfulness belied by his scowl.

"I'm a reporter," I told him.

"This is a frozen zone, all right?" he said, using a term I'd never heard before. "Just like them, you have to leave the area. If you do not, you will be subject to arrest."

By then, riot police were moving in, indiscriminately dousing the peaceful protesters with what looked like pepper spray or some sort of gas. As people yelled and screamed and cried, I tried to stay calm.

"I promise to leave once the arrests are done," I replied.

"No, you are going to leave now."

He grabbed my arm and began dragging me off. My shoes skidded across the park's slimy granite floor. All around me, zip-cuffed occupiers writhed on the ground beneath a fog of chemicals.

"I just want to witness what is going on here," I yelped.

"You can witness it with the rest of the press," he said. Which, of course, meant not witnessing it.

"Why are you excluding the press from observing this?" I asked.

"Because this is a frozen zone. It's a police action going on. You could be injured."

His meaning was clear. I let myself be hustled across the street to the press pen.

"What's your name?"

His reply came as fast as he could turn away: "Watch your back."

Googling "frozen zone" yields references to Ground Zero on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, which was securely cordoned off due to terrorism concerns, not simply to keep the press from reporting on the police.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/journalists-detained-while-covering-occupy-wall-street-protests-in-manhattan/2011/11/15/gIQAUvb1ON_story.html

QuoteNEW YORK — Journalists at the overnight raid of Occupy Wall Street's New York encampment were kept at a distance from covering it Tuesday, and several were arrested, handcuffed and hauled onto police buses along with hundreds of protesters.

At least half a dozen journalists were among those arrested in and around Zuccotti Park and at other protest sites in downtown Manhattan, according to demonstrators and other journalists who photographed and filmed their peers being taken into custody.

Reporter Karen Matthews and photographer Seth Wenig of The Associated Press in New York were taken into custody along with about eight other people after they followed protesters through an opening in a chain-link fence into a park, according to an AP reporter and other witnesses. Matthew Lysiak of the Daily News of New York was also arrested at the park, according to witnesses and the Daily News.

Julie Walker, a freelance radio journalist, told the AP she was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge while walking several blocks north of Zuccotti Park after covering the raid that evicted protesters from the two-month encampment. She said an officer grabbed her arm twice and arrested her after she asked for the officer's name and badge number.

"I told them I'm a reporter," said Walker, who was working for National Public Radio. "I had my recorder on before he ripped it out of my hand."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 15, 2011, 06:41:25 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 15, 2011, 03:10:01 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 01:07:16 AM
Justice Kennedy to the white courtesy telephone...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/supreme-court-to-hear-case-challenging-health-law.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obama's signature legislative achievement, setting the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June as the 2012 presidential campaign enters its crucial final months.

...

The court scheduled five and a half hours of arguments instead of the usual one, a testament to the importance of the case, and the court's ruling a few months later will present opportunities and challenges for the presidential contenders as well as for candidates in the battle for control of Congress.

...

The justices will hear two hours of argument on whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority, 90 minutes on whether the mandate may be severed from the balance of the law if Congress did go too far, and an hour each on the Medicaid and Anti-Injunction Act questions.

In all, the Supreme Court agreed to hear three appeals, two from challengers to the law and a third from the Obama administration.

Timing-wise, this could turn into a regular electoral clusterfuck.

And Gilboners will become hard to avoid.

It's already turgid. However, Kennedy won't be the one to watch; it'll be Scalia.  Read his opinion in Gonzales v. Raich regarding the regulation of commerce jurisdiction in purely intrastate affairs.

Are we talking about the same Scalia (http://www.britishmusclebear.com)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2011, 12:20:18 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/journalists-allege-censorship-and-violent-treatment-during-occupy-wall-street-eviction/

QuoteA number of journalists have alleged that the NYPD, seemingly on orders, violently tried to keep them from covering the event. No matter what you may have felt about the protesters or the camp itself, there's something very unsettling about the idea that the police didn't want the nation to see what happened last night in that park.

Police set up a barricade and kept journalists at a distance. Press badges apparently meant nothing. A rumor developed that the air space above the park had been suspended to keep news helicopters from getting any footage. This rumor was later confirmed by the CBS news desk (http://twitter.com/#!/AntDeRosa/status/136346122363994112).

But all of this is nothing compared to the allegations of violence against journalists simply trying to cover the action. A number of journalists have claimed to have been hassled and attacked by the police. During his fascinating live tweet of the action, the New York Times' Brian Stelter quoted a New York Post reporter as saying he was "roughed up." (http://twitter.com/#!/brianstelter/status/136406109043957761) Several journalists were arrested, including some from the New York Times and NPR. Twitter is full of stories of reporters being hounded, barricaded, and impeded. When one protester was injured and being wheeled away on a stretcher, a large amount of riot police made sure no one in the press could capture the moment (http://twitter.com/#!/Newyorkist/status/136371696474132480).

During the night, as reporters struggled to do their jobs, many created a Twitter hashtag, "#mediablackout," to collect the stories. The Huffington Post has a collection (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/occupy-wall-street-raid-journalists-arrested_n_1094564.html#s474023&title=Brian_Stelter) of some of the most damning accounts.

Sorry, New York Post... This is a frozen zone.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 16, 2011, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2011, 12:20:18 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/journalists-allege-censorship-and-violent-treatment-during-occupy-wall-street-eviction/

QuoteA number of journalists have alleged that the NYPD, seemingly on orders, violently tried to keep them from covering the event. No matter what you may have felt about the protesters or the camp itself, there's something very unsettling about the idea that the police didn't want the nation to see what happened last night in that park.

Police set up a barricade and kept journalists at a distance. Press badges apparently meant nothing. A rumor developed that the air space above the park had been suspended to keep news helicopters from getting any footage. This rumor was later confirmed by the CBS news desk (http://twitter.com/#!/AntDeRosa/status/136346122363994112).

But all of this is nothing compared to the allegations of violence against journalists simply trying to cover the action. A number of journalists have claimed to have been hassled and attacked by the police. During his fascinating live tweet of the action, the New York Times' Brian Stelter quoted a New York Post reporter as saying he was "roughed up." (http://twitter.com/#!/brianstelter/status/136406109043957761) Several journalists were arrested, including some from the New York Times and NPR. Twitter is full of stories of reporters being hounded, barricaded, and impeded. When one protester was injured and being wheeled away on a stretcher, a large amount of riot police made sure no one in the press could capture the moment (http://twitter.com/#!/Newyorkist/status/136371696474132480).

During the night, as reporters struggled to do their jobs, many created a Twitter hashtag, "#mediablackout," to collect the stories. The Huffington Post has a collection (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/occupy-wall-street-raid-journalists-arrested_n_1094564.html#s474023&title=Brian_Stelter) of some of the most damning accounts.

Sorry, New York Post... This is a frozen zone.

A billionaire Republican* Mayor giving the go order on Occupiers' heads getting cracked - Christmas came early for Obama.

*Sure, he only became a Republican for an easy run through the primary in 2001, but that's not how the narrative will play out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 16, 2011, 01:27:36 PM
In case you've forgotten, we are all still proud owners of GM. (http://www.detnews.com/article/20111114/AUTO01/111140434/1361/U.S.-boosts-estimate-of-auto-bailout-losses-to-$23.6B)

And Shittygroup, but that's another story.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 16, 2011, 03:04:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
Googling "frozen zone" yields references to Ground Zero on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, which was securely cordoned off due to terrorism concerns, not simply to keep the press from reporting on the police.

Hasn't Springsteen already covered this ground?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 17, 2011, 07:50:41 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 16, 2011, 03:04:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 04:36:57 PM
Googling "frozen zone" yields references to Ground Zero on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, which was securely cordoned off due to terrorism concerns, not simply to keep the press from reporting on the police.

Hasn't Springsteen already covered this ground?

That is, after all, where they expect it least.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 17, 2011, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2011, 11:31:49 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2011, 01:47:57 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 25, 2011, 01:43:34 PM
Quote from: BBM on October 25, 2011, 01:24:57 PM
Add a new name to the awesome political ad hall of fame.

This year's nominee for the Dale Peterson award is Mark Block

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM&

That can't be real... can it?

Sorry, it is.

Then again... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45171907#45171907)

No... But seriously:

(http://i.imgur.com/Il45S.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 18, 2011, 11:57:22 PM
Why this photo was selected by Wired for a story about the SCADA attack at the Curran-Gardner Township Public Water District, I don't know, but it cries out for something. Maybe a few.

(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/10/INL_idaho_page.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 19, 2011, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 15, 2011, 03:10:01 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2011, 01:07:16 AM
Justice Kennedy to the white courtesy telephone...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/us/supreme-court-to-hear-case-challenging-health-law.html

QuoteWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obama's signature legislative achievement, setting the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June as the 2012 presidential campaign enters its crucial final months.

...

The court scheduled five and a half hours of arguments instead of the usual one, a testament to the importance of the case, and the court's ruling a few months later will present opportunities and challenges for the presidential contenders as well as for candidates in the battle for control of Congress.

...

The justices will hear two hours of argument on whether Congress overstepped its constitutional authority, 90 minutes on whether the mandate may be severed from the balance of the law if Congress did go too far, and an hour each on the Medicaid and Anti-Injunction Act questions.

In all, the Supreme Court agreed to hear three appeals, two from challengers to the law and a third from the Obama administration.

Timing-wise, this could turn into a regular electoral clusterfuck.

And Gilboners will become hard to avoid.

It's already turgid. However, Kennedy won't be the one to watch; it'll be Scalia.  Read his opinion in Gonzales v. Raich regarding the regulation of commerce jurisdiction in purely intrastate affairs.

over dinner (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-scalia-thomas-20111114,0,7978224.story?track=lat-pick), perhaps?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 19, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
Holy shit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/11/18/police-defend-use-of-force-on-occupy-uc-davis/

QuoteUC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said officers used force out of concern for their own safety after they were surrounded by students.

"If you look at the video you are going to see that there were 200 people in that quad," said Chief Spicuzza. "Hindsight is 20-20 and based on the situation we were sitting in, ultimately that was the decision that was made."

Hindsight is 20-20, man.

http://www.davisenterprise.com/media-post/ucd-police-remove-occupy-uc-davis-tents/attachment/occupyucd3/

QuoteUC Davis Police Lt. John Pike uses pepper spray to move Occupy UC Davis protesters who were blocking officers' attempts to remove arrested protesters from the Quad on Friday afternoon.

(http://i.imgur.com/IfRvl.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/T5sPU.jpg)

Asshole Cop is such an asshole.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 19, 2011, 08:50:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 19, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/IfRvl.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/T5sPU.jpg)

Asshole Cop is such an asshole.

He seems Unbound.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 20, 2011, 11:15:59 AM
It's Biden's 69th birthday. Where the hell's the Onion on this?

(http://i.imgur.com/efXOK.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 20, 2011, 12:43:19 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/18/occupy-oakland-police-beating-veteran

QuoteVideo footage has emerged of a police officer beating an Iraq war veteran so hard that he suffered a ruptured spleen in an apparently unprovoked incident at a recent Occupy protest in California.

The footage, which has been shared with the Guardian, shows Kayvan Sabehgi standing in front of a police line on the night of Occupy Oakland's general strike on 2 November, when he is set upon by an officer.

He does not appear to be posing any threat, nor does he attempt to resist, yet he is hit numerous times by an officer clad in riot gear who appears determined to beat him to the ground.

Sabehgi, 32, an Oakland resident and former marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, has since undergone surgery on his spleen. He says it took hours for him to be taken to hospital, despite complaining of severe pain. Police have told the Guardian they are investigating the incident.

The footage was recorded by artist and photographer Neil Rivas, who said Sabehgi was "completely peaceful" before he was beaten. "It was uncalled for," said Rivas. "There were no curse words. He was telling them he was a war vet, a resident of Oakland, a business owner."

Sabehgi has previously said he was talking to officers in a non-violent manner prior to his arrest, which the footage appears to confirm.

The 32-year-old can be seen standing in front of a line of police officers, all of whom are in riot gear. The officers walk forward, chanting and thrusting their batons, and Sabehgi starts to walk backwards.

Although the video is dark, an officer can clearly be seen beginning to hit Sabehgi around the legs with a baton, then starting to strike him higher up.

Sabehgi then appears to be bundled to the ground. He was later arrested.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 20, 2011, 07:32:15 PM
Stock response on line 2. (http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10908568-video-proves-us-army-vet-lied-about-provoking-oakland-cops")
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 20, 2011, 07:53:19 PM
(Suspicion of resisting arrest (http://"http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSVrZ7owWr2aO7Mx970yR_x-ZG8g?docId=3632ed10c94c47f9ab57fa8f802ff8b4") is even better than simple "suspicion," though, if you ask me.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 21, 2011, 12:04:56 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 19, 2011, 08:50:35 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 19, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/IfRvl.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/T5sPU.jpg)

Asshole Cop is such an asshole.

He seems Unbound.

This being the Internet, and all... it's meme time.
(http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/379614_139575146149366_121408401299374_191755_1571342772_n.jpg)

(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/380431_10150394611429091_577414090_8854717_513826914_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 21, 2011, 12:48:02 PM

Needs something big.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 21, 2011, 12:50:54 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 21, 2011, 12:48:02 PM
Needs something big.

TIME TO POST!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 21, 2011, 12:55:07 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/WwlqJ.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/mB6eZ.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/6MYt6.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: fiveouts on November 21, 2011, 03:52:38 PM
No mention of the fact that Newt thinks child labor laws are stupid (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/newt-gingrich-thinks-school-children-should-work-as-janitors/248837/)?

I'm convinced that none of the candidates on the GOP side (aside from Romney) want anything more than a fat deal from Fox News after the campaign.

"Wait, I'm leading now? What crazy shit can I say to fix that?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:44:20 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)

Spectacular!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 21, 2011, 05:05:43 PM
I think the Guernica one is my favorite of the bunch.

(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv04ehqiMa1r6m1z5o1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 21, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)

That's some mighty fine work.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 21, 2011, 06:09:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 21, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)

That's some mighty fine work.

Why Kurt gave Morts his password remains a mystery.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 21, 2011, 06:39:24 PM
(http://imgur.com/3oTMY.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 06:58:16 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 21, 2011, 06:39:24 PM
(http://www.b3tards.com/u/fee710961d4713ec0afb/idontunderstandthis.jpg)

(http://www.clipartguide.com/_small/1386-0901-1123-4422.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 21, 2011, 07:05:38 PM
I thought it was well in keeping with the aesthetic.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 21, 2011, 08:19:53 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 21, 2011, 06:39:24 PM
(http://imgur.com/3oTMY.jpg)

[golf clap]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 21, 2011, 09:55:10 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)

Ok, that's excellent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 22, 2011, 07:49:18 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)

Holy shit, I totally get this Kurt Evans photoshop.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 10:00:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 21, 2011, 06:09:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 21, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)

That's some mighty fine work.

Why Kurt gave Morts his password remains a mystery.

Bite your tongue.

(http://i.imgur.com/DKFyd.jpg)

Now... if I were so inclined as to take this project on...

(http://i.imgur.com/Cuuet.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 22, 2011, 10:03:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 10:00:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 21, 2011, 06:09:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 21, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)

That's some mighty fine work.

Why Kurt gave Morts his password remains a mystery.

Bite your tongue.

(http://i.imgur.com/DKFyd.jpg)

Now... if I were so inclined as to take this project on...

(http://i.imgur.com/Cuuet.jpg)

IN. SPIRED.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 11:30:59 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/1E3Vl.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 22, 2011, 11:55:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 11:30:59 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/1E3Vl.jpg)

*spit take*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 22, 2011, 11:55:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 11:30:59 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/1E3Vl.jpg)

*spit take*

There's always room for improvement.

(http://i.imgur.com/NG0FR.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 22, 2011, 02:15:03 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: PANK! on November 22, 2011, 11:55:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 11:30:59 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/1E3Vl.jpg)

*spit take*

There's always room for improvement.

(http://i.imgur.com/NG0FR.jpg)

Not always, as this current pic cannot be improved any more.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 22, 2011, 02:29:42 PM

Turns out, it was just a food fight (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/occupy-wall-street-pepper-spray-fox-news-264982).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 22, 2011, 02:31:26 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 22, 2011, 02:29:42 PM

Turns out, it was just a food fight (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/occupy-wall-street-pepper-spray-fox-news-264982).

Note to protesters: You gotta sell it!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 22, 2011, 02:31:48 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 22, 2011, 02:29:42 PM

Turns out, it was just a food fight (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/occupy-wall-street-pepper-spray-fox-news-264982).

(http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/files/2011/11/chilitemp-213x300.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 22, 2011, 02:29:42 PM

Turns out, it was just a food fight (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/occupy-wall-street-pepper-spray-fox-news-264982).

I'm sorry, but no Megyn Kelly link should ever be posted without *relevant* pics.

(http://www.gq.com/images/women/2010/12/megyn-kelly/megyn-kelly-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on November 22, 2011, 03:47:31 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 22, 2011, 10:00:46 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 21, 2011, 06:09:46 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 21, 2011, 06:07:11 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 21, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 21, 2011, 04:02:59 PM
That cop is as iconic as the "get a Brain, Morans" guy.  Can't we get the two of them together?  Or bring the "Get a brain" guy to an "Occupy" demonstration?

(http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/KJSEvans/moranscop.jpg)

That's some mighty fine work.

Why Kurt gave Morts his password remains a mystery.

Bite your tongue.

(http://i.imgur.com/DKFyd.jpg)

Now... if I were so inclined as to take this project on...

(http://i.imgur.com/Cuuet.jpg)

(http://www.makingmoneyontheinternetfree.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/loser.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 23, 2011, 09:10:14 AM
Kurt's right.  I am a loser for not noticing the arm in the foreground.

(http://i.imgur.com/rujar.jpg)

What was I thinking?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on November 23, 2011, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 23, 2011, 09:10:14 AM
Kurt's right.  I am a loser for not noticing the arm in the foreground.

(http://i.imgur.com/rujar.jpg)

What was I thinking?

Naw, Morph. You're a loser for obsessively dissecting a photoshop. It'd be like a retainer-wearing geek popping by to meticulously correct people on their grammar. That'd be bad enough, but you actually spent the time to "fix" mine and then make it better.*  It's eyes-rollingly lame.  

(*no contest that yours is better/funnier, but that doesn't make it any less lame that you did it)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 23, 2011, 10:58:53 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 23, 2011, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 23, 2011, 09:10:14 AM
Kurt's right.  I am a loser for not noticing the arm in the foreground.

(http://i.imgur.com/rujar.jpg)

What was I thinking?

Naw, Morph. You're a loser for obsessively dissecting a photoshop. It'd be like a retainer-wearing geek popping by to meticulously correct people on their grammar. That'd be bad enough, but you actually spent the time to "fix" mine and then make it better.*  It's eyes-rollingly lame.  

(*no contest that yours is better/funnier, but that doesn't make it any less lame that you did it)

That fact that you're all asshurt about it makes it even more awesome than I imagined when I saw it, spit out my salad laughing at it and shared it on Facebook. And I thought that was impossible. There I go thinking again.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on November 23, 2011, 11:18:38 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 23, 2011, 10:58:53 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on November 23, 2011, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 23, 2011, 09:10:14 AM
Kurt's right.  I am a loser for not noticing the arm in the foreground.

(http://i.imgur.com/rujar.jpg)

What was I thinking?

Naw, Morph. You're a loser for obsessively dissecting a photoshop. It'd be like a retainer-wearing geek popping by to meticulously correct people on their grammar. That'd be bad enough, but you actually spent the time to "fix" mine and then make it better.*  It's eyes-rollingly lame.  

(*no contest that yours is better/funnier, but that doesn't make it any less lame that you did it)

That fact that you're all asshurt about it makes it even more awesome than I imagined when I saw it, spit out my salad laughing at it and shared it on Facebook. And I thought that was impossible. There I go thinking again.

Sorry about that.  :(
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 23, 2011, 11:44:58 AM
Mitt Romney endorses Barack Obama for president. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR4uMW84GkY&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 24, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.

To be fair, the front-runners are changing on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.

To be fair, the front-runners are changing on a daily basis.

I think Wheezer was going for more of a "fucking statistics, how do they work?" thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 25, 2011, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.

To be fair, the front-runners are changing on a daily basis.

I think Wheezer was going for more of a "fucking statistics, how do they work?" thing.

Shit, that's easy. A small sample size from New Jersey is indicative of America as a whole.

We are all Snooki.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 25, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2011, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.

To be fair, the front-runners are changing on a daily basis.

I think Wheezer was going for more of a "fucking statistics, how do they work?" thing.

Shit, that's easy. A small sample size from New Jersey is indicative of America as a whole.

We are all Snooki.

Hmmmm. I feel like you're still probably missing the point.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 25, 2011, 05:48:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 25, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2011, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.

To be fair, the front-runners are changing on a daily basis.

I think Wheezer was going for more of a "fucking statistics, how do they work?" thing.

Shit, that's easy. A small sample size from New Jersey is indicative of America as a whole.

We are all Snooki.

Hmmmm. I feel like you're still probably missing the point.

You mean I'm the only one that's Snooki around here? Shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on November 25, 2011, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2011, 05:48:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 25, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2011, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.

To be fair, the front-runners are changing on a daily basis.

I think Wheezer was going for more of a "fucking statistics, how do they work?" thing.

Shit, that's easy. A small sample size from New Jersey is indicative of America as a whole.

We are all Snooki.

Hmmmm. I feel like you're still probably missing the point.

You mean I'm the only one that's Snooki around here? Shit.

Getting colder. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nj%20population%20/%20us%20population)

Edit: To be even clearer. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28nj+population+%2F+us+population%29+%2F+.002%25) That said, a NJ which accounts for only .002% of the population is obviously a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 25, 2011, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 25, 2011, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2011, 05:48:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 25, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2011, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.

To be fair, the front-runners are changing on a daily basis.

I think Wheezer was going for more of a "fucking statistics, how do they work?" thing.

Shit, that's easy. A small sample size from New Jersey is indicative of America as a whole.

We are all Snooki.

Hmmmm. I feel like you're still probably missing the point.

You mean I'm the only one that's Snooki around here? Shit.

Getting colder. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nj%20population%20/%20us%20population)

Edit: To be even clearer. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28nj+population+%2F+us+population%29+%2F+.002%25) That said, a NJ which accounts for only .002% of the population is obviously a step in the right direction.

That simply innumeracy is one problem with it.

Another issue, though, is the ignorance underlying the notion that a survey is automatically unrepresentative simply because they only talked to several hundred people in a nation of OVER 300 MILLION!

That's like... nothing percent! LOL.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 26, 2011, 09:49:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 25, 2011, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on November 25, 2011, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2011, 05:48:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 25, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 25, 2011, 07:14:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 24, 2011, 09:25:05 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 24, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on November 23, 2011, 11:20:04 PM
Now, this is impressive (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/).

QuoteAnd, more importantly, they ignore at their peril the questionable academic work that went into this study, and the questionable language used by the professors that may be a red flag as to how much they are exaggerating the importance of their work. Take, for example, Professor Dan Cassino calling the finding"that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing." Yes, that would be embarrassing for the American public– if half of 612 people in New Jersey, a state that represents about 0.002% of the American public, were representative of them.

To be fair, the front-runners are changing on a daily basis.

I think Wheezer was going for more of a "fucking statistics, how do they work?" thing.

Shit, that's easy. A small sample size from New Jersey is indicative of America as a whole.

We are all Snooki.

Hmmmm. I feel like you're still probably missing the point.

You mean I'm the only one that's Snooki around here? Shit.

Getting colder. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nj%20population%20/%20us%20population)

Edit: To be even clearer. (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28nj+population+%2F+us+population%29+%2F+.002%25) That said, a NJ which accounts for only .002% of the population is obviously a step in the right direction.

That simply innumeracy is one problem with it.

Another issue, though, is the ignorance underlying the notion that a survey is automatically unrepresentative simply because they only talked to several hundred people in a nation of OVER 300 MILLION!

That's like... nothing percent! LOL.

Moreover, nobody ever asserted that "the public" being referred to was anything more general than the population being sampled. A sample of 617 from the adult population of New Jersey is certainly in the correct ballpark for a 3.5% margin of error and 95% confidence level.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on November 29, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Wow.  Herman Cain's lawyer:

"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

I guess this lawyer never read the Starr Report.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 29, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 29, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Wow.  Herman Cain's lawyer:

"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

I guess this lawyer never read the Starr Report.

That's your standard "Shit's waist deep and rising" statement.

Also: somethingsomethingCainpullingoutsomethingsomething
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 29, 2011, 10:52:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 29, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Wow.  Herman Cain's lawyer:

"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

I guess this lawyer never read the Starr Report.

That's your standard "Shit's waist deep and rising" statement.

Also: somethingsomethingCainpullingoutsomethingsomething

I'm just waiting for Herman Cain to call a press conference to say, "Fuck it. It's been fun but I'm going back to pizza where I can fuck all the hoes I want and no one gives a shit."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on November 29, 2011, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 29, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Wow.  Herman Cain's lawyer:

"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

I guess this lawyer never read the Starr Report.

Jerry Sandusky agrees.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 29, 2011, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 29, 2011, 10:52:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 29, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Wow.  Herman Cain's lawyer:

"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

I guess this lawyer never read the Starr Report.

That's your standard "Shit's waist deep and rising" statement.

Also: somethingsomethingCainpullingoutsomethingsomething

I'm just waiting for Herman Cain to call a press conference to say, "Fuck it. It's been fun but I'm going back to pizza where I can fuck all the hoes I want and no one gives a shit."

You might not have to wait very long (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/politics/cain-accusation-affair/index.html?hpt=hp_t2).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 29, 2011, 12:35:32 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 29, 2011, 10:52:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 29, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Wow.  Herman Cain's lawyer:

"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

I guess this lawyer never read the Starr Report.

That's your standard "Shit's waist deep and rising" statement.

Also: somethingsomethingCainpullingoutsomethingsomething

I'm just waiting for Herman Cain to call a press conference to say, "Fuck it. It's been fun but I'm going back to pizza where I can fuck all the hoes I want and no one gives a shit."

You might not have to wait very long (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/politics/cain-accusation-affair/index.html?hpt=hp_t2).

This is what you call an admission by failure to deny when a denial is called for. 
"He did not address White's assertion directly and said Cain "has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media.

"Some things are fair game and some aren't," Wood told CNN in a telephone interview, adding that this was one that was off-limits. "You've got to draw the line somewhere."

The guy is toast.  Enough already.  Now please don't go into Newt's private life until he wins the nomination.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 29, 2011, 01:51:52 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 29, 2011, 12:35:32 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 29, 2011, 10:52:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 29, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Wow.  Herman Cain's lawyer:

"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

I guess this lawyer never read the Starr Report.

That's your standard "Shit's waist deep and rising" statement.

Also: somethingsomethingCainpullingoutsomethingsomething

I'm just waiting for Herman Cain to call a press conference to say, "Fuck it. It's been fun but I'm going back to pizza where I can fuck all the hoes I want and no one gives a shit."

You might not have to wait very long (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/politics/cain-accusation-affair/index.html?hpt=hp_t2).

This is what you call an admission by failure to deny when a denial is called for. 
"He did not address White's assertion directly and said Cain "has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media.

"Some things are fair game and some aren't," Wood told CNN in a telephone interview, adding that this was one that was off-limits. "You've got to draw the line somewhere."

The guy is toast.  Enough already.  Now please don't go into Newt's private life until he wins the nomination.


Newt loves America*

*as long as America doesn't have cancer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 29, 2011, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 01:51:52 PM
Quote from: CBStew on November 29, 2011, 12:35:32 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 29, 2011, 10:52:40 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 29, 2011, 10:50:33 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 29, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
Wow.  Herman Cain's lawyer:

"No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

I guess this lawyer never read the Starr Report.

That's your standard "Shit's waist deep and rising" statement.

Also: somethingsomethingCainpullingoutsomethingsomething

I'm just waiting for Herman Cain to call a press conference to say, "Fuck it. It's been fun but I'm going back to pizza where I can fuck all the hoes I want and no one gives a shit."

You might not have to wait very long (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/politics/cain-accusation-affair/index.html?hpt=hp_t2).

This is what you call an admission by failure to deny when a denial is called for.  
"He did not address White's assertion directly and said Cain "has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media.

"Some things are fair game and some aren't," Wood told CNN in a telephone interview, adding that this was one that was off-limits. "You've got to draw the line somewhere."

The guy is toast.  Enough already.  Now please don't go into Newt's private life until he wins the nomination.


Newt loves America*

*as long Until as America doesn't have gets cancer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 04, 2011, 10:31:31 AM
This seems like a potentially big deal...

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-military-shoots-down-u-drone-state-tv-142804389.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on December 06, 2011, 12:56:20 AM
This seems like a potentially big deal...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-usa-campaign-romney-computers-idUSTRE7B500X20111206
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on December 06, 2011, 02:20:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on December 06, 2011, 12:56:20 AM
This seems like a potentially big deal...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-usa-campaign-romney-computers-idUSTRE7B500X20111206

$100k? That seems a bit extreme.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2011, 03:29:37 PM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-tsa-strip-searches-20111205,0,2669917,full.story

QuoteThree South Florida women, all elderly and with medical problems, say Transportation Security Administration officers made them take off their clothes during the screening process at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.

All three, one with a defibrillator, one with a colostomy bag and the other with diabetes, say they were forced to disrobe in a private room at the same terminal.

"This was outrageous," Lenore Zimmerman, 84, who winters in the Wynmoor Village condominium complex in Coconut Creek, said on Monday. "For some reason, they decided I look like a terrorist."

The TSA says no improper strip searches were conducted – in that none of the women were improperly touched – and all standard protocols were followed...

...

Zimmerman said prior to catching a JetBlue flight to Fort Lauderdale on Nov. 29, she asked TSA officers to bypass the body scanner machine because has a defibrillator. She also requires a wheelchair while traveling.

She said she was taken to a private room and asked to take off her pants and underwear. She said officers wanted to see a back brace she needs to wear after recent spinal surgery.

"They didn't touch me, but they told me to pull my pants down," said Zimmerman, a widow, adding she felt humiliated. "My blood pressure after the incident was 189 over 90, and it shouldn't be that high."

She said she missed her 1 p.m. flight but caught one two and half hours later.

...

Linda Kallish, 66, of Boynton Beach, was scheduled to be on the same flight as Zimmerman. Because she is diabetic, she has a glucose monitor that checks her blood sugar every five minutes strapped to one leg and an insulin pump strapped on the other.

After she set off the metal detector, a female TSA officer ordered her into a private room and told her to take her pants off, Kallish said. She said the officer didn't touch her.

"So I took my pants off and showed it to her," Kallish said. "She just looked at it and said, 'Have a nice trip.'"

...

In a third case, Ruth Sherman, 88, of Sunrise, was returning home from New York on Nov. 29, when TSA officers noticed the bulge from her colostomy bag, accord to CBS News.

"This is private for me. It's bad enough that I have it. I had to pull it from my sweat pants and I had to pull my underwear down," she told a correspondent for WCBS, a New York television station. "You don't do that to anybody. I felt like I was invaded."

...

TSA officials noted whenever a person opts out of the body scanner, secondary screenings, including pat-downs, are conducted "in a manner that treats all passengers with dignity, respect and courtesy."

Intrepid Reader: PenFoe

"If these people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about. So drop your drawers, you old bag!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on December 06, 2011, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2011, 03:29:37 PM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-tsa-strip-searches-20111205,0,2669917,full.story

QuoteThree South Florida women, all elderly and with medical problems, say Transportation Security Administration officers made them take off their clothes during the screening process at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.

All three, one with a defibrillator, one with a colostomy bag and the other with diabetes, say they were forced to disrobe in a private room at the same terminal.

"This was outrageous," Lenore Zimmerman, 84, who winters in the Wynmoor Village condominium complex in Coconut Creek, said on Monday. "For some reason, they decided I look like a terrorist."

The TSA says no improper strip searches were conducted – in that none of the women were improperly touched – and all standard protocols were followed...

...

Zimmerman said prior to catching a JetBlue flight to Fort Lauderdale on Nov. 29, she asked TSA officers to bypass the body scanner machine because has a defibrillator. She also requires a wheelchair while traveling.

She said she was taken to a private room and asked to take off her pants and underwear. She said officers wanted to see a back brace she needs to wear after recent spinal surgery.

"They didn't touch me, but they told me to pull my pants down," said Zimmerman, a widow, adding she felt humiliated. "My blood pressure after the incident was 189 over 90, and it shouldn't be that high."

She said she missed her 1 p.m. flight but caught one two and half hours later.

...

Linda Kallish, 66, of Boynton Beach, was scheduled to be on the same flight as Zimmerman. Because she is diabetic, she has a glucose monitor that checks her blood sugar every five minutes strapped to one leg and an insulin pump strapped on the other.

After she set off the metal detector, a female TSA officer ordered her into a private room and told her to take her pants off, Kallish said. She said the officer didn't touch her.

"So I took my pants off and showed it to her," Kallish said. "She just looked at it and said, 'Have a nice trip.'"

...

In a third case, Ruth Sherman, 88, of Sunrise, was returning home from New York on Nov. 29, when TSA officers noticed the bulge from her colostomy bag, accord to CBS News.

"This is private for me. It's bad enough that I have it. I had to pull it from my sweat pants and I had to pull my underwear down," she told a correspondent for WCBS, a New York television station. "You don't do that to anybody. I felt like I was invaded."

...

TSA officials noted whenever a person opts out of the body scanner, secondary screenings, including pat-downs, are conducted "in a manner that treats all passengers with dignity, respect and courtesy."

Intrepid Reader: PenFoe

"If these people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about. So drop your drawers, you old bag!"

Hey Strawprude...there's a difference between walking through a body scanner machine and having to disrobe in a private room in front of someone.
I still don't care personally, but I recognize the difference.   

That said, let's go case-by-case for a second here.

The first case involves a woman who couldn't go through the body scanner and couldn't (presumably?) go through the metal detector because she was in a wheelchair. 
What would you have them do here? Pat down? Would that be better?

The second case involves a woman who set off the metal detector with a foreign device. In order to get a better look at it, they asked her into a private room to inspect further and immediately let her go. 

The third case doesn't sound like it involves any issues going through a scanner or metal detector, not sure why that wasn't an option, but they saw something unfamiliar and wanted to get a quick peek at it.  This one sounds a little fishy, unless there were no body scanners available or she refused to use one.

If you're against profiling (which I assume you are), and there's probably not a tremendous government surplus available for improving recruiting, hiring and training of TSA reps, then what's left? 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2011, 03:53:48 PM
Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2011, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2011, 03:29:37 PM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-tsa-strip-searches-20111205,0,2669917,full.story

QuoteThree South Florida women, all elderly and with medical problems, say Transportation Security Administration officers made them take off their clothes during the screening process at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.

All three, one with a defibrillator, one with a colostomy bag and the other with diabetes, say they were forced to disrobe in a private room at the same terminal.

"This was outrageous," Lenore Zimmerman, 84, who winters in the Wynmoor Village condominium complex in Coconut Creek, said on Monday. "For some reason, they decided I look like a terrorist."

The TSA says no improper strip searches were conducted – in that none of the women were improperly touched – and all standard protocols were followed...

...

Zimmerman said prior to catching a JetBlue flight to Fort Lauderdale on Nov. 29, she asked TSA officers to bypass the body scanner machine because has a defibrillator. She also requires a wheelchair while traveling.

She said she was taken to a private room and asked to take off her pants and underwear. She said officers wanted to see a back brace she needs to wear after recent spinal surgery.

"They didn't touch me, but they told me to pull my pants down," said Zimmerman, a widow, adding she felt humiliated. "My blood pressure after the incident was 189 over 90, and it shouldn't be that high."

She said she missed her 1 p.m. flight but caught one two and half hours later.

...

Linda Kallish, 66, of Boynton Beach, was scheduled to be on the same flight as Zimmerman. Because she is diabetic, she has a glucose monitor that checks her blood sugar every five minutes strapped to one leg and an insulin pump strapped on the other.

After she set off the metal detector, a female TSA officer ordered her into a private room and told her to take her pants off, Kallish said. She said the officer didn't touch her.

"So I took my pants off and showed it to her," Kallish said. "She just looked at it and said, 'Have a nice trip.'"

...

In a third case, Ruth Sherman, 88, of Sunrise, was returning home from New York on Nov. 29, when TSA officers noticed the bulge from her colostomy bag, accord to CBS News.

"This is private for me. It's bad enough that I have it. I had to pull it from my sweat pants and I had to pull my underwear down," she told a correspondent for WCBS, a New York television station. "You don't do that to anybody. I felt like I was invaded."

...

TSA officials noted whenever a person opts out of the body scanner, secondary screenings, including pat-downs, are conducted "in a manner that treats all passengers with dignity, respect and courtesy."

Intrepid Reader: PenFoe

"If these people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about. So drop your drawers, you old bag!"

Hey Strawprude...there's a difference between walking through a body scanner machine and having to disrobe in a private room in front of someone.
I still don't care personally, but I recognize the difference.   

That said, let's go case-by-case for a second here.

The first case involves a woman who couldn't go through the body scanner and couldn't (presumably?) go through the metal detector because she was in a wheelchair. 
What would you have them do here? Pat down? Would that be better?

The second case involves a woman who set off the metal detector with a foreign device. In order to get a better look at it, they asked her into a private room to inspect further and immediately let her go. 

The third case doesn't sound like it involves any issues going through a scanner or metal detector, not sure why that wasn't an option, but they saw something unfamiliar and wanted to get a quick peek at it.  This one sounds a little fishy, unless there were no body scanners available or she refused to use one.

If you're against profiling (which I assume you are), and there's probably not a tremendous government surplus available for improving recruiting, hiring and training of TSA reps, then what's left? 

You're right.

Ineffective security theater that makes us feel safer by asking elderly women to drop their pants is the only option if we want to perpetuate that illusion that we're doing something—anything—about the terrorists.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on December 06, 2011, 04:02:13 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2011, 03:53:48 PM
Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2011, 03:46:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2011, 03:29:37 PM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fl-tsa-strip-searches-20111205,0,2669917,full.story

QuoteThree South Florida women, all elderly and with medical problems, say Transportation Security Administration officers made them take off their clothes during the screening process at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport last week.

All three, one with a defibrillator, one with a colostomy bag and the other with diabetes, say they were forced to disrobe in a private room at the same terminal.

"This was outrageous," Lenore Zimmerman, 84, who winters in the Wynmoor Village condominium complex in Coconut Creek, said on Monday. "For some reason, they decided I look like a terrorist."

The TSA says no improper strip searches were conducted – in that none of the women were improperly touched – and all standard protocols were followed...

...

Zimmerman said prior to catching a JetBlue flight to Fort Lauderdale on Nov. 29, she asked TSA officers to bypass the body scanner machine because has a defibrillator. She also requires a wheelchair while traveling.

She said she was taken to a private room and asked to take off her pants and underwear. She said officers wanted to see a back brace she needs to wear after recent spinal surgery.

"They didn't touch me, but they told me to pull my pants down," said Zimmerman, a widow, adding she felt humiliated. "My blood pressure after the incident was 189 over 90, and it shouldn't be that high."

She said she missed her 1 p.m. flight but caught one two and half hours later.

...

Linda Kallish, 66, of Boynton Beach, was scheduled to be on the same flight as Zimmerman. Because she is diabetic, she has a glucose monitor that checks her blood sugar every five minutes strapped to one leg and an insulin pump strapped on the other.

After she set off the metal detector, a female TSA officer ordered her into a private room and told her to take her pants off, Kallish said. She said the officer didn't touch her.

"So I took my pants off and showed it to her," Kallish said. "She just looked at it and said, 'Have a nice trip.'"

...

In a third case, Ruth Sherman, 88, of Sunrise, was returning home from New York on Nov. 29, when TSA officers noticed the bulge from her colostomy bag, accord to CBS News.

"This is private for me. It's bad enough that I have it. I had to pull it from my sweat pants and I had to pull my underwear down," she told a correspondent for WCBS, a New York television station. "You don't do that to anybody. I felt like I was invaded."

...

TSA officials noted whenever a person opts out of the body scanner, secondary screenings, including pat-downs, are conducted "in a manner that treats all passengers with dignity, respect and courtesy."

Intrepid Reader: PenFoe

"If these people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about. So drop your drawers, you old bag!"

Hey Strawprude...there's a difference between walking through a body scanner machine and having to disrobe in a private room in front of someone.
I still don't care personally, but I recognize the difference.   

That said, let's go case-by-case for a second here.

The first case involves a woman who couldn't go through the body scanner and couldn't (presumably?) go through the metal detector because she was in a wheelchair. 
What would you have them do here? Pat down? Would that be better?

The second case involves a woman who set off the metal detector with a foreign device. In order to get a better look at it, they asked her into a private room to inspect further and immediately let her go. 

The third case doesn't sound like it involves any issues going through a scanner or metal detector, not sure why that wasn't an option, but they saw something unfamiliar and wanted to get a quick peek at it.  This one sounds a little fishy, unless there were no body scanners available or she refused to use one.

If you're against profiling (which I assume you are), and there's probably not a tremendous government surplus available for improving recruiting, hiring and training of TSA reps, then what's left? 

You're right.

Ineffective security theater that makes us feel safer by asking elderly women to drop their pants is the only option if we want to perpetuate that illusion that we're doing something—anything—about the terrorists.

As I simultaneously argue this in the SBox...

How do you know that the security is ineffective?
Because they don't catch a lot of bombs?

If we're not going to profile, then what's a realistic alternative?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on December 06, 2011, 08:45:56 PM
Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2011, 04:02:13 PM
How do you know that the security is ineffective?

They just publicly demonstrated that wearing a bag of shit is a perfectly good way of introducing explosives onto a plane. Fuck, pair 'em up, put the detonator in the glucose meter, and you're good to go.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 08, 2011, 05:44:45 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Je1D5.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on December 13, 2011, 10:53:58 AM
NEWTMENTUM! (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/12/pajama-clad-gary-busey-endorses-newt-gingrich/46046/)

EDIT: this was funnier when it was Gary Busey clad in pink footie pajamas.  It turns out that someone else at the event was the one in the pajamas.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on December 14, 2011, 10:15:11 AM
"That's one of the things that I like about (Mitt Romney) — because he's been consistent since he changed his mind," - Christine O'Donnell
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on December 20, 2011, 09:24:30 AM
Seriously, Barney? (http://perezhilton.com/2011-12-20-barney-frank-nipple-slip#.TvCoaPJki30)

(could also have gone in the DDD thread)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on December 20, 2011, 11:30:11 AM
Quote from: morpheus on December 20, 2011, 09:24:30 AM
Seriously, Barney? (http://perezhilton.com/2011-12-20-barney-frank-nipple-slip#.TvCoaPJki30)

(could also have gone in the DDD thread)

(||)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 21, 2011, 10:27:25 AM
When you need to write (and really feel your writing), you turn to a typewriter; when the corporate world gets you down, you become a farmer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/farming-young-people_n_1162575.html

(apologies for HuffPo)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 22, 2011, 04:27:05 PM
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=post;quote=248645;topic=7174.4500;num_replies=4509;sesc=fb2736a55dc7569eb7e312a6b4e731d3

Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2011, 04:02:13 PM
How do you know that the security is ineffective?
Because they don't catch a lot of bombs?

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/tsa-insanity-201112

QuoteHas the nation simply wasted a trillion dollars protecting itself against terror? Mostly, but perhaps not entirely. "Most of the time we assess risk through gut feelings," says Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon who is also the president of Decision Research, a nonprofit R&D organization. "We're not robots just looking at the numbers." Confronted with a risk, people ask questions: Is this a risk that I benefit from taking, as when I get in a car? Is it forced on me by someone else, as when I am exposed to radiation? Are the potential consequences catastrophic? Is the impact immediate and observable, or will I not know the consequences until much later, as with cancer? Such questions, Slovic says, "reflect values that are sometimes left out of the experts' calculations."

Security theater, from this perspective, is an attempt to convey a message: "We are doing everything possible to protect you." When 9/11 shattered the public's confidence in flying, Slovic says, the handful of anti-terror measures that actually work—hardening the cockpit door, positive baggage matching, more-effective intelligence—would not have addressed the public's dread, because the measures can't really be seen. Relying on them would have been the equivalent of saying, "Have confidence in Uncle Sam," when the problem was the very loss of confidence. So a certain amount of theater made sense. Over time, though, the value of the message changes. At first the policeman in the train station reassures you. Later, the uniform sends a message: train travel is dangerous. "The show gets less effective, and sometimes it becomes counterproductive."

Terrorists will try to hit the United States again, Schneier says. One has to assume this. Terrorists can so easily switch from target to target and weapon to weapon that focusing on preventing any one type of attack is foolish. Even if the T.S.A. were somehow to make airports impregnable, this would simply divert terrorists to other, less heavily defended targets—shopping malls, movie theaters, churches, stadiums, museums. The terrorist's goal isn't to attack an airplane specifically; it's to sow terror generally. "You spend billions of dollars on the airports and force the terrorists to spend an extra $30 on gas to drive to a hotel or casino and attack it," Schneier says. "Congratulations!"

What the government should be doing is focusing on the terrorists when they are planning their plots. "That's how the British caught the liquid bombers," Schneier says. "They never got anywhere near the plane. That's what you want—not catching them at the last minute as they try to board the flight."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 22, 2011, 05:39:41 PM
Heh...

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/12/gay_marriage_amy_koch_michael_brodkorb.php

QuoteThe gay and lesbian community of Minnesota has issued a letter of apology to recently resigned Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch for ruining the institution of marriage and causing her to stray from her husband and engage in an "inappropriate relationship."

"On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage," reads the letter from John Medeiros. "We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on December 29, 2011, 04:10:51 PM
Fuck liberals sometimes: http://www.thenation.com/article/165317/world-really-safer-without-soviet-union
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on December 29, 2011, 08:31:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 29, 2011, 04:10:51 PM
Fuck liberals sometimes: http://www.thenation.com/article/165317/world-really-safer-without-soviet-union

Today I learned that Mikhail Gorbachev is a "liberal."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on December 29, 2011, 09:55:25 PM
If there's anything more amusing than neo-Nazis crying MODS (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cache:http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php%3Ft=63682&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"), I'm hard-pressed to come up with it at the moment.

Quote from: David MilanoI thought you might say something like that after seeing what he posted. This bitch just trolls around the movement for info on what activists are doing so that he can throw a wrench into it. Why he does this, I don't know.

I reported his post to mods. Remains to be seen what they'll do.
__________________
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ (http://127.0.0.1)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on December 30, 2011, 07:26:54 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 29, 2011, 04:10:51 PM
Fuck liberals sometimes:

Nixon-style?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on December 30, 2011, 10:04:03 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on December 29, 2011, 09:55:25 PM
If there's anything more amusing than neo-Nazis crying MODS (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cache:http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php%3Ft=63682&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"), I'm hard-pressed to come up with it at the moment.

Quote from: David MilanoI thought you might say something like that after seeing what he posted. This bitch just trolls around the movement for info on what activists are doing so that he can throw a wrench into it. Why he does this, I don't know.

I reported his post to mods. Remains to be seen what they'll do.
__________________
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ (http://127.0.0.1)

These Nazis use Yiddish to communicate with one another?  Oy vey!

"This thread should be featured in the "Chutzpah" subforum. The "commander" is in the top rank of Liars' Clubs everywhere, just below Harold "Big Lie" Covington. It takes full blown chutzpah for such a world class prevaricator to call a man like Ron Paul a liar."

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on January 03, 2012, 09:48:39 AM
I think we need a new clusterfuck for 2012.

Something something 2012 Politics Clusterfuck: Spreading the santorum around something something.

Prediction for Iowa this evening:

1. Paul
2. Romney
3. Santorum
4. Perry
5. Newt
6. Bachmann
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on January 29, 2012, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

Peoria class:

(http://i.imgur.com/YUzNc.jpg)

QuotePEORIA, AZ - A picture that shows several teens, a few of them carrying guns, displaying a bullet-riddled Obama T-shirt has led the U.S. Secret Service to investigate.

The Peoria Police Department is also doing its own investigation since the person who took the photograph is a Sergeant for the department.

"I don't think that the shooting of that T-shirt is that big of a deal," said Sgt. Pat Shearer, who snapped the photo.

"It was more of a political statement," he told ABC15.

Excellent work, you dumb crackers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on January 30, 2012, 10:55:31 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 29, 2012, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: PenPho on September 02, 2010, 12:44:53 PM
Can we get a moratorium on Arizona politics?

Sigh.

Peoria class:

(http://i.imgur.com/YUzNc.jpg)

QuotePEORIA, AZ - A picture that shows several teens, a few of them carrying guns, displaying a bullet-riddled Obama T-shirt has led the U.S. Secret Service to investigate.

The Peoria Police Department is also doing its own investigation since the person who took the photograph is a Sergeant for the department.

"I don't think that the shooting of that T-shirt is that big of a deal," said Sgt. Pat Shearer, who snapped the photo.

"It was more of a political statement," he told ABC15.

Excellent work, you dumb crackers.

They should have cut the t-shirt into strips.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 09, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/fCIx1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on February 09, 2012, 06:40:42 PM
Procrastinating and bad at Photoshop =

(http://oi39.tinypic.com/orifd0.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on February 09, 2012, 09:21:06 PM
I laughed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on February 09, 2012, 09:26:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 09, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/fCIx1.jpg)

It's funny because Obama doesn't have the power to levitate nor to rain money.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 09, 2012, 10:08:08 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 09, 2012, 09:26:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 09, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/fCIx1.jpg)

It's funny because Obama doesn't have the power to levitate nor to rain money.

Also: rooster.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 09, 2012, 10:33:09 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 09, 2012, 10:08:08 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 09, 2012, 09:26:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 09, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/fCIx1.jpg)

It's funny because Obama doesn't have the power to levitate nor to rain money.

Also: rooster.

How did that guy from Raising Hope get a hacksaw?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 09, 2012, 11:29:06 PM
I presume the endless possibilities haven't gone unnoticed.

(http://i.imgur.com/zCXwJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 10, 2012, 01:14:55 AM
I'll also note that the lighting model behind the original seems incoherent, and that's not a pun. What is supposed to be illuminating white-blouse heels-and-chain reporter in the front row? (The one with the hairy/leprous right leg.) The two behind her have the other side in shadow.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
A new Breitbart video just dropped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on February 11, 2012, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
A new Breitbart video just dropped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

Anyone who engages the Occupiers is merely sharing in their idiocy.  They deserve each other. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2012, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
A new Breitbart video just dropped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

Anyone who engages the Occupiers is merely sharing in their idiocy.  They deserve each other. 

How sensibly moderate of you, Huey.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 12, 2012, 03:41:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/zxeOD.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 12, 2012, 10:01:32 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 12, 2012, 03:41:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/zxeOD.jpg)

Saganaki gone wrong?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 13, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 11:09:41 AM
Quote from: Dave B on March 17, 2009, 11:01:48 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 17, 2009, 10:12:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
Quote from: RV on March 17, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.

Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html)

u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley

Christ Almighty...

QuoteU won't bleve this but just got intrvud by Joe Morton of Omaha World Herald abt why I TWEET. Only birds TWEET????? !!!!!!! Glad to xplain

it's simple: he's got a 17-year old chick working as an intern and she just text-abbreviates whatever he says.

If only that were true. I have a friend who's a speechwriter/spokesperson for Grassley; sadly, the Twittering is all Chuck.

http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/169202371312881667

Quote from: @ChuckGrassleyI now h v an iphone
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 14, 2012, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2012, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
A new Breitbart video just dropped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

Anyone who engages the Occupiers is merely sharing in their idiocy.  They deserve each other. 

How sensibly moderate of you, Huey.

What a bunch of useless hippies. (http://www.occupythesec.org/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC has submitted a 325 page letter to the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the OCC, to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Volcker Rule. In our comment letter, we answered 244 out of 395 questions asked by the Agencies.

Via Felix Salmon. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/14/occupys-amazing-volcker-rule-letter/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC is the wonky finreg arm of Occupy Wall Street, and its main authors are worth naming and celebrating: Akshat Tewary, Alexis Goldstein, Corley Miller, George Bailey, Caitlin Kline, Elizabeth Friedrich, and Eric Taylor.

Slacker George?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 14, 2012, 11:36:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 14, 2012, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2012, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
A new Breitbart video just dropped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

Anyone who engages the Occupiers is merely sharing in their idiocy.  They deserve each other. 

How sensibly moderate of you, Huey.

What a bunch of useless hippies. (http://www.occupythesec.org/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC has submitted a 325 page letter to the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the OCC, to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Volcker Rule. In our comment letter, we answered 244 out of 395 questions asked by the Agencies.

Via Felix Salmon. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/14/occupys-amazing-volcker-rule-letter/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC is the wonky finreg arm of Occupy Wall Street, and its main authors are worth naming and celebrating: Akshat Tewary, Alexis Goldstein, Corley Miller, George Bailey, Caitlin Kline, Elizabeth Friedrich, and Eric Taylor.

Slacker George?

Wow.  More than 100 pages before any mention of Fannie or Freddie... but at least they note that the GSEs did have a role in the crisis.  Progress.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 14, 2012, 12:09:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 14, 2012, 11:36:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 14, 2012, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2012, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
A new Breitbart video just dropped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

Anyone who engages the Occupiers is merely sharing in their idiocy.  They deserve each other. 

How sensibly moderate of you, Huey.

What a bunch of useless hippies. (http://www.occupythesec.org/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC has submitted a 325 page letter to the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the OCC, to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Volcker Rule. In our comment letter, we answered 244 out of 395 questions asked by the Agencies.

Via Felix Salmon. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/14/occupys-amazing-volcker-rule-letter/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC is the wonky finreg arm of Occupy Wall Street, and its main authors are worth naming and celebrating: Akshat Tewary, Alexis Goldstein, Corley Miller, George Bailey, Caitlin Kline, Elizabeth Friedrich, and Eric Taylor.

Slacker George?

Wow.  More than 100 pages before any mention of Fannie or Freddie... but at least they note that the GSEs did have a role in the crisis.  Progress.

QuoteAlthough securities issued by certain government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are exempted by Section 619, the Agencies should require a banking entity seeking to trade such securities to first file a transaction-specific application with the Federal Reserve to get pre-clearance based on an assessment of the risks involved in that transaction. High-risk mortgage purchases and guarantees by GSEs helped fuel the recent housing bubble and financial crisis.The GSEs played a pernicious role in the recent economic crisis, and securities issued by these entities should not be given the same preference that is afforded to U.S. Government Treasury bonds. In September 2008, the U.S. Treasury placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. Any securities issued by these enterprises have “"bailout”" written all over them.

What else were you hoping they would say about Fannie and Freddie vis a vis the Volcker Rule?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 14, 2012, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 14, 2012, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2012, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
A new Breitbart video just dropped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

Anyone who engages the Occupiers is merely sharing in their idiocy.  They deserve each other. 

How sensibly moderate of you, Huey.

What a bunch of useless hippies. (http://www.occupythesec.org/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC has submitted a 325 page letter to the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the OCC, to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Volcker Rule. In our comment letter, we answered 244 out of 395 questions asked by the Agencies.

Via Felix Salmon. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/14/occupys-amazing-volcker-rule-letter/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC is the wonky finreg arm of Occupy Wall Street, and its main authors are worth naming and celebrating: Akshat Tewary, Alexis Goldstein, Corley Miller, George Bailey, Caitlin Kline, Elizabeth Friedrich, and Eric Taylor.

Slacker George?

Why isn't Clarence on that list?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 14, 2012, 12:25:59 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 14, 2012, 12:09:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on February 14, 2012, 11:36:44 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 14, 2012, 11:22:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 11, 2012, 01:07:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 11, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
A new Breitbart video just dropped...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

Anyone who engages the Occupiers is merely sharing in their idiocy.  They deserve each other. 

How sensibly moderate of you, Huey.

What a bunch of useless hippies. (http://www.occupythesec.org/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC has submitted a 325 page letter to the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Reserve and the OCC, to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking for the Volcker Rule. In our comment letter, we answered 244 out of 395 questions asked by the Agencies.

Via Felix Salmon. (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/02/14/occupys-amazing-volcker-rule-letter/)

QuoteOccupy the SEC is the wonky finreg arm of Occupy Wall Street, and its main authors are worth naming and celebrating: Akshat Tewary, Alexis Goldstein, Corley Miller, George Bailey, Caitlin Kline, Elizabeth Friedrich, and Eric Taylor.

Slacker George?

Wow.  More than 100 pages before any mention of Fannie or Freddie... but at least they note that the GSEs did have a role in the crisis.  Progress.

QuoteAlthough securities issued by certain government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are exempted by Section 619, the Agencies should require a banking entity seeking to trade such securities to first file a transaction-specific application with the Federal Reserve to get pre-clearance based on an assessment of the risks involved in that transaction. High-risk mortgage purchases and guarantees by GSEs helped fuel the recent housing bubble and financial crisis.The GSEs played a pernicious role in the recent economic crisis, and securities issued by these entities should not be given the same preference that is afforded to U.S. Government Treasury bonds. In September 2008, the U.S. Treasury placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. Any securities issued by these enterprises have ""bailout"" written all over them.

What else were you hoping they would say about Fannie and Freddie vis a vis the Volcker Rule?

Fair point, Tank.  I guess I was addressing merits of the rule itself rather than OSEC's critique of it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Bishop? (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews)

I thought they'd stopped this practice.  So much for faith in others.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Bishop? (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews)

I thought they'd stopped this practice.  So much for faith in others.

Theologically speaking, it's unclear to me why this would be of any interest at all to modern Jewry.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Bishop? (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews)

I thought they'd stopped this practice.  So much for faith in others.

Theologically speaking, it's unclear to me why this would be of any interest at all to modern Jewry.

Theologically, we are still supposed to observe the 613 commandments.  And the Torah states that you are not supposed to contact the dead.

Whether that's germane today, that's up to you to decide.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 07:17:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Bishop? (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews)

I thought they'd stopped this practice.  So much for faith in others.

Theologically speaking, it's unclear to me why this would be of any interest at all to modern Jewry.

Theologically, we are still supposed to observe the 613 commandments.  And the Torah states that you are not supposed to contact the dead.

Whether that's germane today, that's up to you to decide.

But the undertaking is by the Mormons.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 07:17:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Bishop? (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews)

I thought they'd stopped this practice.  So much for faith in others.

Theologically speaking, it's unclear to me why this would be of any interest at all to modern Jewry.

Theologically, we are still supposed to observe the 613 commandments.  And the Torah states that you are not supposed to contact the dead.

Whether that's germane today, that's up to you to decide.

But the undertaking is by the Mormons.

The dead are not supposed to be disturbed, is my understanding.  To do so violates them in sheol.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 09:01:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 07:17:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Bishop? (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews)

I thought they'd stopped this practice.  So much for faith in others.

Theologically speaking, it's unclear to me why this would be of any interest at all to modern Jewry.

Theologically, we are still supposed to observe the 613 commandments.  And the Torah states that you are not supposed to contact the dead.

Whether that's germane today, that's up to you to decide.

But the undertaking is by the Mormons.

The dead are not supposed to be disturbed, is my understanding.  To do so violates them in sheol.

The objection is still theologically nonsensical unless one gives some sort of supernatural credence to the activity of the Mormons.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2012, 08:39:30 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 09:01:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 07:17:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Bishop? (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews)

I thought they'd stopped this practice.  So much for faith in others.

Theologically speaking, it's unclear to me why this would be of any interest at all to modern Jewry.

Theologically, we are still supposed to observe the 613 commandments.  And the Torah states that you are not supposed to contact the dead.

Whether that's germane today, that's up to you to decide.

But the undertaking is by the Mormons.

The dead are not supposed to be disturbed, is my understanding.  To do so violates them in sheol.

The objection is still theologically nonsensical unless one gives some sort of supernatural credence to the activity of the Mormons.

Isn't ALL religion theologically nonsensical unless one gives some sort of supernatural credence?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:11:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2012, 08:39:30 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 09:01:13 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 07:17:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 14, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2012, 04:12:27 PM
Well, Bishop? (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/14/10407989-wiesel-to-romney-tell-mormons-to-stop-baptizing-dead-jews)

I thought they'd stopped this practice.  So much for faith in others.

Theologically speaking, it's unclear to me why this would be of any interest at all to modern Jewry.

Theologically, we are still supposed to observe the 613 commandments.  And the Torah states that you are not supposed to contact the dead.

Whether that's germane today, that's up to you to decide.

But the undertaking is by the Mormons.

The dead are not supposed to be disturbed, is my understanding.  To do so violates them in sheol.

The objection is still theologically nonsensical unless one gives some sort of supernatural credence to the activity of the Mormons.

Isn't ALL religion theologically nonsensical unless one gives some sort of supernatural credence?

Well, sure. But I think Wheezer's question is, why should Jews give any more credence to the supernatural efficacy of the Mormons' American Jesus in disturbing their dead than they would give to any other false Gentile god?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:11:50 AM
Well, sure. But I think Wheezer's question is, why should Jews give any more credence to the supernatural efficacy of the Mormons' American Jesus in disturbing their dead than they would give to any other false Gentile god?

I don't think they are.  I think it's simply that the Mormons are the ones desecrating the graves.  Were the Hindu showing up and doing something similar, I'd think Jews would be similarly upset.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:20:31 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:11:50 AM
Well, sure. But I think Wheezer's question is, why should Jews give any more credence to the supernatural efficacy of the Mormons' American Jesus in disturbing their dead than they would give to any other false Gentile god?

I don't think they are.  I think it's simply that the Mormons are the ones desecrating the graves.  Were the Hindu showing up and doing something similar, I'd think Jews would be similarly upset.

The Mormons aren't desecrating any graves as far as I'm aware.

They just have a non-stop litany of in absentia baptism ceremonies at their Salt Lake City temple. With Mormons acting as stand-ins for the dead, whose names are read off of a list. No corpses necessary.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on February 15, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:20:31 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:11:50 AM
Well, sure. But I think Wheezer's question is, why should Jews give any more credence to the supernatural efficacy of the Mormons' American Jesus in disturbing their dead than they would give to any other false Gentile god?

I don't think they are.  I think it's simply that the Mormons are the ones desecrating the graves.  Were the Hindu showing up and doing something similar, I'd think Jews would be similarly upset.

The Mormons aren't desecrating any graves as far as I'm aware.

They just have a non-stop litany of in absentia baptism ceremonies at their Salt Lake City temple. With Mormons acting as stand-ins for the dead, whose names are read off of a list. No corpses necessary.

My general take on the issue is that, when a person is a member of a group that had historcially been killed because of the religion they practiced or refsusal to convert to another religion, it is beyond insulting  to that persons family and community for a group of people to say that he was 'converted'  by them posthumously to a religion of that groups choosing.  More name calling (at the 'fighting words' level) than metaphysics.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 15, 2012, 12:07:07 PM
Quote from: thehawk on February 15, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:20:31 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:11:50 AM
Well, sure. But I think Wheezer's question is, why should Jews give any more credence to the supernatural efficacy of the Mormons' American Jesus in disturbing their dead than they would give to any other false Gentile god?

I don't think they are.  I think it's simply that the Mormons are the ones desecrating the graves.  Were the Hindu showing up and doing something similar, I'd think Jews would be similarly upset.

The Mormons aren't desecrating any graves as far as I'm aware.

They just have a non-stop litany of in absentia baptism ceremonies at their Salt Lake City temple. With Mormons acting as stand-ins for the dead, whose names are read off of a list. No corpses necessary.

My general take on the issue is that, when a person is a member of a group that had historcially been killed because of the religion they practiced or refsusal to convert to another religion, it is beyond insulting  to that persons family and community for a group of people to say that he was 'converted'  by them posthumously to a religion of that groups choosing.  More name calling (at the 'fighting words' level) than metaphysics.

Leaving aside the general tastelessness of the operation, Mormon proxy baptism isn't a conversion--the decedent is held to be free to accept or reject the ordinance. (It's not clear to me offhand if the dead can accept it and later reject it, as the living do all the time.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 15, 2012, 12:17:42 PM
Quote from: thehawk on February 15, 2012, 11:01:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:20:31 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 15, 2012, 09:18:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 15, 2012, 09:11:50 AM
Well, sure. But I think Wheezer's question is, why should Jews give any more credence to the supernatural efficacy of the Mormons' American Jesus in disturbing their dead than they would give to any other false Gentile god?

I don't think they are.  I think it's simply that the Mormons are the ones desecrating the graves.  Were the Hindu showing up and doing something similar, I'd think Jews would be similarly upset.

The Mormons aren't desecrating any graves as far as I'm aware.

They just have a non-stop litany of in absentia baptism ceremonies at their Salt Lake City temple. With Mormons acting as stand-ins for the dead, whose names are read off of a list. No corpses necessary.

My general take on the issue is that, when a person is a member of a group that had historcially been killed because of the religion they practiced or refsusal to convert to another religion, it is beyond insulting  to that persons family and community for a group of people to say that he was 'converted'  by them posthumously to a religion of that groups choosing.  More name calling (at the 'fighting words' level) than metaphysics.

The Mormons have a word for it..."chutzpah".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BC on February 16, 2012, 09:42:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"...

And the other media members AREN'T bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards??? The Jump To Conclusions mat also comes out whenever Fox News, CNN or MSNBC have to come up with, oh, 23 hours and 55 minutes of their daily programming schedules on a slow news day (I exempt 5 minutes of slow days only because Fox News has a couple hot blonde women as anchors).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: BC on February 16, 2012, 09:42:58 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"...

And the other media members AREN'T bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards???

You can only conclude that this is what I'm suggesting if you inexplicably cut off my quote like you did above.

If, on the other hand, you read everything I wrote (i.e., the rest of that one sentence), you might have seen me saying this...

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Which is to say: Politico is trash in particular, just as "our political press" is trash in general. They're all assholes.

So, you know... get off it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 17, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.

TIME TO POST.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 17, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.

TIME TO POST.

Post what?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 17, 2012, 09:34:55 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.

TIME TO POST.

Post what?

ANYTHING.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 17, 2012, 09:53:18 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 09:34:55 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.

TIME TO POST.

Post what?

ANYTHING.

Are you saying Big Cheyene couldn't make that picture better?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 17, 2012, 11:08:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:53:18 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 09:34:55 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.

TIME TO POST.

Post what?

ANYTHING.

Are you saying Big Cheyene couldn't make that picture better?

I'M SAYIN' TIME TO POST, MOTHERFUCKERS.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 17, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 11:08:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:53:18 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 09:34:55 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.

TIME TO POST.

Post what?

ANYTHING.

Are you saying Big Cheyene couldn't make that picture better?

I'M SAYIN' TIME TO POST, MOTHERFUCKERS.

Post what?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 17, 2012, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 11:08:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:53:18 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 09:34:55 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.

TIME TO POST.

Post what?

ANYTHING.

Are you saying Big Cheyene couldn't make that picture better?

I'M SAYIN' TIME TO POST, MOTHERFUCKERS.

Post what?

Something big.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 17, 2012, 02:41:29 PM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 11:28:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 11:08:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:53:18 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 09:34:55 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 17, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
Quote from: Fork on February 17, 2012, 08:06:07 AM
Quote from: morpheus on February 17, 2012, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: CBStew on February 16, 2012, 06:09:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 16, 2012, 01:10:16 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 16, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
Scandal in Wisconsin!

(http://i.imgur.com/TSNav.png)

Oh, Politico... Don't you ever go and change.

Politico already deleted the post.

Hence the need for a screenshot.

That doesn't make it not hilarious.

Nor does it change the fact that Politico—as a haven for bottom-feeding, know-nothing retards ready to roll out their Jump To Conclusions Mats at the merest hint of an inconsequential "controversy"—still typifies our political press at its worst.

Ahh,  good old Local 1848. I hear that the dues (taken out of each paycheck, with a balloon payment in April) are really a bitch!

Something something Stew helped found this union something.

Needs something big.

TIME TO POST.

Post what?

ANYTHING.

Are you saying Big Cheyene couldn't make that picture better?

I'M SAYIN' TIME TO POST, MOTHERFUCKERS.

Post what?

Something big.

[/scene]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 17, 2012, 03:08:40 PM
The Gil tax?  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-stripper-tax-20120216,0,7028576.story
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 17, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 17, 2012, 03:08:40 PM
The Gil tax?  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-stripper-tax-20120216,0,7028576.story

Let the bears pay the bear tax.  I pay the Homer tax.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on February 17, 2012, 04:27:46 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on February 17, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 17, 2012, 03:08:40 PM
The Gil tax?  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-stripper-tax-20120216,0,7028576.story

Let the bears pay the bear tax.  I pay the Homer tax.

The bear tax is the very reason we have a muscle bear gap.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 18, 2012, 04:36:55 PM
When do Arizonans finally come out and admit that their entire state is just one big practical joke?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on February 18, 2012, 10:10:00 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 18, 2012, 04:36:55 PM
When do Arizonans finally come out and admit that their entire state is just one big practical joke?

Never count out South Carolina.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on February 18, 2012, 10:17:52 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 18, 2012, 10:10:00 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 18, 2012, 04:36:55 PM
When do Arizonans finally come out and admit that their entire state is just one big practical joke?

Never count out South Carolina.

Always bet on white
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 21, 2012, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteIn a letter to fellow Republicans, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris (R) called the Girl Scouts a "radicalized organization" that supports abortion and promotes "homosexual lifestyles," the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports.

QuoteMorris said he did some research on the Internet and found "allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, that they allow transgender females to join, 'just like any real girl,' and encourage sex."

Fuck Indiana.

Reference: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120221/NEWS07/302219934
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on February 21, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 21, 2012, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteIn a letter to fellow Republicans, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris (R) called the Girl Scouts a "radicalized organization" that supports abortion and promotes "homosexual lifestyles," the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports.

QuoteMorris said he did some research on the Internet and found "allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, that they allow transgender females to join, 'just like any real girl,' and encourage sex."

Fuck Indiana.

Reference: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120221/NEWS07/302219934

Fuck Indiana because of one extremist asshole? He was the only 1 to vote against a resolution honoring the Girl Scouts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 21, 2012, 12:07:25 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 21, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 21, 2012, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteIn a letter to fellow Republicans, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris (R) called the Girl Scouts a "radicalized organization" that supports abortion and promotes "homosexual lifestyles," the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports.

QuoteMorris said he did some research on the Internet and found "allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, that they allow transgender females to join, 'just like any real girl,' and encourage sex."

Fuck Indiana.

Reference: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120221/NEWS07/302219934

Fuck Indiana because of one extremist asshole? He was the only 1 to vote against a resolution honoring the Girl Scouts.

We needed to move on from hating Arizona and make it more local.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 21, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 21, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 21, 2012, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteIn a letter to fellow Republicans, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris (R) called the Girl Scouts a "radicalized organization" that supports abortion and promotes "homosexual lifestyles," the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports.

QuoteMorris said he did some research on the Internet and found "allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, that they allow transgender females to join, 'just like any real girl,' and encourage sex."

Fuck Indiana.

Reference: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120221/NEWS07/302219934

Fuck Indiana because of one extremist asshole? He was the only 1 to vote against a resolution honoring the Girl Scouts.

No, fuck Indiana because Indiana.

Generally speaking.

I mean... you've been there before.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on February 21, 2012, 01:40:50 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 21, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 21, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 21, 2012, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteIn a letter to fellow Republicans, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris (R) called the Girl Scouts a "radicalized organization" that supports abortion and promotes "homosexual lifestyles," the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports.

QuoteMorris said he did some research on the Internet and found "allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, that they allow transgender females to join, 'just like any real girl,' and encourage sex."

Fuck Indiana.

Reference: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120221/NEWS07/302219934

Fuck Indiana because of one extremist asshole? He was the only 1 to vote against a resolution honoring the Girl Scouts.

No, fuck Indiana because Indiana.

Generally speaking.

I mean... you've been there before.
True.  He is only one legislator.  But he got more votes than the guy(s) that he ran against.  That is what is scary.  Unless they are even worse than he is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on February 21, 2012, 01:44:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on February 21, 2012, 01:40:50 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 21, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 21, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 21, 2012, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteIn a letter to fellow Republicans, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris (R) called the Girl Scouts a "radicalized organization" that supports abortion and promotes "homosexual lifestyles," the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports.

QuoteMorris said he did some research on the Internet and found "allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, that they allow transgender females to join, 'just like any real girl,' and encourage sex."

Fuck Indiana.

Reference: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120221/NEWS07/302219934

Fuck Indiana because of one extremist asshole? He was the only 1 to vote against a resolution honoring the Girl Scouts.

No, fuck Indiana because Indiana.

Generally speaking.

I mean... you've been there before.
True.  He is only one legislator.  But he got more votes than the guy(s) that he ran against.  That is what is scary.  Unless they are even worse than he is.
I endorsed his opponent.
(http://faroutshirts.com/images/Cthulhu4Prez-Preview.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 23, 2012, 01:26:55 PM
(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzuxy3VuZz1r0ajmso1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 24, 2012, 12:00:57 PM
Que Desipio Iran expert, MikeC...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-intel-20120224,0,1164870,full.story

QuoteReporting from Washington—As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don't believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.

...

For now, U.S. military and intelligence officials say they don't believe Iran's leadership has made the decision to build a bomb.

"I think they are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision," James R. Clapper Jr., director of National Intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 16. "But there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time."

Clapper and CIA Director David H. Petraeus told a separate Senate hearing that Iran was enriching uranium below 20% purity. Uranium is considered weapons grade when it is enriched to about 90% purity, although it is still potentially usable at lower enrichment levels.

U.S. spy agencies also have not seen evidence of a decision-making structure on nuclear weapons around Khamenei, said David Albright, who heads the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security and is an expert on Iran's nuclear program.

Albright's group estimates that with the centrifuges Iran already has, it could enrich uranium to sufficient purity to make a bomb in as little as six months, should it decide to do so.

It is not known precisely what other technical hurdles Iran would have to overcome, but Albright and many other experts believe that if it decides to proceed, the country has the scientific knowledge to design and build a crude working bomb in as little as a year. It would take as long as three years, Albright estimated, for Iran to build a warhead small enough to fit on a ballistic missile.

...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 24, 2012, 08:12:22 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 24, 2012, 12:00:57 PM
Que Desipio Iran expert, MikeC...

Osiraq Redux! Osiraq Redux!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on February 25, 2012, 12:09:15 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 21, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on February 21, 2012, 11:49:41 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 21, 2012, 10:02:45 AM
QuoteIn a letter to fellow Republicans, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris (R) called the Girl Scouts a "radicalized organization" that supports abortion and promotes "homosexual lifestyles," the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports.

QuoteMorris said he did some research on the Internet and found "allegations that the Girl Scouts are a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood, that they allow transgender females to join, 'just like any real girl,' and encourage sex."

Fuck Indiana.

Reference: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20120221/NEWS07/302219934

Fuck Indiana because of one extremist asshole? He was the only 1 to vote against a resolution honoring the Girl Scouts.

No, fuck Indiana because Indiana.

Generally speaking.

I mean... you've been there before.

My parents took me to the Superbowl and all I got was this lousy case of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 28, 2012, 12:54:53 PM
IT'S A FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

http://consumerist.com/2012/02/restaurant-says-1-tip-receipt-is-a-fake.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on February 28, 2012, 03:28:55 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on February 24, 2012, 08:12:22 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 24, 2012, 12:00:57 PM
Que Desipio Iran expert, MikeC...

Osiraq Redux! Osiraq Redux!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g9v0j_LlUjc7BYVKrhGVcWCBLFpQ?docId=a57800356b58414d89ea9f2f98a7c5a0

QuoteTEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran hailed the country's first Oscar-winning film as a triumph over arch-foe Israel on Monday after an Academy Award race with its own subplots: Iranian officials giving a grudging nod to cinema and Israeli audiences flocking to see a made-in-Tehran drama.

Iran's state-spun praise for "A Separation," which beat out an Israeli film and three others in the foreign language category, was mostly wrapped in patriotic boasting as a conquest for Iranian culture and a blow for Israel's perceived outsized influence in America.

...

A state TV broadcast said the award succeeded in "leaving behind" a film from Israel. Javad Shamaghdari, head of the state Cinematic Agency, portrayed the Oscar win as the "beginning of the collapse" of Israeli influence that "beats the drum of war" in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 28, 2012, 06:14:39 PM
A bombshell in Maine, as moderate GOP Senator Olympia Snowe retires from the Senate.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Snowe-not-running-for-re-election.html

I wonder if that is the one seat that will separate the GOP from control in the Senate after November.  Because I don't see a Republican winning a seat in Maine without the names "Snowe" or "Collins" on the ballot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on February 28, 2012, 06:52:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 28, 2012, 06:14:39 PM
A bombshell in Maine, as moderate GOP Senator Olympia Snowe retires from the Senate.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Snowe-not-running-for-re-election.html

I wonder if that is the one seat that will separate the GOP from control in the Senate after November.  Because I don't see a Republican winning a seat in Maine without the names "Snowe" or "Collins" on the ballot.

Gamechanger?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on February 28, 2012, 07:38:33 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 28, 2012, 06:52:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 28, 2012, 06:14:39 PM
A bombshell in Maine, as moderate GOP Senator Olympia Snowe retires from the Senate.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Snowe-not-running-for-re-election.html

I wonder if that is the one seat that will separate the GOP from control in the Senate after November.  Because I don't see a Republican winning a seat in Maine without the names "Snowe" or "Collins" on the ballot.

Gamechanger?


...

::shrugs shoulders::

...

Yes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2012, 09:59:59 AM
Good read.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137287/reihan-salam/the-missing-middle-in-american-politics?page=show
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on February 29, 2012, 03:44:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 28, 2012, 06:14:39 PM
A bombshell in Maine, as moderate GOP Senator Olympia Snowe retires from the Senate.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Snowe-not-running-for-re-election.html

I wonder if that is the one seat that will separate the GOP from control in the Senate after November.  Because I don't see a Republican winning a seat in Maine without the names "Snowe" or "Collins" on the ballot.

Pretty good summary of the (possible) candidates here: http://pinetreepolitics.bangordailynews.com/2012/02/28/snowe-storm-implications-the-art-of-the-possible/ . 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 01, 2012, 12:06:35 AM
Archie Comics tells the AFA to fuck off. (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/29/one-million-homophobic-moms-target-archie-comics-and-toys-r-us/)

(http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads//2012/02/life-500x672.jpg?f2df00)

[Edit.--Chuck, revenge is here (http://alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com/).]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 01, 2012, 11:04:57 AM
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120229/NEWS01/120229014/Chief-U-S-District-Judge-sends-racially-charged-email-about-president

The "joke" moved the judge.

And this isn't even in Arizona!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 01, 2012, 12:23:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 01, 2012, 11:04:57 AM
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120229/NEWS01/120229014/Chief-U-S-District-Judge-sends-racially-charged-email-about-president

The "joke" moved the judge.

And this isn't even in Arizona!

Quote from: Comically Racist ShitstainI sent it out because it's anti-Obama.

How is the suggestion that intercourse with a black man is the same thing as intercourse with a dog, anti-Obama?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 01, 2012, 01:09:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on March 01, 2012, 12:23:41 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 01, 2012, 11:04:57 AM
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120229/NEWS01/120229014/Chief-U-S-District-Judge-sends-racially-charged-email-about-president

The "joke" moved the judge.

And this isn't even in Arizona!

Quote from: Comically Racist ShitstainI sent it out because it's anti-Obama.

How is the suggestion that intercourse with a black man is the same thing as intercourse with a dog, anti-Obama?

Give the judge some credit.  He wasn't necessarily alluding to dog intercourse.  Seals, Sea Lions and Walruses also bark.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 04, 2012, 09:26:21 PM
If you have two hours to spare, this is an outstanding play based on the trial transcript in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUG8F9uVgM&feature=player_embedded

EDIT: I should note a couple of things about this play.  It is presented a bit out of order and omits certain important elements of the record.  Second, and I believe this is most important when watching some of the testimony from John C. Reiley's witness and Kevin Bacon's defendant-intervenor counsel, that a transcript (and a presentation based solely from that document) can make anyone look dumb, and I mean really dumb.

But, given that, it's still as close as counsel for the defendants will allow the American public to see and it reiterates the paucity of evidence that supporters of Prop 8 presented at trial.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 08, 2012, 07:22:13 AM
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.xml
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 08, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
A CT-like candidate has won the Democratic nomination for Congress in Ohio's second congressional district.

Quote"William R. Smith is the invisible candidate. No one has seen him; no one has heard him speak.. There is no evidence that Smith campaigned a lick... Federal Election Commission reports show Smith has spent no money on the campaign."

And, of course, he was not available for an interview.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120307/NEWS/303070133

It is getting a little bit confusing.

QuoteEven though William Smith (D) spent no money and did no campaigning to win the Democratic nomination in Ohio's 2nd congressional district, the Cincinnati Enquirer found a group calling itself the "Victory Ohio Super PAC" apparently made "robo-calls" touting Smith as the "real Democrat" in the race.

However, the FEC has no record of the group so "it's not clear who was behind the calls, or who paid for them."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 08, 2012, 07:02:08 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 08, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
A CT-like candidate has won the Democratic nomination for Congress in Ohio's second congressional district.

Quote"William R. Smith is the invisible candidate. No one has seen him; no one has heard him speak.. There is no evidence that Smith campaigned a lick... Federal Election Commission reports show Smith has spent no money on the campaign."

And, of course, he was not available for an interview.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120307/NEWS/303070133

It is getting a little bit confusing.

QuoteEven though William Smith (D) spent no money and did no campaigning to win the Democratic nomination in Ohio's 2nd congressional district, the Cincinnati Enquirer found a group calling itself the "Victory Ohio Super PAC" apparently made "robo-calls" touting Smith as the "real Democrat" in the race.

However, the FEC has no record of the group so "it's not clear who was behind the calls, or who paid for them."

He seems to be steeped in synchronicity. (http://lezgetreal.com/2012/03/ohios-mystery-candidate/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 08, 2012, 08:09:38 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 08, 2012, 05:38:45 PM
A CT-like candidate has won the Democratic nomination for Congress in Ohio's second congressional district.

Quote"William R. Smith is the invisible candidate. No one has seen him; no one has heard him speak.. There is no evidence that Smith campaigned a lick... Federal Election Commission reports show Smith has spent no money on the campaign."

And, of course, he was not available for an interview.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120307/NEWS/303070133

It is getting a little bit confusing.

QuoteEven though William Smith (D) spent no money and did no campaigning to win the Democratic nomination in Ohio's 2nd congressional district, the Cincinnati Enquirer found a group calling itself the "Victory Ohio Super PAC" apparently made "robo-calls" touting Smith as the "real Democrat" in the race.

However, the FEC has no record of the group so "it's not clear who was behind the calls, or who paid for them."

Could this maybe be nothing more than a good old fashioned ratfucking?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 14, 2012, 08:36:11 AM
OK, so I was reading this article, which surprises me not in the least... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

And I notice this ad on the righthand side...

(http://i.imgur.com/iZJx5.jpg)

So, I'm just curious: is there some reason pet lovers should have Obama's coke-dusted dong hanging out of their mouths?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 14, 2012, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 14, 2012, 08:36:11 AM
OK, so I was reading this article, which surprises me not in the least... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

And I notice this ad on the righthand side...

(http://i.imgur.com/iZJx5.jpg)

So, I'm just curious: is there some reason pet lovers should have Obama's coke-dusted dong hanging out of their mouths?

Is JI still around?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on March 14, 2012, 09:17:32 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 14, 2012, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 14, 2012, 08:36:11 AM
OK, so I was reading this article, which surprises me not in the least... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

And I notice this ad on the righthand side...

(http://i.imgur.com/iZJx5.jpg)

So, I'm just curious: is there some reason pet lovers should have Obama's coke-dusted dong hanging out of their mouths?

Is JI still around?

http://deadspin.com/5893181/bronze-medal-ping-pong-god-bravely-resigns-from-goldman-sachs
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on March 14, 2012, 09:31:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 14, 2012, 09:17:32 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 14, 2012, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 14, 2012, 08:36:11 AM
OK, so I was reading this article, which surprises me not in the least... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

And I notice this ad on the righthand side...

(http://i.imgur.com/iZJx5.jpg)

So, I'm just curious: is there some reason pet lovers should have Obama's coke-dusted dong hanging out of their mouths?

Is JI still around?

http://deadspin.com/5893181/bronze-medal-ping-pong-god-bravely-resigns-from-goldman-sachs

I admit it, I'm LOLing.  Bravo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 14, 2012, 09:55:59 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 14, 2012, 09:31:26 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 14, 2012, 09:17:32 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 14, 2012, 09:10:00 AM
Quote from: morpheus on March 14, 2012, 08:36:11 AM
OK, so I was reading this article, which surprises me not in the least... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

And I notice this ad on the righthand side...

(http://i.imgur.com/iZJx5.jpg)

So, I'm just curious: is there some reason pet lovers should have Obama's coke-dusted dong hanging out of their mouths?

Is JI still around?

http://deadspin.com/5893181/bronze-medal-ping-pong-god-bravely-resigns-from-goldman-sachs

I admit it, I'm LOLing.  Bravo.

I believe it has something to do with the Romney dog-strapping-to-the-roof-of-the-car-during-long-road-trip-gate.

Santo(rum) has been hitting Romney over this too.

Quote"I'm not sure I'm going to listen to a value judgment of a guy who strapped his own dog on the top of a car and went hurling down the highway."

-- Santorum advisor John Brabender, quoted by National Journal, hitting back at Mitt Romney for saying Santorum was "at the desperate end of his campaign."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 16, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 13, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 11:09:41 AM
Quote from: Dave B on March 17, 2009, 11:01:48 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 17, 2009, 10:12:48 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2009, 09:52:07 AM
Quote from: RV on March 17, 2009, 09:17:17 AM
Maybe Gil could squirt some insight on Chuck Grassley's suggestion of an AIG honor bukkake. Or is it seppuku? I always get those two confused.

Quote"I suggest, you know, obviously maybe they ought to be removed, but I would suggest that the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them [is] if they would follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/gop-senator-aig.html)

u wnt nsght n2 iowa sntor? did u c this? ttlly real.
http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley

Christ Almighty...

QuoteU won't bleve this but just got intrvud by Joe Morton of Omaha World Herald abt why I TWEET. Only birds TWEET????? !!!!!!! Glad to xplain

it's simple: he's got a 17-year old chick working as an intern and she just text-abbreviates whatever he says.

If only that were true. I have a friend who's a speechwriter/spokesperson for Grassley; sadly, the Twittering is all Chuck.

http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/169202371312881667

Quote from: @ChuckGrassleyI now h v an iphone

(http://i.imgur.com/LAJan.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 23, 2012, 01:31:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on February 09, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/fCIx1.jpg)

He's back with more:

http://wonkette.com/467834/americas-greatest-artist-depicts-obama-burning-the-constitution
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2012, 01:58:53 PM
John Edwards is a LOCK for buyer of high-class poon...

http://www.dnainfo.com/20120322/upper-east-side/john-edwards-first-name-uncovered-millionaire-madam-investigation

QuoteMANHATTAN — A call girl working for alleged "Millionaire Madam" Anna Gristina told investigators she was paid to have sex with former U.S. Sen. John Edwards when he was in New York raising money for his failed presidential bid, DNAinfo has learned.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2012, 06:16:24 PM
This is apparently real...

(http://i.imgur.com/t0sP2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/NvvmM.jpg)

http://www.theconservativeteen.com/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on March 24, 2012, 09:36:36 PM
I'm glad that "Why the Unborn Need Our Protection" is a monthly feature.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on March 24, 2012, 11:33:05 PM
Pick a fucking cover design, already.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 25, 2012, 05:39:07 PM
Is every issue about the unborn needing protection?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 25, 2012, 06:03:44 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2012, 05:39:07 PM
Is every issue about the unborn needing protection?

DRLP

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg252574#msg252574 (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg252574#msg252574)

Incidentally, if someone is actually reading this magazine as a teenager, the whole abstinence thing will probably take care of itself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 25, 2012, 06:52:15 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on March 25, 2012, 06:03:44 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2012, 05:39:07 PM
Is every issue about the unborn needing protection?

DRLP

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg252574#msg252574 (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg252574#msg252574)

Incidentally, if someone is actually reading this magazine as a teenager, the whole abstinence thing will probably take care of itself.

http://twitter.com/ConservativTeen

Because there are two things the kids of Real America love: DC inside baseball and the New England Patriots.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 25, 2012, 07:08:19 PM
Speaking of inside baseball...

A shoutboxer seems to have been relieved of his duties recently, but it wasn't BC:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/update-vaznelis-vs-cadigan-.html

Fired by an apparent functional illiterate, no less.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 25, 2012, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 25, 2012, 07:08:19 PM
Speaking of inside baseball...

A shoutboxer seems to have been relieved of his duties recently, but it wasn't BC:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/update-vaznelis-vs-cadigan-.html

Fired by an apparent functional illiterate, no less.

If only the GOP were in favor of good teachers...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 25, 2012, 07:16:33 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 25, 2012, 05:39:07 PM
Is every issue about the unborn needing protection?

Yes. And white people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 25, 2012, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 25, 2012, 07:08:19 PM
Speaking of inside baseball...

A shoutboxer seems to have been relieved of his duties recently, but it wasn't BC:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/update-vaznelis-vs-cadigan-.html

Fired by an apparent functional illiterate, no less.

According to my source, as of March 20th "Pressure was brought to bear and the decision is being reconsidered."

Also, god help Sid Vaznelis if he ever stumbles into the ShoutBox.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 08:27:51 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 25, 2012, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 25, 2012, 07:08:19 PM
Speaking of inside baseball...

A shoutboxer seems to have been relieved of his duties recently, but it wasn't BC:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/update-vaznelis-vs-cadigan-.html

Fired by an apparent functional illiterate, no less.

According to my source, as of March 20th "Pressure was brought to bear and the decision is being reconsidered."

Also, god help Sid Vaznelis if he ever stumbles into the ShoutBox.

The reconsideration was reconsidered. The thing is, Sig might have as much power to fire Bill as Chuck does to fire Soriano.\

I doubt he'll stumble into the ShoutBox, but here's some fodder for you:

(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/216118_1013445905878_1516970958_34547_4867_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 26, 2012, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 08:27:51 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 25, 2012, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 25, 2012, 07:08:19 PM
Speaking of inside baseball...

A shoutboxer seems to have been relieved of his duties recently, but it wasn't BC:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/update-vaznelis-vs-cadigan-.html

Fired by an apparent functional illiterate, no less.

According to my source, as of March 20th "Pressure was brought to bear and the decision is being reconsidered."

Also, god help Sid Vaznelis if he ever stumbles into the ShoutBox.

The reconsideration was reconsidered. The thing is, Sig might have as much power to fire Bill as Chuck does to fire Soriano.\

I doubt he'll stumble into the ShoutBox, but here's some fodder for you:

(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/216118_1013445905878_1516970958_34547_4867_n.jpg)

Figures.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 26, 2012, 08:35:48 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 26, 2012, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 08:27:51 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 25, 2012, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 25, 2012, 07:08:19 PM
Speaking of inside baseball...

A shoutboxer seems to have been relieved of his duties recently, but it wasn't BC:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/update-vaznelis-vs-cadigan-.html

Fired by an apparent functional illiterate, no less.

According to my source, as of March 20th "Pressure was brought to bear and the decision is being reconsidered."

Also, god help Sid Vaznelis if he ever stumbles into the ShoutBox.

The reconsideration was reconsidered. The thing is, Sig might have as much power to fire Bill as Chuck does to fire Soriano.\

I doubt he'll stumble into the ShoutBox, but here's some fodder for you:

(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/216118_1013445905878_1516970958_34547_4867_n.jpg)

Figures.

It certainly puts my "functional illiterate" barb in the proper context. This guy's probably the poet laureate of White Sox Nation.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 08:44:48 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 26, 2012, 08:30:21 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 08:27:51 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 25, 2012, 07:25:21 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 25, 2012, 07:08:19 PM
Speaking of inside baseball...

A shoutboxer seems to have been relieved of his duties recently, but it wasn't BC:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/update-vaznelis-vs-cadigan-.html

Fired by an apparent functional illiterate, no less.

According to my source, as of March 20th "Pressure was brought to bear and the decision is being reconsidered."

Also, god help Sid Vaznelis if he ever stumbles into the ShoutBox.

The reconsideration was reconsidered. The thing is, Sig might have as much power to fire Bill as Chuck does to fire Soriano.\

I doubt he'll stumble into the ShoutBox, but here's some fodder for you:

(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/216118_1013445905878_1516970958_34547_4867_n.jpg)

Figures.

Sig's in Lemont, where he's with Southwest Sider Liz Gorman, who is more interested in preserving some weird Cook County GOP Fiefdom than, you know, finding viable candidates for positions like State's Attorney, where Demcoratic Incumbent Anita Alvarez should be in a world of hurt.

Besides having no county-wide judge candidates, no Cook Co. State's Atty, no real water reclamation board candidates, etc., Vaznelis and Gorman did find a shitbum to run against the incumbent Republican on the Cook County Board of Review to ... I'm not sure really, maybe get Liz Gorman plenty of radio time doing his ads which accuse Dan Patlak of just about everything short of homicide.

Anyway, Sig Vaznelis appointed Bill as Committeeman after the New Trier Township Republicans unanimously selected him to replace the outgoing committeeman. Sig also appointed the guy that ran against Dan Patlak as Committeeman of Palos Township. This is how he handled himself, post-election:

(http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/yy317/tjbrown1975/image.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 26, 2012, 08:50:13 AM
Nice pull, TJ.  I thought those radio commercials were pretty brutal.  And now that I can see how unhinged the candidate behind whom all of this money and support went is, I'm LOLing.

I seem to recall Liz Gorman from TV ads years ago.  Isn't her maiden name Doody?  Heh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 09:08:22 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 26, 2012, 08:50:13 AM
Nice pull, TJ.  I thought those radio commercials were pretty brutal.  And now that I can see how unhinged the candidate behind whom all of this money and support went is, I'm LOLing.

I seem to recall Liz Gorman from TV ads years ago.  Isn't her maiden name Doody?  Heh.
Yes. Liz Doody Gorman. She basically installed Sig as Cook County Chairman in September when Lee Roupas left to move to DuPage Co. In between her bankruptcy filings and her ability to take credit for "rolling back" the Stroger sales tax increase, she's propped up Sean Morrison twice.

Morrison might be even more literacy-challenged than Sig. Even Richard J. Daley would cringe at some of his malaprops. I heard him speak and kept saying that we all had to be "conscious-minded" of this, and the board needed to be "conscious-minded of that" etc. He also owns a Rent-a-cop or Rent-a-thug agency and was sending personnel in uniform to people's homes to present them with "cease and desist" letters during the campaign.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2012, 09:29:51 AM
So, what we've learned her is that IL-GOP is as corrupt as IL-DEM.

John "Combine" Kass is... right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on March 26, 2012, 09:58:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 09:08:22 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 26, 2012, 08:50:13 AM
Nice pull, TJ.  I thought those radio commercials were pretty brutal.  And now that I can see how unhinged the candidate behind whom all of this money and support went is, I'm LOLing.

I seem to recall Liz Gorman from TV ads years ago.  Isn't her maiden name Doody?  Heh.
Yes. Liz Doody Gorman. She basically installed Sig as Cook County Chairman in September when Lee Roupas left to move to DuPage Co. In between her bankruptcy filings and her ability to take credit for "rolling back" the Stroger sales tax increase, she's propped up Sean Morrison twice.

Morrison might be even more literacy-challenged than Sig. Even Richard J. Daley would cringe at some of his malaprops. I heard him speak and kept saying that we all had to be "conscious-minded" of this, and the board needed to be "conscious-minded of that" etc. He also owns a Rent-a-cop or Rent-a-thug agency and was sending personnel in uniform to people's homes to present them with "cease and desist" letters during the campaign.

Holy balls, all of this is hilarious.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 26, 2012, 09:29:51 AM
So, what we've learned her is that IL-GOP is as corrupt as IL-DEM.

John "Combine" Kass is... right?

It's a pretty simplistic way of putting it. Sure, there's Gorman using Vanelis and Morrison to consolidate power... except there's little power to be had and these actions have necessarily drained additional power from being acquired. Unless it is that the Gormans of the world are satisfied with current state and county leadership/have something promised to them if status quo is preserved.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 10:25:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 26, 2012, 09:58:24 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 09:08:22 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 26, 2012, 08:50:13 AM
Nice pull, TJ.  I thought those radio commercials were pretty brutal.  And now that I can see how unhinged the candidate behind whom all of this money and support went is, I'm LOLing.

I seem to recall Liz Gorman from TV ads years ago.  Isn't her maiden name Doody?  Heh.
Yes. Liz Doody Gorman. She basically installed Sig as Cook County Chairman in September when Lee Roupas left to move to DuPage Co. In between her bankruptcy filings and her ability to take credit for "rolling back" the Stroger sales tax increase, she's propped up Sean Morrison twice.

Morrison might be even more literacy-challenged than Sig. Even Richard J. Daley would cringe at some of his malaprops. I heard him speak and kept saying that we all had to be "conscious-minded" of this, and the board needed to be "conscious-minded of that" etc. He also owns a Rent-a-cop or Rent-a-thug agency and was sending personnel in uniform to people's homes to present them with "cease and desist" letters during the campaign.

Holy balls, all of this is hilarious.

There's more. Gorman's hit man is Ray Hanania, who in between his bashing of Patlak, wants you to know that Gov. Rod was a pretty-damn good Governor, etc., etc. (http://rayhanania.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/blagojevichs-long-farewell-the-former-governor-and-fairness-head-to-the-hoosegow/)


The guys laughing loudest are Michael Madigan and John Cullerton, along with Anita Alvarez and every unopposed Democratic judge.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on March 26, 2012, 10:27:51 AM
Ray Hanania?  The Muslim stand-up comic?  

Man, this thing just keep getting better.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on March 26, 2012, 10:30:18 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 26, 2012, 10:27:51 AM
Ray Hanania?  The Muslim stand-up comic?  

Man, this thing just keep getting better.

He's as Muslim as Obama; however, he is Palestinian.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 26, 2012, 07:09:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2012, 06:16:24 PM
This is apparently real...

(http://i.imgur.com/t0sP2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/NvvmM.jpg)

http://www.theconservativeteen.com/

Inspired by this (http://wonkette.com/468250/amazing-magazine-the-conservative-teen-has-a-lot-to-say-none-of-it-by-teens), I just actually flipped through the magazine itself...

http://krtins.longboys.net/Winter-2011-TCT/index.html

Holy shit:

(http://i.imgur.com/5jz79.jpg)

LAUGH OUT LOUD!

(As the kids like to say.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on March 26, 2012, 09:02:21 PM
I don't get that Kurt Evans photoshop Conservative Teen political cartoon.



Seriously, though. Someone explain the ricochet monkey of black unemployment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 26, 2012, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 26, 2012, 09:02:21 PM
I don't get that Kurt Evans photoshop Conservative Teen political cartoon.



Seriously, though. Someone explain the ricochet monkey of black unemployment.

What's not to get?

(http://i.imgur.com/Euorj.jpg)

TWACK!! CATCH!! THROW!! BLACK GUY!!!

Laugh out loud!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on March 27, 2012, 08:09:11 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 26, 2012, 09:02:21 PM
I don't get that Kurt Evans photoshop Conservative Teen political cartoon.



Seriously, though. Someone explain the ricochet monkey of black unemployment.

It's as clear as the "NIG" under Obama on Page 2.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on March 27, 2012, 09:07:23 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 26, 2012, 10:35:10 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 26, 2012, 09:02:21 PM
I don't get that Kurt Evans photoshop Conservative Teen political cartoon.



Seriously, though. Someone explain the ricochet monkey of black unemployment.

What's not to get?

(http://i.imgur.com/Euorj.jpg)

TWACK!! CATCH!! THROW!! BLACK GUY!!!

Laugh out loud!

I get it.  It is telling us that Obama is left handed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on March 27, 2012, 10:08:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 26, 2012, 10:35:10 PM
What's not to get?


I think it's pretty clear when you look at the artist credit.

(http://i39.tinypic.com/jszwox.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 27, 2012, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 27, 2012, 09:07:23 AM
I get it.  It is telling us that Obama is left handed.

And thus sinister.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on March 27, 2012, 11:23:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 27, 2012, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 27, 2012, 09:07:23 AM
I get it.  It is telling us that Obama is left handed.

And thus sinister.

The white duffer is a southpaw too. So he deserves whatever happens to him. That leads me to believe that the artist himself is left-handed. That explains why this cartoon doesn't make any damn sense. Because it's hard to draw with your hand all crooked like a fucking jaggoff.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 27, 2012, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 27, 2012, 10:08:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 26, 2012, 10:35:10 PM
What's not to get?


I think it's pretty clear when you look at the artist credit.

(http://i39.tinypic.com/jszwox.jpg)

Well done.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on March 27, 2012, 11:52:48 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on March 27, 2012, 11:23:00 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 27, 2012, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 27, 2012, 09:07:23 AM
I get it.  It is telling us that Obama is left handed.

And thus sinister.

The white duffer is a southpaw too. So he deserves whatever happens to him. That leads me to believe that the artist himself is left-handed. That explains why this cartoon doesn't make any damn sense. Because it's hard to draw with your hand all crooked like a fucking jaggoff.

Or he's right handed and draws himself while looking in a mirror.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2012, 01:06:44 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 26, 2012, 07:09:26 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 24, 2012, 06:16:24 PM
This is apparently real...

(http://i.imgur.com/t0sP2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/NvvmM.jpg)

http://www.theconservativeteen.com/

Inspired by this (http://wonkette.com/468250/amazing-magazine-the-conservative-teen-has-a-lot-to-say-none-of-it-by-teens), I just actually flipped through the magazine itself...

http://krtins.longboys.net/Winter-2011-TCT/index.html

Holy shit:

(http://i.imgur.com/5jz79.jpg)

LAUGH OUT LOUD!

(As the kids like to say.)

Those kids on the front cover?  Not even Americans.

http://www.123rf.com/photo_2224014_portrait-of-a-couple-of-kids-woman-and-man-sitting-together-as-part-of-a-study-group-or-in-class.html

They're Danish.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 02, 2012, 09:44:57 AM
The Giannoulias family has a new bank (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120331/ISSUE01/303319967/guess-whos-lending-again).

How did they get it?  Well, first they took $10 million in dividends they paid themselves from Broadway Bank and used the proceeds to buy CheckSpring.  Then, they assumed $5 million in loans from MB Bank that were originated by Broadway.

From the article:

Following most bank failures, former senior officers aren't in a position to offer credit to customers of their old banks. Federal regulators often won't allow executives they deem responsible for a bank's failure back into senior positions in the industry, according to banking attorneys.

"Regulators have a lot of say over who's in senior management of banks," says Bert Ely, an Alexandria, Va.-based banking consultant. "The question is, why do they tolerate this situation? It's a hell of a good question."

===========

Mark Kirk may be a lightweight, but he's not a crook like these people.

Someone should investigate if Obama pulled any strings at the FDIC.  The people who think Obama was corrupt because of Rezko were barking up the wrong tree.  His association and willingness to put his name on the line for Giannoulias is far more troubling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 02, 2012, 10:51:15 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on March 29, 2012, 01:06:44 PM

<The Conservative Teen magazine crap>

Those kids on the front cover?  Not even Americans.

http://www.123rf.com/photo_2224014_portrait-of-a-couple-of-kids-woman-and-man-sitting-together-as-part-of-a-study-group-or-in-class.html

They're Danish.

(http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2011/05/joey-std.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 02, 2012, 12:31:23 PM

NBC, no longer part of the Lamestream Media (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/04/02/sarah-palin-to-co-host-today/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 02, 2012, 01:17:39 PM
Quote from: Fork on April 02, 2012, 12:31:23 PM

NBC, no longer part of the Lamestream Media (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/04/02/sarah-palin-to-co-host-today/).

Apparently none of the decision makers at NBC watches HBO.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 06:40:54 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/XMEgj.jpg)

Sweet socks, fella.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 02, 2012, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 06:40:54 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/XMEgj.jpg)

Sweet socks, fella.

No love for the sweatshorts/polo shirt combo?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 09:31:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 02, 2012, 06:46:54 PM
No love for the sweatshorts/polo shirt combo?

The hems, pockets and generous taper suggest regular damn shorts with a comfort stretch waistband. Like the Founding Fathers used to wear.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 02, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 09:31:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 02, 2012, 06:46:54 PM
No love for the sweatshorts/polo shirt combo?

The hems, pockets and generous taper suggest regular damn shorts with a comfort stretch waistband. Like the Founding Fathers used to wear.

We got into it with a Brewers fan at Miller Park back in my more belligerent days who was wearing a yellow polo shirt tucked into cotton, elastic band shorts. I mean there was literally nothing the guy could say that didn't end in the comeback "look at your fucking clothes, man."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on April 02, 2012, 09:49:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 06:40:54 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/XMEgj.jpg)

Sweet socks, fella.

Damn, you just can't get a good shoeshine these days.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 11:37:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on April 02, 2012, 09:49:29 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 06:40:54 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/XMEgj.jpg)

Sweet socks, fella.

Damn, you just can't get a good shoeshine these days.

He probably just couldn't find change for the c-note.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 03, 2012, 08:01:10 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 09:31:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 02, 2012, 06:46:54 PM
No love for the sweatshorts/polo shirt combo?

The hems, pockets and generous taper suggest regular damn shorts with a comfort stretch waistband. Like the Founding Fathers used to wear.

Plus, they're made for easy removal. For all the trim this guy obviously gets.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on April 03, 2012, 09:21:01 AM
If he's really looking to save white people he should consider using a stand-in.  One glance at the guy is enough to determine that white people need to stop breeding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on April 03, 2012, 09:25:44 AM
Quote from: PANK! on April 03, 2012, 09:21:01 AM
If he's really looking to save white people he should consider using a stand-in.  One glance at the guy is enough to determine that white people need to stop breeding.

It didn't stop you
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 03, 2012, 09:27:26 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/wisconsin-planned-parenthood/index.html

Quote(CNN) -- A Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin remained closed Monday after a homemade bomb was placed outside the building, the state organization said.

The explosive device was found around 7:40 p.m. Sunday at the Appleton North Health Center and had caused a small fire by the time Grand Chute fire officials arrived, Teri Huyck, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement.

No patients or staff members were at the health care center at the time, Huyck said, and no injuries were reported. The clinic remained closed Monday as a precaution, but the organization says it will reopen Tuesday.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on April 03, 2012, 09:33:15 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on April 03, 2012, 09:25:44 AM
Quote from: PANK! on April 03, 2012, 09:21:01 AM
If he's really looking to save white people he should consider using a stand-in.  One glance at the guy is enough to determine that white people need to stop breeding.

It didn't stop you

More sadly, it didn't stop your mom and your uncle.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 03, 2012, 09:38:14 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 03, 2012, 08:01:10 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 02, 2012, 09:31:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 02, 2012, 06:46:54 PM
No love for the sweatshorts/polo shirt combo?

The hems, pockets and generous taper suggest regular damn shorts with a comfort stretch waistband. Like the Founding Fathers used to wear.

Plus, they're made for easy removal. For all the trim this guy obviously gets.

That is a guy whose looks were made for a hoodie.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on April 03, 2012, 09:41:10 AM
Quote from: PANK! on April 03, 2012, 09:33:15 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on April 03, 2012, 09:25:44 AM
Quote from: PANK! on April 03, 2012, 09:21:01 AM
If he's really looking to save white people he should consider using a stand-in.  One glance at the guy is enough to determine that white people need to stop breeding.

It didn't stop you

More sadly, it didn't stop your mom and your uncle.

My brother? And Sister? I know..... :Sadface:


Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 03, 2012, 09:27:26 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/wisconsin-planned-parenthood/index.html

Quote(CNN) -- A Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin remained closed Monday after a homemade bomb was placed outside the building, the state organization said.

The explosive device was found around 7:40 p.m. Sunday at the Appleton North Health Center and had caused a small fire by the time Grand Chute fire officials arrived, Teri Huyck, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement.

No patients or staff members were at the health care center at the time, Huyck said, and no injuries were reported. The clinic remained closed Monday as a precaution, but the organization says it will reopen Tuesday.

It's important to remember that Islam is the religion of terror though

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on April 03, 2012, 09:41:20 AM
Quote from: PANK! on April 03, 2012, 09:33:15 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on April 03, 2012, 09:25:44 AM
Quote from: PANK! on April 03, 2012, 09:21:01 AM
If he's really looking to save white people he should consider using a stand-in.  One glance at the guy is enough to determine that white people need to stop breeding.

It didn't stop you

More sadly, it didn't stop your mom and your uncle aunt.

AC/DC Lesbo Message Board'd

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 03, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on April 03, 2012, 09:41:10 AM

It's important to remember that Islam is the religion of terror though



Yep (http://news.yahoo.com/iraqi-woman-attacked-california-home-threat-left-222739386.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on April 03, 2012, 09:54:10 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 03, 2012, 09:49:20 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on April 03, 2012, 09:41:10 AM

It's important to remember that Islam is the religion of terror though



Yep (http://news.yahoo.com/iraqi-woman-attacked-california-home-threat-left-222739386.html).

First off, they have teen pregnancies?

Second, that daughter needs some comfort through these traumatic times
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 04, 2012, 04:42:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 03, 2012, 09:27:26 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/wisconsin-planned-parenthood/index.html

Quote(CNN) -- A Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin remained closed Monday after a homemade bomb was placed outside the building, the state organization said.

The explosive device was found around 7:40 p.m. Sunday at the Appleton North Health Center and had caused a small fire by the time Grand Chute fire officials arrived, Teri Huyck, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement.

No patients or staff members were at the health care center at the time, Huyck said, and no injuries were reported. The clinic remained closed Monday as a precaution, but the organization says it will reopen Tuesday.

(http://i.imgur.com/MEz5y.jpg)

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20120404/GPG0101/120404121/Accused-Grand-Chute-Planned-Parenthood-arsonist-makes-court-appearance

QuoteA Grand Chute man accused of setting a fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic made his first appearance Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Green Bay.

Francis Grady, 50, told U.S. Magistrate Judge Sickel he planned to plead guilty, but Sickel ignored the statement and scheduled Grady for an April 19 preliminary hearing.

At one point, Grady interrupted him to ask, "Do you even care at all about the 1,000 babies that died screaming?"

Grady told his lawyer, public defender Tom Phillip he was fired for interrupting Sickel, prompting a woman from the back of the courtroom to call out, "Shut up, Frankie."

"My sister told me to shut up," Grady said to Phillip.


Phillip later explained Grady couldn't fire him, that he was appointed by the court and therefore could only be removed from the case by court order.

Wearing an orange Outagamie County Jail jumpsuit and a neck brace, Grady asked Sickel to transfer him to the Brown County Jail because he said Outagamie County doesn't have the medical staff to deal with what he claimed was a broken neck.

"If I move my neck a certain way, I could die, but who cares?" he said. But earlier in the hearing, he had taken off the neck brace and was playing with it as he looked around the courtroom.

Outside the courtroom, Grady told a Green Bay Press-Gazette photographer, "I just want to give one wink to my girlfriend." When a reporter asked him why he had planted a bomb at the clinic, Grady corrected him, saying, "There was no bomb, it was gasoline." He said he did it because "they're killing babies there."

Grady is charged with arson of a building used in interstate commerce and intentionally damaging a property used to provide reproductive health services.

The charges stem from Sunday's fire at Planned Parenthood, 3800 N. Gillett St., Grand Chute.

According to the criminal complaint, Grady told investigators he used a plastic water bottle filled with gasoline, used a hammer to break a window at the clinic, poured gasoline inside and lit it with a lighter.

Grady was arrested about two hours later for operating a vehicle while intoxicated after he became involved in a traffic crash in Kaukauna, the complaint says.

The white van he was driving matched one recorded in a security camera video at Planned Parenthood, according to the complaint. The video also showed a man, apparently Grady, climb out of the van carrying a hammer and a water bottle, the complaint says.

Outside the courthouse, Grady told reporters, "I'm here to do good and not wrong."

Grady faces up to 21 years in prison, four years of supervised release and fines of $350,000 if convicted.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 04, 2012, 10:08:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 04, 2012, 04:42:18 PM
Quote
"If I move my neck a certain way, I could die, but who cares?" he said. But earlier in the hearing, he had taken off the neck brace and was playing with it as he looked around the courtroom.

I think we all know how that approach worked out in the Brady Bunch. And really, I have better incendiaries just sitting around in the fridge. Color me unimpressed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2012, 10:15:30 PM
(http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/brady%20bunch%20episode.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on April 05, 2012, 07:16:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2012, 10:15:30 PM
(http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/brady%20bunch%20episode.jpg)

Not sure which is better - Carol Brady's rockin' femullet or Uncle Fester's sweet 'stache.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on April 05, 2012, 08:22:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 05, 2012, 07:16:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2012, 10:15:30 PM
(http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/brady%20bunch%20episode.jpg)

Not sure which is better - Carol Brady's rockin' femullet or Uncle Fester's sweet 'stache.

Holy shit.  All these years I had no idea that that belligerent, lying asshole was portrayed by the same actor who played Uncle Fester.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on April 05, 2012, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: PANK! on April 05, 2012, 08:22:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 05, 2012, 07:16:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2012, 10:15:30 PM
(http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/brady%20bunch%20episode.jpg)

Not sure which is better - Carol Brady's rockin' femullet or Uncle Fester's sweet 'stache.

Holy shit.  All these years I had no idea that that belligerent, lying asshole was portrayed by the same actor who played Uncle Fester.  Thank you.
I just remember being amazed that magnets worked on chalkboards.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 06, 2012, 06:29:36 PM
I'll give The National Review's John Derbyshire this much credit: he rarely minces words when it comes to his, uh... unpopular beliefs, whether it's in regard to his beef with women's suffrage (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/09/30/62209/derbyshire-female-suffrage/), his contention that women over the age of 20 (http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200511300810.asp) are TOO OLD! to be considered physically attractive (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217625/february-fooled-forsythia/john-derbyshire), or his shockingly severe warnings to his delicate white children to, for sake of their own safety, stay the hell away from the blacks (http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire) (who we're not even allowed to call "niggers" anymore, by the way).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 06, 2012, 06:30:02 PM
But maybe you think I'm kidding...

QuoteThere is much talk about "the talk."

"Sean O'Reilly was 16 when his mother gave him the talk that most black parents give their teenage sons," Denisa R. Superville of the Hackensack (NJ) Record tells us. Meanwhile, down in Atlanta: "Her sons were 12 and 8 when Marlyn Tillman realized it was time for her to have the talk," Gracie Bonds Staples writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Leonard Greene talks about the talk in the New York Post. Someone bylined as KJ Dell'Antonia talks about the talk in The New York Times. Darryl Owens talks about the talk in the Orlando Sentinel.

Yes, talk about the talk is all over.

There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

(1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term "African-American" seems to be in decline, thank goodness. "Colored" and "Negro" are archaisms. What you must call "the 'N' word" is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.

(2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: "It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry." (Same link.)

(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.

(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety.

(5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner.

(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.

(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.

(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.

(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 06, 2012, 06:30:18 PM
Quote...

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. "Life is an IQ test."

(12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. "The DMV lady" is a statistical truth, not a myth.

(13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I'll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

(14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers.

(15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

You have to follow my version of the talk point for point; but if you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 07, 2012, 02:23:44 AM
Holy shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on April 07, 2012, 03:27:11 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 05, 2012, 11:05:39 AM
Quote from: PANK! on April 05, 2012, 08:22:28 AM
Quote from: Fork on April 05, 2012, 07:16:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 04, 2012, 10:15:30 PM
(http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/brady%20bunch%20episode.jpg)

Not sure which is better - Carol Brady's rockin' femullet or Uncle Fester's sweet 'stache.

Holy shit.  All these years I had no idea that that belligerent, lying asshole was portrayed by the same actor who played Uncle Fester.  Thank you.

I just remember being amazed that magnets worked on chalkboards.

And what did you surmise to be the cause of this?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 10, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
Dubya seems to be enjoying his retirement.

QuoteIn his 15-minute opening speech to the gathering of prominent conservative politicians and economists, Bush pushed heavily for a pro-growth economic strategy.

"Much of the political debate — and I guess rightly so — is about our balance sheet," he said. "That makes sense. I mean, when you look at the debt to GDP,  it's pretty high."

I wonder why?

Though he did appear to do the one thing that the Jimmy Carters of the world never did for him. 

Regarding his successor:
Quote"I don't think it's good, frankly, for our country, to undermine our president, and I don't intend to do so," Bush said.

But then I didn't understand if the last line of the article was Dubya attempting to be folksy or he just came off as a dick.

QuoteTo keep contact with the troops, Bush said he hosts mountain biking and golf outings for veterans.

"You know, I love to mountain bike ride," he said. "What I don't like to do is be beaten on a mountain bike ride by a one-legged veteran, but it's likely to happen."

Full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-bush-talks-economics-says-he-wont-undermine-our-president-20120410,0,7417656.story
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on April 10, 2012, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 10, 2012, 04:46:13 PM
Dubya seems to be enjoying his retirement.

QuoteIn his 15-minute opening speech to the gathering of prominent conservative politicians and economists, Bush pushed heavily for a pro-growth economic strategy.

"Much of the political debate — and I guess rightly so — is about our balance sheet," he said. "That makes sense. I mean, when you look at the debt to GDP,  it's pretty high."

I wonder why?

Though he did appear to do the one thing that the Jimmy Carters of the world never did for him. 

Regarding his successor:
Quote"I don't think it's good, frankly, for our country, to undermine our president, and I don't intend to do so," Bush said.

But then I didn't understand if the last line of the article was Dubya attempting to be folksy or he just came off as a dick.

QuoteTo keep contact with the troops, Bush said he hosts mountain biking and golf outings for veterans.

"You know, I love to mountain bike ride," he said. "What I don't like to do is be beaten on a mountain bike ride by a one-legged veteran, but it's likely to happen."

Full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-bush-talks-economics-says-he-wont-undermine-our-president-20120410,0,7417656.story

Bush doesn't give a wit for the one-leggeds. Or the blacks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on April 13, 2012, 05:03:09 AM
What would YOU ask Mitt Romney (http://www.ranker.com/list/the-funniest-_askromney-tweets/keaton?page=1)?  The "does this look infected" one made me laugh until the tears rolled down my cheeks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 13, 2012, 10:58:17 AM
Quote from: Tonker on April 13, 2012, 05:03:09 AM
What would YOU ask Mitt Romney (http://www.ranker.com/list/the-funniest-_askromney-tweets/keaton?page=1)?  The "does this look infected" one made me laugh until the tears rolled down my cheeks.

#askRomney do you think you could dunk on Obama. Do you believe you have the sick dunks this country needs
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 13, 2012, 11:12:32 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 13, 2012, 10:58:17 AM
Quote from: Tonker on April 13, 2012, 05:03:09 AM
What would YOU ask Mitt Romney (http://www.ranker.com/list/the-funniest-_askromney-tweets/keaton?page=1)?  The "does this look infected" one made me laugh until the tears rolled down my cheeks.

#askRomney do you think you could dunk on Obama. Do you believe you have the sick dunks this country needs

#askRomney can you hit better than 20% from behind the arc (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/04/coffee-break-obama-misses-basketball-shots-120005.html)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on April 13, 2012, 11:16:44 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 13, 2012, 11:12:32 AM
Quote from: Slaky on April 13, 2012, 10:58:17 AM
Quote from: Tonker on April 13, 2012, 05:03:09 AM
What would YOU ask Mitt Romney (http://www.ranker.com/list/the-funniest-_askromney-tweets/keaton?page=1)?  The "does this look infected" one made me laugh until the tears rolled down my cheeks.

#askRomney do you think you could dunk on Obama. Do you believe you have the sick dunks this country needs

#askRomney can you hit better than 20% from behind the arc (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/04/coffee-break-obama-misses-basketball-shots-120005.html)?

Would you foul on the floor up three with under 10 seconds left in regulation *smashes cubicle* wait what were we doing?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on April 13, 2012, 12:07:39 PM
So some clueless Democratic consultant makes a dumb remark about Ann Romney never having held a job and the Repugnicans get to capitalize on it by going on about how every mother has the hardest job in the world.  I wonder how many servants (house slaves) Ann had to assist her in raising her 5 sons?  The fact is that the Romney family was very poor.  Mitt was poor.  Ann was poor.  Their five sons were poor.  Their butlers were poor.  Their housemaids were poor.  The cooks were poor.  The chauffeurs were poor.  Their illegal alien gardeners were poor...They were all poor.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 17, 2012, 06:42:12 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/is-missouri-about-to-secede-again/255980/

QuoteDid you know that Missouri is (again) thinking about seceding from the Union? Neither did I until I stumbled across SJR 45, a wince-worthy measure introduced earlier this year by Tea Partyist Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator whose anti-government rhetoric is strident even by today's grim standards. The proposed state constitutional amendment -- it would have to be approved by voters even if it makes it by the politicians -- is patently unconstitutional but remarkably candid in expressing the seditious level of dissent circulating through some state legislatures around the country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 17, 2012, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 17, 2012, 06:42:12 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/is-missouri-about-to-secede-again/255980/

QuoteDid you know that Missouri is (again) thinking about seceding from the Union? Neither did I until I stumbled across SJR 45, a wince-worthy measure introduced earlier this year by Tea Partyist Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator whose anti-government rhetoric is strident even by today's grim standards. The proposed state constitutional amendment -- it would have to be approved by voters even if it makes it by the politicians -- is patently unconstitutional but remarkably candid in expressing the seditious level of dissent circulating through some state legislatures around the country.

Missouri didn't properly secede in the first place, correct?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 17, 2012, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 17, 2012, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 17, 2012, 06:42:12 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/is-missouri-about-to-secede-again/255980/

QuoteDid you know that Missouri is (again) thinking about seceding from the Union? Neither did I until I stumbled across SJR 45, a wince-worthy measure introduced earlier this year by Tea Partyist Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator whose anti-government rhetoric is strident even by today's grim standards. The proposed state constitutional amendment -- it would have to be approved by voters even if it makes it by the politicians -- is patently unconstitutional but remarkably candid in expressing the seditious level of dissent circulating through some state legislatures around the country.

Missouri didn't properly secede in the first place, correct?

There's only one state that properly seceded. The rest were just copycats.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on April 17, 2012, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 17, 2012, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 17, 2012, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 17, 2012, 06:42:12 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/is-missouri-about-to-secede-again/255980/

QuoteDid you know that Missouri is (again) thinking about seceding from the Union? Neither did I until I stumbled across SJR 45, a wince-worthy measure introduced earlier this year by Tea Partyist Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator whose anti-government rhetoric is strident even by today's grim standards. The proposed state constitutional amendment -- it would have to be approved by voters even if it makes it by the politicians -- is patently unconstitutional but remarkably candid in expressing the seditious level of dissent circulating through some state legislatures around the country.

Missouri didn't properly secede in the first place, correct?

There's only one state that properly seceded. The rest were just copycats.

South Carolina must be destroyed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 17, 2012, 11:20:07 PM
Quote from: CT III on April 17, 2012, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 17, 2012, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 17, 2012, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 17, 2012, 06:42:12 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/is-missouri-about-to-secede-again/255980/

QuoteDid you know that Missouri is (again) thinking about seceding from the Union? Neither did I until I stumbled across SJR 45, a wince-worthy measure introduced earlier this year by Tea Partyist Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator whose anti-government rhetoric is strident even by today's grim standards. The proposed state constitutional amendment -- it would have to be approved by voters even if it makes it by the politicians -- is patently unconstitutional but remarkably candid in expressing the seditious level of dissent circulating through some state legislatures around the country.

Missouri didn't properly secede in the first place, correct?

There's only one state that properly seceded. The rest were just copycats.

South Carolina must be destroyed.

Better drunks than you have tried.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 18, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 17, 2012, 11:20:07 PM
Quote from: CT III on April 17, 2012, 09:20:50 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 17, 2012, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 17, 2012, 07:44:54 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 17, 2012, 06:42:12 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/is-missouri-about-to-secede-again/255980/

QuoteDid you know that Missouri is (again) thinking about seceding from the Union? Neither did I until I stumbled across SJR 45, a wince-worthy measure introduced earlier this year by Tea Partyist Brian Nieves, a Republican state senator whose anti-government rhetoric is strident even by today's grim standards. The proposed state constitutional amendment -- it would have to be approved by voters even if it makes it by the politicians -- is patently unconstitutional but remarkably candid in expressing the seditious level of dissent circulating through some state legislatures around the country.

Missouri didn't properly secede in the first place, correct?

There's only one state that properly seceded. The rest were just copycats.

South Carolina must be destroyed.

Better drunks than you have tried.

That really isn't fair.  You're talking about one of the greatest drunks ever.  None of us can measure up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 18, 2012, 07:17:28 AM
DPD.

(http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1865/january/atlanta-burning.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 18, 2012, 09:14:57 AM
Librul blogger Atrios has been compiling a list of the biggest media wankers of the last decade. Yesterday he revealed the winner - The Moustache of Understanding, Tom Friedman (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/04/one-true-wanker-of-decade.html).

QuoteFriedman possesses all of the qualities that make a pundit truly wankerific. He fetishizes a false "centrism" which is basically whatever Tom Friedman likes, imagining the Friedman agenda is both incredibly popular in the country and lacking any support from our current politicians, when in fact the opposite is usually true.

QuoteTruly great wankers possess a kind of glib narcissism, the belief that everything is about them while simultaneously disavowing any responsibility for anything. The important thing about an issue is whether it proves Tom Friedman fucking right, but if it doesn't we can just move on to the next big thing that will prove Tom Friedman fucking right. If you advocate for wars that go a bit bad, well, it's not your fault. If only Tom Friedman had been in charge everything would have been great.

Such wankers are impervious to criticism because they're always doing battle with straw critics. They never remember what they said last week, and assume you won't either.

As if on queue, the Moustache's latest column (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/friedman-one-for-the-country.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) is about...drafting Michael Bloomberg as a third party candidate to save our souls, because his cell phone dropped some calls, and an escalator was broken.

QuoteI had to catch a train in Washington last week. The paved street in the traffic circle around Union Station was in such poor condition that I felt as though I was on a roller coaster. I traveled on the Amtrak Acela, our sorry excuse for a fast train, on which I had so many dropped calls on my cellphone that you'd have thought I was on a remote desert island, not traveling from Washington to New York City. When I got back to Union Station, the escalator in the parking garage was broken. Maybe you've gotten used to all this and have stopped noticing. I haven't. Our country needs a renewal.

And that is why I still hope Michael Bloomberg will reconsider running for president as an independent candidate, if only to participate in the presidential debates and give our two-party system the shock it needs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 18, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
I sure hope hating Friedman is a bipartisan deal, because I think this is a great chance for both parties to reach across the aisles and slap the shit out of him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 18, 2012, 09:42:51 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 18, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
I sure hope hating Friedman is a bipartisan deal, because I think this is a great chance for both parties to reach across the aisles and slap the shit out of him.

It pretty much is. I think his PRC fetish (the government there really knows how to get things done), and his enjoying/aggravating travel note of the week like the one RV/Atrios pointed to are reasons I want to punch him in the mustache.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on April 18, 2012, 09:47:53 AM
Quote from: Brownie on April 18, 2012, 09:42:51 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 18, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
I sure hope hating Friedman is a bipartisan deal, because I think this is a great chance for both parties to reach across the aisles and slap the shit out of him.

It pretty much is. I think his PRC fetish (the government there really knows how to get things done), and his enjoying/aggravating travel note of the week like the one RV/Atrios pointed to are reasons I want to punch him in the mustache.

Don't forget how every couple of months, he writes some masturbatory column about how we need a third party built around everything he believes in.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on April 18, 2012, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 18, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
I sure hope hating Friedman is a bipartisan deal, because I think this is a great chance for both parties to reach across the aisles and slap the shit out of him.

It is indeed.  Let's all join hands and celebrate his doucheness.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 18, 2012, 10:03:49 AM
Quote from: Bort on April 18, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
I sure hope hating Friedman is a bipartisan deal, because I think this is a great chance for both parties to reach across the aisles and slap the shit out of him.

According to libertarian firebrand Radley Balko:

http://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/192388935056506881

QuoteIf anything can unite left, right, and libertarian in unanimous, harmonious agreement, it is this. http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/04/one-true-wanker-of-decade.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on April 18, 2012, 10:04:06 AM
I had to read The World is Flat my freshman year at Bradley. I can't imagine reading him on a weekly basis. Get bent, Friedman. Oh, and this guy too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 18, 2012, 10:05:41 AM
#Americans need to prepare themselves as the probability of our country uniting in bipartisan mocking of Tom Friedman continues to increase.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 18, 2012, 10:33:26 AM
Time to revisit a classic...

http://prospect.org/article/datsun-and-shoe-tree

QuoteI was changing planes at the new airport in Jakarta the other day, on the way to Stockholm from Vladivostok. Three young Bangladeshi boys sat in the passenger lounge, watching The Power Rangers on satellite TV. Their mother--garbed in the traditional sari--talked to her cousin, a migrant worker who sold German-designed Walkman knockoffs in Hong Kong, on a shiny new Samsung cell phone. Sitting to one side of them was a young Chinese émigré on his way to Toronto to work for a software company, and on the other a business-suited Rastafarian making a connection to Bratislava. Meanwhile, a couple of Tuareg tribesmen sat cross-legged in front of the ticket counter, cooking yams over a flaming mound of ticket stubs.

What's my point? I don't actually have one--but opening my columns with strings of clichéd cultural juxtapositions really cuts down my workload. You see, since the Cold War ended, we've gone from superpowers to spreadsheets, Pershings to Pentiums, the Berlin Wall to suburban sprawl, olive trees to Lexuses. Are you ready? Because the whole world is changing. Unless you are one of the eight-tenths of humanity who at this moment are either hungry, illiterate, or field-stripping an AK-47, in which case I'll get back to you in some future column.

Nothing is local anymore. It's all global because the Internet makes everything local, which is the same as everything being global, because nothing has to be local when everything's global. Especially the local. For instance, I was talking to the guy who cleaned the toilets in my suite at the Bombay Hilton, and he told me, "If only I had a computer! You see, toilet-scrubbing in Bombay is really a local business, but with a laptop and a modem, I could maybe branch out into e-commerce services."

He gets it. He knows how the world works. Other people who understand how the world works are my good friends Ehud Barak, Haydar Aliyev--you know Haydar, the president of Azerbaijan?--Vladimir Putin, Kofi Annan, my book club, Strobe, Jim Baker, and the rest. I'd quote one of these guys here, but everyone's over at the Trilateral Commission's annual in London. (Did I mention I'm a member?)

But there are still many people who just don't seem to get it--and not just those stupid hippies in Seattle and D.C. For instance, I was recently on an author tour in Botswana promoting the Bantu-language version of my new book, having just returned from Uzbekistan via Khartoum. They had built a huge stage for me in the stadium at Gaborone, set up with lots of audio equipment and what looked to be a drum kit. There was a crowd of thousands, and they all kept shouting "Thrill-her! Thrill-her!" and "Mike-all!", which I believe is Bantu for "We love Freetrademan." (As my friend Nelson Mandela always likes to say, those crazy Botswana!)

Anyway, I picked up a microphone and explained why global free trade would eventually make everyone better off, even if some people would suffer in the short term. But they just looked confused. Eventually some husky men in SECURITY T-shirts escorted me back to my limo. Such are the forces aligned against progress.

But that was months ago. And in this ultrafast, hyperlinked, World-Wide-Webbed world of ours, that may as well be decades. When the speed of computer processors doubles every 18 months, old ideas and ideologies can become obsolete in weeks, even days. For instance, I once made up something called "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention," which held that no two countries that have a McDonald's franchise have ever gone to war. Then the USAF bombed Belgrade. Oops!

But that just proves my point; like an inefficient Korean chaebol, I was forced to come up with a new theory. It's called "The Post-1989 Western Democracy Theory of Conflict Prevention," which holds that no two industrialized democracies in Western Europe and North America have ever gone to war since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And if that one fails, there's always my "Post-Hapsburg Lichtenstein-Morocco Theory of Conflict Prevention," which holds that no two remnant European city-states have ever gone to war since the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Anyway, the world out there is changing fast. We have to change with it--whether we are ready or not. But imagine the world as it could be if we finally tore down those walls. We could have a computer in every home, an Internet connection in every classroom, a Big Mac in every stomach, tortured metaphors in every paragraph--and a brilliant, free-trading, celebrity foreign affairs columnist in every newspaper.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 18, 2012, 10:41:09 AM
Ooh. Some good stuff here...

http://jilliancyork.com/2011/12/14/the-definitive-collection-of-thomas-friedman-takedowns/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 18, 2012, 01:46:39 PM
Someone needs to take Peter King's Starwood Preferred Traveler Enjoying/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week and turn it into a Friedman column. Or take a Friedman column and embed it into a MMQB.


INTERNET, MAKE IT HAPPEN!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on April 18, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 18, 2012, 01:46:39 PM
Someone needs to take Peter King's Starwood Preferred Traveler Enjoying/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week and turn it into a Friedman column. Or take a Friedman column and embed it into a MMQB.


INTERNET, MAKE IT HAPPEN!!

Are you trying to kill people?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on April 18, 2012, 01:51:46 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 18, 2012, 01:48:42 PM
Quote from: Brownie on April 18, 2012, 01:46:39 PM
Someone needs to take Peter King's Starwood Preferred Traveler Enjoying/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week and turn it into a Friedman column. Or take a Friedman column and embed it into a MMQB.


INTERNET, MAKE IT HAPPEN!!

Are you trying to kill people?

Yes. But I also believe SKO could do it in 45 minutes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on April 18, 2012, 09:42:45 PM
Get fucked, Bishop...

QuoteIn the homily at in St. Mary's Cathedral in Peoria, Jenky took aim at health care policies proposed by the Obama administration, which have been a source of consternation for Catholic bishops since they were announced earlier this year.

Ok, no biggie.  Not like the Pope has never said that universal health care isn't a right (He did (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm)) but whatever.

But then you get this garbage.

Quote"Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room," he said. "In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his 'Kulturkampf,' a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

"Clemenceau, nicknamed 'the priest eater,' tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century. Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda -- now seems intent on following a similar path."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-group-blasts-peoria-bishops-comparison-of-obama-policies-to-hitler-stalin-20120418,0,4979178.story
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on April 18, 2012, 10:15:03 PM
It's kind of rich for the church to bring up nazis.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on April 19, 2012, 09:06:18 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 18, 2012, 09:42:45 PM
Get fucked, Bishop...

QuoteIn the homily at in St. Mary's Cathedral in Peoria, Jenky took aim at health care policies proposed by the Obama administration, which have been a source of consternation for Catholic bishops since they were announced earlier this year.

Ok, no biggie.  Not like the Pope has never said that universal health care isn't a right (He did (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm)) but whatever.

But then you get this garbage.

Quote"Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room," he said. "In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his 'Kulturkampf,' a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

"Clemenceau, nicknamed 'the priest eater,' tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century. Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda -- now seems intent on following a similar path."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-group-blasts-peoria-bishops-comparison-of-obama-policies-to-hitler-stalin-20120418,0,4979178.story

I haven't been this ashamed of Peoria since we instituted that ban on store-bought jorts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on April 26, 2012, 06:43:27 PM
CISPSTINK is terrible.

http://gizmodo.com/5905360/what-is-cispa

QuoteCISPA is a proposed national "cyber security law" bouncing around Congress...
The intent of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Michael Rogers (R-MI), is to protect America's internet interests (both governmental and our precious YouTubes) against attacks. It's technically an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, but would have sweeping 21st century consequences. Rogers cites China as a main threat—conventional wisdom does say they're constantly trying to breach American networks, along with Russia and Iran—but this goes way beyond Cold War hack paranoia, and into your laptop.

...that would let websites you use hand over your personal data and read your email...
The scariest part of CISPA is how astonishingly broad and loose it is, like some sort of giant, poorly-built rope bridge. Over a volcano. CISPA would permit any private company (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, Google, you name it) to give away any and all data it's collected on you when asked by a government agency. Literally any government agency. This data would then head to the Department of Homeland Security.

...based on very vague terms...
CISPA says companies need to give up your information only in the face of a "cyber threat." So, what is a "cyber threat"? Nobody really knows! The bill defines it as "efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy government or private systems and networks." In other words, trying to do bad stuff on the internet, or even just talking about it. Ideally, this would be narrowed to specific malicious LulzSec stuff like DDoS attacks, but it's not. It can be almost anything!

...with very little oversight...
Would Facebook need to be given a warrant or subpoena before spilling your data to the feds? Nope! Would you ever be informed that you data had been released? Nope! What if you think the government has accessed your personal stuff without cause? Too bad! They're 100% immune, as long as the groups involved acted in "good faith," which legally means pretty much zilch. All previous laws that protected your privacy against government eavesdropping, like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, would be overridden.

...and some powerful backers...
Facebook, Google, and Microsoft all support CISPA. Why? Because they don't want to get hacked, and they think this will keep them safe(r). Are they right in this? Maybe, but they're also ignoring the companies can share anything they want whenever they want however they want with the government aspect of the bill.

And it just passed the House. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47196773/ns/technology_and_science-security/)

It appears that Obama is poised to veto if it passes the Senate, at least insofar as the administration has come out and said (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75612.html) "if H.R. 3523 were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

But fuck this shit sideways regardless.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/cybersecurity-bill-faq-disturbing-privacy-dangers-cispa-and-how-you-stop-it
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/cispa-national-security-and-nsa-ability-read-your-emails
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/even-rogers-amendments-cispa-still-surveillance-bill
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 03, 2012, 07:47:47 AM
Morph and TJ don't agree with Stephen King...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

QuoteThe U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don't ask me why; I don't get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can't seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber ... which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I've gotten the same reaction myself, even though I'm only "baby rich" compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God's sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope's balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, "I'm rich and I don't apologize for it." Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren't blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn't have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it's not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It's un-fucking-American is what it is. I don't want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you're on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to "cut a check and shut up," in Governor Christie's words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That's called stepping up and not whining about it. That's called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn't cost their beloved rich folks any money.

Go back to Mainetana, Commie.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on May 03, 2012, 08:50:49 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 03, 2012, 07:47:47 AM
Morph and TJ don't agree with Stephen King...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

QuoteThe U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don't ask me why; I don't get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can't seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber ... which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I've gotten the same reaction myself, even though I'm only "baby rich" compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God's sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope's balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, "I'm rich and I don't apologize for it." Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren't blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn't have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it's not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It's un-fucking-American is what it is. I don't want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you're on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to "cut a check and shut up," in Governor Christie's words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That's called stepping up and not whining about it. That's called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn't cost their beloved rich folks any money.

Go back to Mainetana, Commie.

Why doesn't he just send a check to the Treasury they accept donations derp.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 09:38:01 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/W6UE7.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 03, 2012, 12:38:42 PM
"Fair share." Stephen King is supposed to be a descriptive writer yet all he can do is use a pedestrian phrase like "fair share" to exclaim how much he should pay in taxes. But, his creative personal attacks (seriously, Stephen, are these the best you can do?) really add something to this debate I've seen nowhere else.

When you can determine what share is "fair" and why it is so, you are free to get back to me. Gil and RV described a system they felt was fair. I disagreed with their rates, but that's something we can at least work with.

Stephen King offers none of that, but he does offer a very poor understanding of economics and finance.

I am just hopeful we can all pay our "fair share" and most important, get rid of all the "loopholes" and everything then will be grand.

But, don't worry! The President is on it, complaining about tax loopholes, while proposing several new tax loopholes during the State of the Union!

And fuck yeah, R-V, he absolutely should pay the IRS what he thinks he should be taxed.

Finally, the number of Americans with 0 federal income tax is around 50%. How many of them are rich?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 03, 2012, 01:23:59 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 03, 2012, 12:38:42 PM"Fair share." Stephen King is supposed to be a descriptive writer yet all he can do is use a pedestrian phrase like "fair share" to exclaim how much he should pay in taxes. But, his creative personal attacks (seriously, Stephen, are these the best you can do?) really add something to this debate I've seen nowhere else.

When you can determine what share is "fair" and why it is so, you are free to get back to me. Gil and RV described a system they felt was fair. I disagreed with their rates, but that's something we can at least work with.

He's talking in principles, not policy specifics. Just like tea party types and 1%ers talk in principles when they cry out William Wallace-like for their FREEDOM.

It's rhetoric. A counterweight.

It's rhetoric that says that "patriotism" means caring about your country. And that caring about your country means caring about its people and providing for "the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts".

It's rhetoric opposed to Grover Norquist and his Congressional signatories, who consider any tax raise ever, regardless of those policy specifics you're demanding, to be anathema. Who stand athwart the common welfare yelling, "I got mine."

Quote from: Brownie on May 03, 2012, 12:38:42 PMFinally, the number of Americans with 0 federal income tax is around 50%.

Or, rather, was around 50%. At the height of recession unemployment and stimulus tax cuts.

Quote from: Brownie on May 03, 2012, 12:38:42 PMHow many of them are rich?

Before or after they pay out 15-20% of their already subsistence-level incomes in other taxes federal, state and local?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 03, 2012, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 03, 2012, 12:38:42 PM
Finally, the number of Americans with 0 federal income tax is around 50%. How many of them are rich?

What's the percent of federal income tax filers who are above 0% and don't pay payroll taxes?

I'll bet 100% of them are rich.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
I'm just glad that we're spending so much time on such an important facet of the economy - WHO'S PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE? - while ignoring relatively unimportant things like the fiscal cliff coming at the end of 2012, or even better, the quadrillions in entitlement spending that couldn't be covered even if we assumed that people don't respond to incentives and jacked the tax rate up to 100% for the top half of the income distribution.

By all means, let's continue to discuss whether someone isn't paying someone else's idea of a FAIR SHARE of income tax, despite the existing progressivity and horrible inefficiency of the current effective income tax structure and the stupidly high corporate tax in the U.S.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:11:42 PM
DPD.  Damnit, I didn't heed my own advice.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 03, 2012, 03:38:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:11:42 PM
DPD.  Damnit, I didn't heed my own advice.

You took the morphbait.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 03, 2012, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
... the stupidly high corporate tax in the U.S.

Those poor, poor people.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 03, 2012, 04:35:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 03, 2012, 12:38:42 PM
"Fair share." Stephen King is supposed to be a descriptive writer yet all he can do is use a pedestrian phrase like "fair share" to exclaim how much he should pay in taxes. But, his creative personal attacks (seriously, Stephen, are these the best you can do?) really add something to this debate I've seen nowhere else.

When you can determine what share is "fair" and why it is so, you are free to get back to me. Gil and RV described a system they felt was fair. I disagreed with their rates, but that's something we can at least work with.

Stephen King offers none of that, but he does offer a very poor understanding of economics and finance.

I am just hopeful we can all pay our "fair share" and most important, get rid of all the "loopholes" and everything then will be grand.

But, don't worry! The President is on it, complaining about tax loopholes, while proposing several new tax loopholes during the State of the Union!

And fuck yeah, R-V, he absolutely should pay the IRS what he thinks he should be taxed.

Finally, the number of Americans with 0 federal income tax is around 50%. How many of them are rich?

This I totally agree with TJ on: "But, don't worry! The President is on it, complaining about tax loopholes, while proposing several new tax loopholes during the State of the Union!"  That was absurd and stupid.

However, this "And fuck yeah, R-V, he absolutely should pay the IRS what he thinks he should be taxed" while I can understand the argument, seems out of place for me.

If I think there should be a traffic control device at a particular intersection, and I advocate for that before the city council or whatever, am I obligated to obey a non-existant traffic control device before I convince others to come around to my position?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 03, 2012, 05:02:29 PM
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 03, 2012, 09:38:49 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 03, 2012, 04:35:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 03, 2012, 12:38:42 PM
"Fair share." Stephen King is supposed to be a descriptive writer yet all he can do is use a pedestrian phrase like "fair share" to exclaim how much he should pay in taxes. But, his creative personal attacks (seriously, Stephen, are these the best you can do?) really add something to this debate I've seen nowhere else.

When you can determine what share is "fair" and why it is so, you are free to get back to me. Gil and RV described a system they felt was fair. I disagreed with their rates, but that's something we can at least work with.

Stephen King offers none of that, but he does offer a very poor understanding of economics and finance.

I am just hopeful we can all pay our "fair share" and most important, get rid of all the "loopholes" and everything then will be grand.

But, don't worry! The President is on it, complaining about tax loopholes, while proposing several new tax loopholes during the State of the Union!

And fuck yeah, R-V, he absolutely should pay the IRS what he thinks he should be taxed.

Finally, the number of Americans with 0 federal income tax is around 50%. How many of them are rich?

This I totally agree with TJ on: "But, don't worry! The President is on it, complaining about tax loopholes, while proposing several new tax loopholes during the State of the Union!"  That was absurd and stupid.

However, this "And fuck yeah, R-V, he absolutely should pay the IRS what he thinks he should be taxed" while I can understand the argument, seems out of place for me.

If I think there should be a traffic control device at a particular intersection, and I advocate for that before the city council or whatever, am I obligated to obey a non-existant traffic control device before I convince others to come around to my position?

King -- and Buffett -- saying he wants to be taxed more is disingenuous. He wants to be generous with others' money, which isn't being generous at all.  Hell, he doesn't have to go to great pains to file his income taxes. Fill out a 1040EZ, report all income as ordinary, and be done with it.

Truthfully, I wouldn't advise anyone except a loudmouth like King to pay the government a little extra. Hate the game, not the player.

I guess the common ground to be had in this debate is that enough Ds and Rs agree with enough of what Morph said and what Bowles-Simpson proposed, that rhetoric like Stephen King's essay (which is so beneath his ability anyway) is years behind where we should be.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2012, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
... the stupidly high corporate tax in the U.S.

Those poor, poor people.

http://c457332.r32.cf2.rackcdn.com/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: ChuckD on May 04, 2012, 07:17:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2012, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
... the stupidly high corporate tax in the U.S.

Those poor, poor people.

http://c457332.r32.cf2.rackcdn.com/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf

I made it to the first hyperbole. Which is to say, stopped reading at the first sentence.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 04, 2012, 08:13:45 AM

The American economy, like any disease, generates more profit in the treatment than the cure.

There's really a simple and logical conclusion: Neither the collection nor the distribution of revenue has any balance or logic, and is not in the better interests of the American people.

If everyone acted on that conclusion, then a combination of tax and spending reform would put us in far better stead.

Of course, there are a lot of lobbyists filling the trough where politicians feed. That will prevent the cure from ever happening.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 04, 2012, 08:15:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 04, 2012, 08:13:45 AM

The American economy, like any disease, generates more profit in the treatment than the cure.

There's really a simple and logical conclusion: Neither the collection nor the distribution of revenue has any balance or logic, and is not in the better interests of the American people.

If everyone acted on that conclusion, then a combination of tax and spending reform would put us in far better stead.

Of course, there are a lot of lobbyists filling the trough where politicians feed. That will prevent the cure from ever happening.

Fork is... right?  Yes.  FORK IS RIGHT!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 04, 2012, 08:21:35 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 04, 2012, 07:17:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2012, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
... the stupidly high corporate tax in the U.S.

Those poor, poor people.

http://c457332.r32.cf2.rackcdn.com/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf

I made it to the first hyperbole. Which is to say, stopped reading at the first sentence.

DPD.  I'm happy to help.  From page 5:

QuoteFrom this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence.  The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 04, 2012, 08:39:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 04, 2012, 08:21:35 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 04, 2012, 07:17:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2012, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
... the stupidly high corporate tax in the U.S.

Those poor, poor people.

http://c457332.r32.cf2.rackcdn.com/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf

I made it to the first hyperbole. Which is to say, stopped reading at the first sentence.

DPD.  I'm happy to help.  From page 5:

QuoteFrom this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence.  The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

So what you're saying is I'm a dope for buying this book when I could have downloaded it for free.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 04, 2012, 08:41:16 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 04, 2012, 08:39:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 04, 2012, 08:21:35 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on May 04, 2012, 07:17:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2012, 03:47:48 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 03, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
... the stupidly high corporate tax in the U.S.

Those poor, poor people.

http://c457332.r32.cf2.rackcdn.com/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf

I made it to the first hyperbole. Which is to say, stopped reading at the first sentence.

DPD.  I'm happy to help.  From page 5:

QuoteFrom this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence.  The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

So what you're saying is I'm a dope for buying this book when I could have downloaded it for free.

Don't you understand the free market?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 04, 2012, 09:22:06 AM
QuoteFrom this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence.  The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.


Economics is no more an art than voice over.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 04, 2012, 09:51:28 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 04, 2012, 09:22:06 AM
QuoteFrom this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence.  The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.


Economics is no more an art than voice over.

Oh man, I had totally forgotten about that guy. I'm not sure how.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 04, 2012, 11:00:56 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 04, 2012, 09:22:06 AM
QuoteFrom this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence.  The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.


Economics is no more an art than voice over.

And no more of a hard science than sociology or psychology.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 04, 2012, 04:13:00 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUSPECT_FORGOTTEN

QuoteSAN DIEGO (AP) -- The case of a detained college student who was forgotten in a holding cell for more than four days suggests a breakdown in procedure and oversight within the Drug Enforcement Administration, a California federal lawmaker said Thursday.

Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter said in a letter sent Thursday to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart that the treatment of 23-year-old Daniel Chong raises concerns about the agency's handling and monitoring of individuals in custody.

Chong was swept up in a drug raid on April 21. After questioning him, agents told him that he would not be charged and to hang tight in the holding cell until they finished the paperwork to release him. The door did not reopen until April 25 when agents found a severely dehydrated Chong covered in his own feces.

Chong spent five days in the hospital.

The incident was one of the worst cases of its kind, law enforcement experts say.

Hunter said he wants a full account of Chong's incarceration, the process currently in place for holding individuals suspected of unlawful activity and the steps that the DEA is taking to address this matter in its entirety.

"The situation involving Chong may in fact be an isolated incident," Hunter wrote. "Regardless, my concern is that this situation could also be a symptom of a bigger problem, with errors in procedure and oversight possibly extending to the division's law enforcement function."

Hunter said such oversight is especially important given the DEA's presence in the U.S.-Mexico border region. He is asking for information on any other investigations pertaining to the San Diego division.

A federal law enforcement official familiar with DEA operations said the agency's protocols require that cells be checked each night. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter, said the cell where Chong was held is not intended for overnight stays because it does not have a toilet.

The top DEA agent in San Diego, William R. Sherman, said in a statement that he was "deeply troubled" by what happened to Chong and has personally ordered an extensive review of his office's policies and procedures. Sherman also issued an apology to Chong, though the student said he was not personally contacted by Sherman.

Chong told The Associated Press in an interview that he screamed and kicked the door after waiting hours in the cell.

Then as the days dragged on, the terrifying realization set in that he was trapped. He had been forgotten in a 5-by-10-foot windowless room, hearing only the muffled sounds of voices and toilets flushing in the Drug Enforcement Administration facility in San Diego.

On the third day, he began to hallucinate. He urinated on a metal bench to be able to drink his urine. He stacked a blanket, his pants and shoes on the bench and tried to reach an overhead fire sprinkler, futilely swatting at it with his cuffed hands to set it off.

Then, the engineering student says he gave up and accepted death. He bit into his eyeglasses to break them. He says he used a shard of glass to carve "Sorry Mom" onto his arm so he could leave something for her.

He managed to finish an "S." He says he considered ending his life with the glass to quicken his death.

"I pretty much lost my mind," he told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Help came after four days, when agents on a fluke opened the door and found him covered in his own feces. He says a bewildered agent asked: "Where'd you come from?"


Chong was treated in the hospital for dehydration, kidney failure, cramps and a perforated esophagus. He had lost 15 pounds.

His attorneys filed a $20 million claim on Wednesday against the federal agency, saying his treatment constitutes torture under U.S. and international law. The five-page notice, a required precursor to a lawsuit, was sent to the DEA's chief counsel in Washington, D.C. The $20 million figure refers to the maximum amount that Chong and his lawyers would seek.

Chong told the AP his ordeal started after he went to his friend's house on April 20 to get high, part of a national, annual countercultural ritual on that date. Chong slept there that night and, the next morning, agents stormed into the house. The raid netted 18,000 ecstasy pills, other drugs and weapons. Nine people, including Chong, were taken into custody, according to the DEA.

Serves him right for walking around with a name like Chong.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 07, 2012, 12:00:10 AM
Mexico really knows how to run a Presidential debate. (http://burrohall.blogspot.com/2012/05/body-politic.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Even when he's doing something decent, Joe Biden still has to be Joe Biden...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/06/478786/biden-marriage/

QuoteI think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 07, 2012, 06:57:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Even when he's doing something decent, Joe Biden still has to be Joe Biden...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/06/478786/biden-marriage/

QuoteI think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far.

At first it sounds glib.  But giving it a little thought I have to agree.  Will and Grace was a ground breaker.  Will and Grace introduced people who didn't know that they had gay people all around them to the fact that gays aren't any particular threat to them and their marriages.  They learned that gays came in all sizes, shapes, and flavors.  The show also gave us one last look at one of my heroes, Gregory Hines.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 07:51:25 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 07, 2012, 06:57:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Even when he's doing something decent, Joe Biden still has to be Joe Biden...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/06/478786/biden-marriage/

QuoteI think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far.

At first it sounds glib.  But giving it a little thought I have to agree.  Will and Grace was a ground breaker.  Will and Grace introduced people who didn't know that they had gay people all around them to the fact that gays aren't any particular threat to them and their marriages.  They learned that gays came in all sizes, shapes, and flavors.  The show also gave us one last look at one of my heroes, Gregory Hines.

I suppose that it did prove that Americans would watch shitty sitcoms in which gay people engage in crude and obvious innuendo, too.

So, what lessons does Two and a Half Men have to teach the world?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 07, 2012, 07:51:59 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Even when he's doing something decent, Joe Biden still has to be Joe Biden...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/06/478786/biden-marriage/

QuoteI think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far.

Paul Harvey eulogized Gene Roddenberry by saying Gene did more for race relations than anyone outside of MLK.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 07, 2012, 08:33:11 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 07:51:25 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 07, 2012, 06:57:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Even when he's doing something decent, Joe Biden still has to be Joe Biden...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/06/478786/biden-marriage/

QuoteI think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far.

At first it sounds glib.  But giving it a little thought I have to agree.  Will and Grace was a ground breaker.  Will and Grace introduced people who didn't know that they had gay people all around them to the fact that gays aren't any particular threat to them and their marriages.  They learned that gays came in all sizes, shapes, and flavors.  The show also gave us one last look at one of my heroes, Gregory Hines.

I suppose that it did prove that Americans would watch shitty sitcoms in which gay people engage in crude and obvious innuendo, too.

So, what lessons does Two and a Half Men have to teach the world?

Now you go too far.  Two and a Half Men taught us that people with serious addiction problems are all around us and need income in order to support those addictions.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 08, 2012, 12:37:47 AM
Quote from: CBStew on May 07, 2012, 08:33:11 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 07:51:25 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 07, 2012, 06:57:02 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 07, 2012, 06:21:05 PM
Even when he's doing something decent, Joe Biden still has to be Joe Biden...

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/06/478786/biden-marriage/

QuoteI think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has done so far.

At first it sounds glib.  But giving it a little thought I have to agree.  Will and Grace was a ground breaker.  Will and Grace introduced people who didn't know that they had gay people all around them to the fact that gays aren't any particular threat to them and their marriages.  They learned that gays came in all sizes, shapes, and flavors.  The show also gave us one last look at one of my heroes, Gregory Hines.

I suppose that it did prove that Americans would watch shitty sitcoms in which gay people engage in crude and obvious innuendo, too.

So, what lessons does Two and a Half Men have to teach the world?

Now you go too far.  Two and a Half Men taught us that people with serious addiction problems are all around us and need income in order to support those addictions.

With hilarious results (not really).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 08, 2012, 05:18:07 PM
Time to stickpoke Morts: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 09, 2012, 12:08:11 AM
(http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Johnston-County-NC-Ku-Klux-Klan-Sign.jpg)

Sorry, faggots, this isn't Bort Country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
Ex-Senator Lugar brings the heat in his defeat.  I'd quote the whole thing, but it's really worth reading.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/in-statement-lugar-defends-campaign-while-criticizing-partisan-environment/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 09, 2012, 06:26:50 AM
Just learned that the state bird of North Carolina is the cardinal.  Heh heh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 09, 2012, 07:21:12 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
Ex-Senator Lugar brings the heat in his defeat.  I'd quote the whole thing, but it's really worth reading.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/in-statement-lugar-defends-campaign-while-criticizing-partisan-environment/

So a guy gets his ass kicked in a primary and whines about it.

Got any Arlen Specter letters to share with us?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on May 09, 2012, 07:46:36 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 09, 2012, 07:21:12 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
Ex-Senator Lugar brings the heat in his defeat.  I'd quote the whole thing, but it's really worth reading.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/in-statement-lugar-defends-campaign-while-criticizing-partisan-environment/

So a guy gets his ass kicked in a primary and whines about it.

Got any Arlen Specter letters to share with us?

When the folks who beat him say essentially the same thing, I suggest it might be more than sour grapes:

QuoteThe people who'll probably beat Lugar express no malice about it. Taking out the Republicans who compromise with Democrats is a cold, logical decision, the easiest one they make. Jim Bopp, a lawyer who's worked on dozens of lawsuits to break up the campaign finance regime, was one of the first notable Indiana Republicans to dump Lugar. His USA Super PAC sent out around $100,000 of mail for Mourdock. It wasn't personal.

"Lugar is an honest and decent man, but he's voted wrong too many times," says Bopp. "His approach is just wrong now. When Reagan was president, we could afford someone who approaches these issues in a moderate, bipartisan way. But now we have an administration out to destroy us, and we need a fighter. Here's another way to say it. We're in a march to socialism. Obama's getting us there at 100 mph. If you endorse bipartisanship, you get us there at 50 mph."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/richard_lugar_is_expected_to_lose_his_senate_seat_to_the_tea_party_s_richard_mourdock_.2.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 09, 2012, 08:01:39 AM
Quote from: thehawk on May 09, 2012, 07:46:36 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 09, 2012, 07:21:12 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
Ex-Senator Lugar brings the heat in his defeat.  I'd quote the whole thing, but it's really worth reading.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/in-statement-lugar-defends-campaign-while-criticizing-partisan-environment/

So a guy gets his ass kicked in a primary and whines about it.

Got any Arlen Specter letters to share with us?

When the folks who beat him say essentially the same thing, I suggest it might be more than sour grapes:

QuoteThe people who'll probably beat Lugar express no malice about it. Taking out the Republicans who compromise with Democrats is a cold, logical decision, the easiest one they make. Jim Bopp, a lawyer who's worked on dozens of lawsuits to break up the campaign finance regime, was one of the first notable Indiana Republicans to dump Lugar. His USA Super PAC sent out around $100,000 of mail for Mourdock. It wasn't personal.

"Lugar is an honest and decent man, but he's voted wrong too many times," says Bopp. "His approach is just wrong now. When Reagan was president, we could afford someone who approaches these issues in a moderate, bipartisan way. But now we have an administration out to destroy us, and we need a fighter. Here's another way to say it. We're in a march to socialism. Obama's getting us there at 100 mph. If you endorse bipartisanship, you get us there at 50 mph."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/richard_lugar_is_expected_to_lose_his_senate_seat_to_the_tea_party_s_richard_mourdock_.2.html

Lugar's campaign outspent the combined total of Murdoch and the SuperPACs that were backing him.  This race wasn't about money.  And it wasn't just the tea party purists or whatever that kicked his ass.  Murdoch had the backing of 2/3 of the county chairmen and the state committee.  If Lugar had been half as interested in looking out for the interests of his state as he was in making a name for himself, he might have actually had the party machinery on his side to make it a contest.

He stopped pretending to give a shit about Indiana a long time ago.  The guy doesn't even live there anymore.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 08:10:28 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 09, 2012, 08:01:39 AM
Lugar's campaign outspent the combined total of Murdoch and the SuperPACs that were backing him.  This race wasn't about money.  And it wasn't just the tea party purists or whatever that kicked his ass.  Murdoch had the backing of 2/3 of the county chairmen and the state committee.  If Lugar had been half as interested in looking out for the interests of his state as he was in making a name for himself, he might have actually had the party machinery on his side to make it a contest.

He stopped pretending to give a shit about Indiana a long time ago.  The guy doesn't even live there anymore.

So, he stopped serving?

Seriously, there are two issues with the Lugar loss.

1) As TEC correctly notes, Lugar was no longer representing Indiana and was repping himself.

2) The Tea Party test for ideological purity (as well as similar lests on the Dem side to be pro-choice) and any deviations lead to disqualifying is a major problem in this country's political process.

The duopoly the parties hold have allowed each of their most base elements to control the elections.  Neither party really represents most of us anymore.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 09, 2012, 08:27:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 08:10:28 AM

2) The Tea Party test for ideological purity (as well as similar lests on the Dem side to be pro-choice) and any deviations lead to disqualifying is a major problem in this country's political process.


The problem isn't with the Tea Party per se. If any group within a political party has an agenda and "purity test", it still needs to be either validated or invalidated through the electoral process. If the GOP keeps putting TP-approved candidates on ballots and they lose, the party will correct itself.

Just as the Humphrey/McGovern Democrats cost enough elections that the Democratic Leadership Council was born, the Tea Party will eventually give way to a new breed of moderate Republicans. The pendulum can't stay stuck at the end of a swing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 08:55:01 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 09, 2012, 08:27:30 AM
If any group within a political party has an agenda and "purity test", it still needs to be either validated or invalidated through the electoral process. If the GOP keeps putting TP-approved candidates on ballots and they lose, the party will correct itself.

But unless the other side puts up reasonable candidates, the mechanism for self correction is limited.  In fact, since one side goes extreme, the other side can go nearly as extreme and still be more centrist.  Look:

Richard Mourdock: "I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view."

No one has exclusivity on knowing the correct way to do things.  When one side nominates only people who say that they ARE the only ones to do things right, then the other side will counter with the same message.

To me, the obvious solution is primary reform.  There is no way idiots like Joe Walsh, Sharon Angle, Richard Mourdock, and Christine O'Donnell could finish in the top two of an open primary process.  Chicago's electoral (not political) process is the correct model for public (and publicly paid for) elections.

Everyone goes on the same primary ballot with no party ID.  If one person gets 50% of the vote, they win.  If no one does, the top two have a runoff.

The reason Pat Quinn is governor is because his opponent cam in with only 20.26% of the primary votes.  If the November election had been only between Quinn and Hines (the second highest vote getter) and not Brady, does anyone doubt Hines would have won more of the right side of the electorate?  Brady scared too many people off.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 09:14:57 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 08:55:01 AM
Everyone goes on the same primary ballot with no party ID.

I don't think you understand the point of a "primary" election.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 09:14:57 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 08:55:01 AM
Everyone goes on the same primary ballot with no party ID.

I don't think you understand the point of a "primary" election.

It's to preserve the political duopoly at public expense, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 09, 2012, 09:58:25 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 08:55:01 AM
Quote from: Fork on May 09, 2012, 08:27:30 AM
If any group within a political party has an agenda and "purity test", it still needs to be either validated or invalidated through the electoral process. If the GOP keeps putting TP-approved candidates on ballots and they lose, the party will correct itself.

But unless the other side puts up reasonable candidates, the mechanism for self correction is limited.  In fact, since one side goes extreme, the other side can go nearly as extreme and still be more centrist.  Look:


The mechanism for self-correction is very organic. Lose enough elections, and you change the way you do things. Because minority parties don't get as much lobby money as majority parties do.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 09, 2012, 10:30:00 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 09, 2012, 08:01:39 AM

He stopped pretending to give a shit about Indiana a long time ago.  The guy doesn't even live there anymore.

This is why I always referred to him as "The Apex Candidate".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 10:43:02 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 09:14:57 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 08:55:01 AM
Everyone goes on the same primary ballot with no party ID.

I don't think you understand the point of a "primary" election.

It's to preserve the political duopoly at public expense, right?

No, Chuck.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 11:12:12 AM
Quote from: CT III on May 09, 2012, 10:30:00 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 09, 2012, 08:01:39 AM

He stopped pretending to give a shit about Indiana a long time ago.  The guy doesn't even live there anymore.

This is why I always referred to him as "The Apex Candidate".

Go Heat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/obama-sex-marriage-legal-16312904
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-comes-out-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married/

QuotePresident Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an "evolution" that led him to this decision, based on conversations with his staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and his wife and daughters.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama told Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC's "Good Morning America" Thursday.

Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC's "World News With Diane Sawyer."

The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own. But he said he's confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters' comfort with the concept.

"It's interesting, some of this is also generational," the president continued. "You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we're talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them and, frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577394332545729926.html

QuoteMr. Obama was against same-sex marriage as a candidate in 2008, but supported civil unions. In the fall of 2010, he said his views on gay marriage were "evolving," a stance that had widely been interpreted as moving toward an endorsement. The president had been asked numerous times afterward whether his position had changed. Each time he deflected the question and pointed to his record on other gay rights issues.

On Wednesday, he said, "I had hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient."

"And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth," he said.

Mr. Obama's politically cautious stance had become untenable in recent days, in no small part because of the pro-gay marriage positions taken by Vice President Joe Biden and members of Mr. Obama's own cabinet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 03:03:26 PM
Via Huey...

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/05/09/obama-reverses-position-same-sex-marriage

(http://i.imgur.com/rYeJw.jpg?1?4894)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: powen01 on May 09, 2012, 03:06:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 03:03:26 PM
Via Huey...

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/05/09/obama-reverses-position-same-sex-marriage

(http://i.imgur.com/rYeJw.jpg?1?4894)

I'm in.  Where do I sign up for the army to destroy marriage?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 03:35:09 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
EDIT: It was real and they changed it?

Yes.

I wouldn't have posted it with the link to the actual post itself if the headlinedidn't say what it says in the screenshot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.

Not clowns.  Cowards.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 09, 2012, 03:59:43 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.

Not clowns.  Cowards.

Fucking cowards college?  What does that mean?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 09, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
Quote"It's interesting, some of this is also generational," the president continued. "You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality"-
This is true, as I don't know any other people in school with me who are Republican and don't support gay marriage. I think it's less of a generational thing than the simple matter that most people who live in rural areas don't encounter openly gay people unless they go to college. I think the people who actually know gay people and realize they're, oh I don't know, people, tend to think this shit's retarded.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on May 09, 2012, 04:04:12 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.

Jon Stewart's writers can take the rest of the week off.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 04:13:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 09, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
This is true, as I don't know any other people in school with me who are Republican and don't support gay marriage. I think it's less of a generational thing than the simple matter that most people who live in rural areas don't encounter openly gay people unless they go to college. I think the people who actually know gay people and realize they're, oh I don't know, people, tend to think this shit's retarded.

You mean when people meet other people and interact with them they stop fearing them?

Where are your horns, SKO?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on May 09, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 04:13:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 09, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
This is true, as I don't know any other people in school with me who are Republican and don't support gay marriage. I think it's less of a generational thing than the simple matter that most people who live in rural areas don't encounter openly gay people unless they go to college. I think the people who actually know gay people and realize they're, oh I don't know, people, tend to think this shit's retarded.

You mean when people meet other people and interact with them they stop fearing them?

Where are your horns, SKO?

Horns? Are you trying to say I'm a greedy, manipulative Jew? How insulting.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 09, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.

Not clowns.  Cowards. Pandering asshats

Know your audience'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tony on May 09, 2012, 04:35:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 09, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
Quote"It's interesting, some of this is also generational," the president continued. "You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality"-
This is true, as I don't know any other people in school with me who are Republican and don't support gay marriage. I think it's less of a generational thing than the simple matter that most people who live in rural areas don't encounter openly gay people unless they go to college. I think the people who actually know gay people and realize they're, oh I don't know, people, tend to think this shit's retarded.

(http://i.imgur.com/joB7S.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 04:42:37 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 09, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.

Not clowns.  Cowards. Panderibg asshats

Know your audience'd.

Huey's not mibcibg any words.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 09, 2012, 05:20:49 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 04:42:37 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 09, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.

Not clowns.  Cowards. Panderibg asshats

Know your audience'd.

Huey's not mibcibg any words.

I laughed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 09, 2012, 08:12:14 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 09, 2012, 05:20:49 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 09, 2012, 04:42:37 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 09, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.

Not clowns.  Cowards. Panderibg asshats

Know your audience'd.

Huey's not mibcibg any words.

I laughed.

I think the correct term for what I did am still doing is "guffawing."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 09, 2012, 08:37:19 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 09, 2012, 04:28:00 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 09, 2012, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 09, 2012, 03:21:56 PM
That headline's not real? They say enough stupid shit at Fox that it sort of defeats the comedy to put words in their mouth. I mean, you don't have to really try.


EDIT: It was real and they changed it? Fucking clown college.

Not clowns.  Cowards. Pandering asshats

Know your audience'd.

And here I sit in my isolated SF Bay Area, totally estranged from the real world where, apparently "up" is "down", "black" is "white", "good" is "bad", and the St. Louis Cardinals are America's team.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 09, 2012, 09:16:05 PM
Notwithstanding that It is "liberal" San Francisco, I represented the teachers' union in this case where we successfully fought off the school district's effort to bypass the law by firing senior teachers in favor of new teachers.  However, I agree with my client's president that our victorywas not a cause for celebration because they are laying off teachers and further decimating the teaching staff.  I mean that literally, because they are taking away 210 teaching positions, which is almost exactly one tenth of the jobs.  We under value all teachers, but especially senior more experienced teachers.  There is a line of bs out there that holds they they are burned out and that we need younger, fresher teachers. The truth, of course is that it is less expensive to pay a first year teacher who will be on probation for two years and can't get a hearing when you don't renew her contract two years from now.  Of course, then you can replace her with another first year teacher.


http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/05/09/more-than-200-teacher-pink-slips-finalized/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2012, 10:51:58 AM
I knew we should have seen her birth certificate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-bachmann-downplays-swiss-citizenship-20120510,0,787684.story
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 10, 2012, 11:54:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2012, 10:51:58 AM
I knew we should have seen her birth certificate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-bachmann-downplays-swiss-citizenship-20120510,0,787684.story

That explains her neutrality.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 10, 2012, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2012, 11:54:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2012, 10:51:58 AM
I knew we should have seen her birth certificate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-bachmann-downplays-swiss-citizenship-20120510,0,787684.story

That explains her neutrality.

No, Fork.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 10, 2012, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 10, 2012, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2012, 11:54:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2012, 10:51:58 AM
I knew we should have seen her birth certificate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-bachmann-downplays-swiss-citizenship-20120510,0,787684.story

That explains her neutrality.

No, Fork.

No, Fork.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2012, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on May 10, 2012, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 10, 2012, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 10, 2012, 11:54:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 10, 2012, 10:51:58 AM
I knew we should have seen her birth certificate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-bachmann-downplays-swiss-citizenship-20120510,0,787684.story

That explains her neutrality.

No, Fork.

No, Fork.

Yes, Fork.

I mean, no; no, Fork.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 10, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find that a leading Presidential candidate was a bully (http://thetalkofthetimes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-10-at-11-55-46-am.png) early in his life.  I call on this candidate to apologize for his insensitivity immediately.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 10, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find that a leading Presidential candidate was a bully (http://thetalkofthetimes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-10-at-11-55-46-am.png) early in his life.  I call on this candidate to apologize for his insensitivity immediately.

I don't get this morphpost at all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on May 10, 2012, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 10, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find that a leading Presidential candidate was a bully (http://thetalkofthetimes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-10-at-11-55-46-am.png) early in his life.  I call on this candidate to apologize for his insensitivity immediately.

I don't get this morphpost at all.

Morph was just looking for an excuse to bust out one of his favorite passages from his favorite book. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 10, 2012, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 10, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find that a leading Presidential candidate was a bully (http://thetalkofthetimes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-10-at-11-55-46-am.png) early in his life.  I call on this candidate to apologize for his insensitivity immediately.

I don't get this morphpost at all.

That's because Morph isn't very good at stickpoking.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 10, 2012, 03:32:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 10, 2012, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 10, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find that a leading Presidential candidate was a bully (http://thetalkofthetimes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-10-at-11-55-46-am.png) early in his life.  I call on this candidate to apologize for his insensitivity immediately.

I don't get this morphpost at all.

That's because Morph isn't very good at stickpoking.

Later on, Morph will ask Gil if his refrigerator is running.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on May 10, 2012, 09:16:37 PM
Quote from: Tony on May 09, 2012, 04:35:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 09, 2012, 04:02:26 PM
Quote"It's interesting, some of this is also generational," the president continued. "You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality"-
This is true, as I don't know any other people in school with me who are Republican and don't support gay marriage. I think it's less of a generational thing than the simple matter that most people who live in rural areas don't encounter openly gay people unless they go to college. I think the people who actually know gay people and realize they're, oh I don't know, people, tend to think this shit's retarded.

(http://i.imgur.com/joB7S.jpg)

WTF Guilford County?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 10, 2012, 09:47:06 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on May 10, 2012, 09:16:37 PM
WTF Guilford County?

You, too, Brunswick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 12:09:00 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/pvG9n.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 11, 2012, 02:14:54 AM
Quote from: Bort on May 10, 2012, 03:32:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 10, 2012, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 10, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find that a leading Presidential candidate was a bully (http://thetalkofthetimes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-10-at-11-55-46-am.png) early in his life.  I call on this candidate to apologize for his insensitivity immediately.

I don't get this morphpost at all.

That's because Morph isn't very good at stickpoking.

Later on, Morph will ask Gil if his refrigerator is running.

If only Prince Albert canned Krab.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 08:35:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 10, 2012, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 10, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find that a leading Presidential candidate was a bully (http://thetalkofthetimes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-10-at-11-55-46-am.png) early in his life.  I call on this candidate to apologize for his insensitivity immediately.

I don't get this morphpost at all.

That's because Morph isn't very good at stickpoking.

This is an excellent meta-pokestick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 11, 2012, 09:07:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 08:35:09 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 10, 2012, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 10, 2012, 03:07:51 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 10, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
I am shocked, shocked to find that a leading Presidential candidate was a bully (http://thetalkofthetimes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/screen-shot-2012-05-10-at-11-55-46-am.png) early in his life.  I call on this candidate to apologize for his insensitivity immediately.

I don't get this morphpost at all.

That's because Morph isn't very good at stickpoking.

This is an excellent meta-pokestick.

You're catching on.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 12:09:00 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/pvG9n.jpg)

Edited for truth

(http://i.imgur.com/HO2CD.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 09:20:50 AM
Dude, just let the funny photoshop go.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:25:28 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 09:20:50 AM
Dude, just let the funny photoshop go.

I made it funny.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 09:42:06 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:25:28 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 09:20:50 AM
Dude, just let the funny photoshop go.

I made it funny.

You're Kurting the Evans out of this one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 11, 2012, 09:44:57 AM
The story of Romney being an asshole coming out now and not in October is a bad sign for the Obama campaign.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 11, 2012, 09:47:31 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 11, 2012, 09:44:57 AM
The story of Romney being an asshole coming out now and not in October is a bad sign for the Obama campaign.

Keep telling yourself that.  You might come to actually believe it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 11, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
The story of the Navy Seals killing Osama a long time ago and not in October is bad news for the Osama campaign.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 11, 2012, 09:55:06 AM
Quote from: Brownie on May 11, 2012, 09:44:57 AM
The story of Romney being an asshole coming out now and not in October is a bad sign for the Obama campaign.

It's definitely too early. It'll blow over and people will learn by November what a relatable and likable guy Mitt really is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 11, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
The story of the Navy Seals killing Osama a long time ago and not in October is bad news for the Osama campaign.

I think the Osama campaign might be dead in the water.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 11, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 11, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
The story of the Navy Seals killing Osama a long time ago and not in October is bad news for the Osama campaign.

I think the Osama campaign might be dead in the water.

I swee what you did there, and I LIKE IT.

And this Romney thing  is every bit a non-story that it would have been in October anyway.  It'll be (rightly) forgotten within a week.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 11, 2012, 10:13:05 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 11, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 11, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
The story of the Navy Seals killing Osama a long time ago and not in October is bad news for the Osama campaign.

I think the Osama campaign might be dead in the water.

I swee what you did there, and I LIKE IT.

And this Romney thing  is every bit a non-story that it would have been in October anyway.  It'll be (rightly) forgotten within a week.  

A privileged kid was an asshole in high school? Stunning.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 11, 2012, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 11, 2012, 10:13:05 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 11, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 11, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
The story of the Navy Seals killing Osama a long time ago and not in October is bad news for the Osama campaign.

I think the Osama campaign might be dead in the water.

I swee what you did there, and I LIKE IT.

And this Romney thing  is every bit a non-story that it would have been in October anyway.  It'll be (rightly) forgotten within a week.  

A privileged kid was an asshole in high school? Stunning.

Exactly.  Although I did enjoy that particular display of morph's frothing gasket-blowing as he attempted to lower himself and fling the same brand of pooh. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 10:31:08 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 11, 2012, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 11, 2012, 10:13:05 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 11, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 11, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
The story of the Navy Seals killing Osama a long time ago and not in October is bad news for the Osama campaign.

I think the Osama campaign might be dead in the water.

I swee what you did there, and I LIKE IT.

And this Romney thing  is every bit a non-story that it would have been in October anyway.  It'll be (rightly) forgotten within a week.  

A privileged kid was an asshole in high school? Stunning.

Exactly.  Although I did enjoy that particular display of morph's frothing gasket-blowing as he attempted to lower himself and fling the same brand of pooh. 

Kind of made it all worth it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 11, 2012, 11:19:18 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 11, 2012, 10:22:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on May 11, 2012, 10:13:05 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 11, 2012, 10:03:32 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:59:22 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on May 11, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
The story of the Navy Seals killing Osama a long time ago and not in October is bad news for the Osama campaign.

I think the Osama campaign might be dead in the water.

I swee what you did there, and I LIKE IT.

And this Romney thing  is every bit a non-story that it would have been in October anyway.  It'll be (rightly) forgotten within a week.  

A privileged kid was an asshole in high school? Stunning.

Exactly.  Although I did enjoy that particular display of morph's frothing gasket-blowing as he attempted to lower himself and fling the same brand of pooh. 

Oh, bother.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 11, 2012, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 12:09:00 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/pvG9n.jpg)

Edited for truth

(http://i.imgur.com/HO2CD.jpg)

I get it now.  The funny part is Obama wearing a tinfoil hat...Right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 11, 2012, 04:34:48 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 11, 2012, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 12:09:00 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/pvG9n.jpg)

Edited for truth

(http://i.imgur.com/HO2CD.jpg)

I get it now.  The funny part is Obama wearing a tinfoil hat...Right?

Wait, wait...Don't tell me...The popcorn is ready.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on May 11, 2012, 07:28:04 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 11, 2012, 04:34:48 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 11, 2012, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: morpheus on May 11, 2012, 09:16:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on May 11, 2012, 12:09:00 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/pvG9n.jpg)

Edited for truth

(http://i.imgur.com/HO2CD.jpg)

I get it now.  The funny part is Obama wearing a tinfoil hat...Right?

Wait, wait...Don't tell me...The popcorn is ready.

I really can't understand how Jiffy Pop ever caught on. Burns every damn time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 15, 2012, 11:00:34 AM
Chris Mathews plays Are You Smarter Than Sarah Palin? Jeopardy!

First, Chris with the Jeopardy! skills as Presidential litmus test:

QuoteIs this (vice presidential debate) about her brain power?... Do you think cute will beat brains?...Do you think she'd do better on the questions on Jeopardy! or the interview they do during a halftime?...My suspicion is that she has the same lack of intellectual curiosity that the President of the United States has right now and that is scary!

QuoteThey find these empty vessels who know nothing about the world! Nothing about foreign policy! Who immediately begin to spout the neo-con line. I read her book -- it's full of that crap....It's unbelievable how little this woman knows!...Don't put her on Jeopardy!

QuoteSenator, do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the United States?...If she were on Jeopardy! right now and the topic was national government, American government generally defined, would she look like an imbecile, or would she look okay? Does she know anything?

QuoteI'd like to see her on just a couple of episodes of Celebrity Jeopardy! or It's Academic Mac McGarry to just see if she knows anything.

How bad could it go? Could it be any worse than this (http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/112938.html)?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on May 17, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

"The plan is for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., to be "jolted." The advertising campaign would include television ads, outdoor advertisements and huge aerial banners flying over the convention site for four hours one afternoon."

Aerial banners? If that doesn't force the people to recognize Wright, who didn't impact anything last election, to change their votes, then nothing will.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: BH on May 17, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

"The plan is for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., to be "jolted." The advertising campaign would include television ads, outdoor advertisements and huge aerial banners flying over the convention site for four hours one afternoon."

Aerial banners? If that doesn't force the people to recognize Wright, who didn't impact anything last election, to change their votes, then nothing will.

Please, Mr. Ricketts, please do this.  The Obama campaign will be incredibly thankful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 09:24:53 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: BH on May 17, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

"The plan is for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., to be "jolted." The advertising campaign would include television ads, outdoor advertisements and huge aerial banners flying over the convention site for four hours one afternoon."

Aerial banners? If that doesn't force the people to recognize Wright, who didn't impact anything last election, to change their votes, then nothing will.

Please, Mr. Ricketts, please do this.  The Obama campaign will be incredibly thankful.

So will Chicago taxpayers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 09:48:44 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

QuoteThe group suggested hiring as a spokesman an "extremely literate conservative African-American" who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a "metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln."

A copy of a detailed advertising plan was obtained by The New York Times through a person not connected to the proposal who was alarmed by its tone. It is titled "The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good."

The Ricketts Plan to End Barack Hussein Obama's Black Metrosexual Spending: find one of those "well-spoken" coloreds who can tell all the old white people that Barack Hussein Obama spent all of their Social Security money on Kenyan manicures with Jeremiah Wright.

HUSSEIN.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 09:51:32 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 09:48:44 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

QuoteThe group suggested hiring as a spokesman an "extremely literate conservative African-American" who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a "metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln."

A copy of a detailed advertising plan was obtained by The New York Times through a person not connected to the proposal who was alarmed by its tone. It is titled "The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good."

The Ricketts Plan to End Barack Hussein Obama's Black Metrosexual Spending: find one of those "well-spoken" coloreds who can tell all the old white people that Barack Hussein Obama spent all of their Social Security money on Kenyan manicures with Jeremiah Wright.

HUSSEIN.

Can you post this on Facebook so I can Share it? I really just want to share your contribution (||) , because it made me lulz but I need context.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 17, 2012, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 09:51:32 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 09:48:44 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

QuoteThe group suggested hiring as a spokesman an "extremely literate conservative African-American" who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a "metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln."

A copy of a detailed advertising plan was obtained by The New York Times through a person not connected to the proposal who was alarmed by its tone. It is titled "The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good."

The Ricketts Plan to End Barack Hussein Obama's Black Metrosexual Spending: find one of those "well-spoken" coloreds who can tell all the old white people that Barack Hussein Obama spent all of their Social Security money on Kenyan manicures with Jeremiah Wright.

HUSSEIN.

Can you post this on Facebook so I can Share it? I really just want to share your contribution (||) , because it made me lulz but I need context.  Thanks.

Borderline usage of the pause button there. I approve.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on May 17, 2012, 10:25:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

I think that Joe's little temper tantrum will affect the Cubs ability to deal with the city about the same as it will affect the Fall election, not a whit.  Money for the city and money for the Cubs will trump the owner's father's nut job political views.

But one does have to ask how divorced from reality the folks who made up this advertising plan are:

QuoteIt calls for full-page newspaper advertisements featuring a comment Mr. Wright made the Sunday after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "America's chickens are coming home to roost," he said.

I would suggest that of all the things you might want to accuse Obama of, being soft on the 9/11 plotters would not be high on the list.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 10:31:34 AM
Quote from: thehawk on May 17, 2012, 10:25:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

I think that Joe's little temper tantrum will affect the Cubs ability to deal with the city about the same as it will affect the Fall election, not a whit.  Money for the city and money for the Cubs will trump the owner's father's nut job political views.

But one does have to ask how divorced from reality the folks who made up this advertising plan are:

QuoteIt calls for full-page newspaper advertisements featuring a comment Mr. Wright made the Sunday after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "America's chickens are coming home to roost," he said.

I would suggest that of all the things you might want to accuse Obama of, being soft on the 9/11 plotters would not be high on the list.

NOT WIT DAT OBAMA SPIKIN DA BALL WIT OSAMA'S HEAD, MY FRENT!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on May 17, 2012, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 10:31:34 AM
Quote from: thehawk on May 17, 2012, 10:25:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 08:48:31 AM
So, if Joe Ricketts goes after Rahm Emanuel's old boss (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/politics/gop-super-pac-weighs-hard-line-attack-on-obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2) via links to a local Chicago minister, does Joe think this will help or hurt the Ricketts family's attempt to get Rahm to give the family $300 million?

I think that Joe's little temper tantrum will affect the Cubs ability to deal with the city about the same as it will affect the Fall election, not a whit.  Money for the city and money for the Cubs will trump the owner's father's nut job political views.

But one does have to ask how divorced from reality the folks who made up this advertising plan are:

QuoteIt calls for full-page newspaper advertisements featuring a comment Mr. Wright made the Sunday after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "America's chickens are coming home to roost," he said.

I would suggest that of all the things you might want to accuse Obama of, being soft on the 9/11 plotters would not be high on the list.

NOT WIT DAT OBAMA SPIKIN DA BALL WIT OSAMA'S HEAD, MY FRENT!!

Then he did the Heisman Pose with it right in the middle of Guantanamo. Shit was ill, son.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 12:10:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

To be fair, that line is a no-brainer if you're her...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on May 17, 2012, 12:11:35 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.


Thanks but no thanks.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 12:14:39 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 17, 2012, 12:11:35 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.


Thanks but no thanks.

Not with Paul's gay old dad's gay dick?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 17, 2012, 12:15:30 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 12:10:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

To be fair, that line is a no-brainer if you're her...

To be fair, every line from her is a no-brainer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 17, 2012, 12:17:26 PM
Quote from: Bort on May 17, 2012, 12:15:30 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 12:10:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

To be fair, that line is a no-brainer if you're her...


ZING!

To be fair, every line from her is a no-brainer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

FACT CHECK
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on May 17, 2012, 12:37:16 PM
Durin' the War of the Rebellion, I had this part-time job of fillin' in Ol' Abe about how we young folk were feelin' about how he was doin' because he was thinkin' about a second term an wanted to know if he could count on their support, bein' as how pretty much all of us, 'cept for the Irish in New York City, were doin' all of the fighting on his side.  I said,  "Mr. President, sir, there is a lot of talk about how you ain't metrosexual enough."  I could tell that bein' as he wasn't metrosexual at all he had no idee what I was talkin' about.  So I went on.  "In other words, sir, you ain't with it."   His eyes got kinda narrow an he asked "Ain't with what?"  Whereupon I said "It"  He said "That's what I want to know, what is it?"  I said "It is what it is."  Whereupon, he grabbed me by the lapels of my homespun and shouted "What are you talking about?"  An I said "I am talking about 'It'."  Suddenly, Ol' Abe got this glint in his eye an asked me if I knew anything about this new fangled game, base-ball?  He said if he wasn't reelected there was this new thing, Chautaqua, or some such, an him an' me might work up this lecture about who was playin' first base and such.  I tole him that was an example of how out if It he was an he threw me out of his office, with orders to report to someplace in Gettysburg Pennsylvania and the rest, as they say, is history.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

FACT CHECK

Not to be all Chuck but...yes he's not the Owner but it is pretty much his money...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

FACT CHECK

Not to be all Chuck but...yes he's not the Owner but it is pretty much his money...

Adding...I've just discovered another reason to like Soriano.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

FACT CHECK

Not to be all Chuck but...yes he's not the Owner but it is pretty much his money...

But then who own the Cubs?

Sarah, get me Al Yellon on the phone.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

FACT CHECK

Not to be all Chuck but...yes he's not the Owner but it is pretty much his money...

But then who own the Cubs?

Sarah, get me Al Yellon on the phone.

Oh how I laughed...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on May 17, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

FACT CHECK

Not to be all Chuck but...yes he's not the Owner but it is pretty much his money...

But then who own the Cubs?

Sarah, get me Al Yellon on the phone.

And tell him I have cancer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 01:26:49 PM
Quote from: CT III on May 17, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 12:40:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 17, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Fuck you, Nanc.

QuoteIn her weekly Capitol briefing with reporters, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to a new round of conservative attacks on President Obama for his previous ties to controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"What was interesting to me is that this is all going to be funded by the owner of the Chicago Cubs," she said. "Well I hope they're as successful with this campaign as the Cubs are on the baseball field."

FACT CHECK

Not to be all Chuck but...yes he's not the Owner but it is pretty much his money...

But then who own the Cubs?

Sarah, get me Al Yellon on the phone.

And tell him I have cancer.

IDITO.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 02:00:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on May 17, 2012, 10:25:27 AM
I think that Joe's little temper tantrum will affect the Cubs ability to deal with the city about the same as it will affect the Fall election, not a whit.  Money for the city and money for the Cubs will trump the owner's father's nut job political views.

Rahm disagrees (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-emanuel-antiobama-ads-would-be-insult-to-nation-20120517,0,1128323.story) with you, hawk:

Quote"America is too great a country with too great a future with the content they are talking about," added the mayor, former chief of staff to Obama. "And it's insulting to the president, it's insulting to the country."

The report comes while the Cubs are trying to work out a deal with the city that would involve using $150 million in city amusement taxes for a $300 million renovation of Wrigley Field.

Emanuel did not have an immediate comment on how the reported effort by Joe Ricketts might affect those talks.

"I'll have some conversations on that later — comments rather," Emanuel said.

In other words, "You're fucking with the wrong guys if you think you can say what you want about my guy and my party and still get $300 million from me. Oh, and don't bother asking about more signage. The landmarks commission is kinda under my purview. And zoning for the triangle building? Lotsa problems there. And that land you bought next to McDonalds? Funny thing: I'll only approve a Schwab outlet."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 02:28:59 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 02:00:59 PM
Quote from: thehawk on May 17, 2012, 10:25:27 AM
I think that Joe's little temper tantrum will affect the Cubs ability to deal with the city about the same as it will affect the Fall election, not a whit.  Money for the city and money for the Cubs will trump the owner's father's nut job political views.

Rahm disagrees (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-emanuel-antiobama-ads-would-be-insult-to-nation-20120517,0,1128323.story) with you, hawk:

Quote"America is too great a country with too great a future with the content they are talking about," added the mayor, former chief of staff to Obama. "And it's insulting to the president, it's insulting to the country."

The report comes while the Cubs are trying to work out a deal with the city that would involve using $150 million in city amusement taxes for a $300 million renovation of Wrigley Field.

Emanuel did not have an immediate comment on how the reported effort by Joe Ricketts might affect those talks.

"I'll have some conversations on that later — comments rather," Emanuel said.

In other words, "You're fucking with the wrong guys if you think you can say what you want about my guy and my party and still get $300 million from me. Oh, and don't bother asking about more signage. The landmarks commission is kinda under my purview. And zoning for the triangle building? Lotsa problems there. And that land you bought next to McDonalds? Funny thing: I'll only approve a Schwab outlet."

Rickettses: "Fine."

(http://mychicagoconcierge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rosemont-logo2.jpeg)

"We'll raze Wrigley Field, build a better park in Rosemont, next to your Blue Line and your airport but far from the clutches of your tax candy store, we'll turn the property at Clark and Addison into a parking lot, or just a fenced off vacant lot, make a fortune shipping artifacts from Wrigley Field out of some warehouse in Omaha, and continue our happy existence."

I'm sure Lakeview will thrive though as at least 75% of the businesses there owe their existence to our business being located there.

Oh, Cook County and the State of Illinois is giving us trouble? Well, fuck... if you insist. Does Mayor Ballard have Mayflower's phone number handy?

(http://photos.indystar.com/photos/2010/10/1/418331/inline.jpg)

Does Oscar Goodman?

No, that's right. This could never happen. No teams with such roots in a neighborhood could leave.


(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.aolnews.com/media/2009/10/browns1995.jpg)

(http://www.thelosscolumn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/baltimore_colts_mascot_fs.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Iyzacrf-2Bs/TWU8OZuRjVI/AAAAAAAAAYI/hMIGG8ME2q0/s1600/Carl%2BErskine_ebbets%2Bfield%2Bdemolition_AP.jpg)

(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/images/2007/08/18/1957_0819_giants_2.jpg)

(http://cdn.firespring.com/images/5b2cbac3-775e-38c8-2f34-d3a1cd152339.jpg)

(http://static.nfl.com/static/content/catch_all/nfl_image/la_raiders_1991_wide.jpg)

Now, we realize you prefer a one-party system, Rahm. Maybe you can see if you could lure a team from Havana or Pyongyang to take the Cubs' place.

Ciao."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 02:29:15 PM
Fuck Joe Ricketts.

Since his kids signed Theo and they're not overtly a part of this mouthbreathing pandering, they're excused from said fucking.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Tom Ricketts just called his dad a racist:

Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a statement, saying, "I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120517/BLOGS02/120519836/ricketts-anti-obama-campaign-could-cripple-plan-to-rebuild-wrigley-rahm-reacts#ixzz1v9nWRAJO


(http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 02:32:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Tom Ricketts just called his dad a racist:

Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a statement, saying, "I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120517/BLOGS02/120519836/ricketts-anti-obama-campaign-could-cripple-plan-to-rebuild-wrigley-rahm-reacts#ixzz1v9nWRAJO


(http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif)

I think what he's saying is like his father has decided not to use any of the stuff that everyone's so pissed off about because none of it is actually happening.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 02:40:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Tom Ricketts just called his dad a racist:

Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a statement, saying, "I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120517/BLOGS02/120519836/ricketts-anti-obama-campaign-could-cripple-plan-to-rebuild-wrigley-rahm-reacts#ixzz1v9nWRAJO


(http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif)

No, Chuck.

Quote11:45 a.m. update — The super PAC involved, known as the Ending Spending Action Fund, is out with a statement "on behalf of" Joe Ricketts.
The statement says that the Jeremiah Wright plan the Times wrote about was "merely a proposal — one of several submitted to the Ending Spending Action Fund by third-party vendors" — and that Mr. Ricketts "rejects" the "suggestion."
Adds the statement, "Mr. Ricketts intends to work hard to help elect a president this fall who shares his commitment to economic responsibility, but his efforts are and will continue to be focused entirely on questions of fiscal policy, not attacks that seek to divide us socially or culturally."

So that's a Joe Ricketts repudiation.
Quote
1:45 p.m. update — More damage control, and some highly negative reaction from Mayor Emanuel.
Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a statement, saying, "I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has (repudiated this)."

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on May 17, 2012, 03:05:14 PM
That participle be dangling for sure (ll).

but as for this

Quote"We'll raze Wrigley Field, build a better park in Rosemont, next to your Blue Line and your airport but far from the clutches of your tax candy store, we'll turn the property at Clark and Addison into a parking lot, or just a fenced off vacant lot, make a fortune shipping artifacts from Wrigley Field out of some warehouse in Omaha, and continue our happy existence."

I'm sure Lakeview will thrive though as at least 75% of the businesses there owe their existence to our business being located there.

His Honor will answer (although the language will likely be saltier):

"You wanna go to Rosemont, go. Enjoy your 5,000 seat houses when the team isn't good.  As for Lakeview, while Wrigley may had led to Clark street becoming a Rush Street North, it isnt necessary for it to continue (and if you ever come by on a Saturday evening in December, you can see that for yourself).   Even if nightlife drops, the neigborhood has more tax value to us as the northern extension of Lincoln Park it already is, so it will gentrify futher and the bars and restaurnats will upscale. Getting rid of Wrigley just eliminates a traffic snarl that limits the neighborhood, and gets rid of a bunch of drunks."

But more likely, the Cubs will realize it needs Chicago to maximize its revenues, and Chicago will realize it can make some money with the Cubs, that 'its busines' and this will blow over.  The Rickettes are backpedaling so fast its astounding, and Da new Mayor has made no Cubs related threat. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on May 17, 2012, 03:10:34 PM

I, for one, welcome the Ricketts family reviving the Wrigley family's traditions of occasional sabre-rattling to get something out of the city and delicious racism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 17, 2012, 03:10:34 PM

I, for one, welcome the Ricketts family reviving the Wrigley family's traditions of occasional sabre-rattling to get something out of the city and delicious racism.

Explain the delicious racism part.

Also, there have been plenty of poorly-conceived, offensive, rejected ad campaigns. Is this an indictment of the company that rejected them?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 02:32:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Tom Ricketts just called his dad a racist:

Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a statement, saying, "I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120517/BLOGS02/120519836/ricketts-anti-obama-campaign-could-cripple-plan-to-rebuild-wrigley-rahm-reacts#ixzz1v9nWRAJO


(http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif)

I think what he's saying is like his father has decided not to use any of the stuff that everyone's so pissed off about because none of it is actually happening.

Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 02:40:18 PM
No, Chuck.

Quote11:45 a.m. update — The super PAC involved, known as the Ending Spending Action Fund, is out with a statement "on behalf of" Joe Ricketts.
The statement says that the Jeremiah Wright plan the Times wrote about was "merely a proposal — one of several submitted to the Ending Spending Action Fund by third-party vendors" — and that Mr. Ricketts "rejects" the "suggestion."
Adds the statement, "Mr. Ricketts intends to work hard to help elect a president this fall who shares his commitment to economic responsibility, but his efforts are and will continue to be focused entirely on questions of fiscal policy, not attacks that seek to divide us socially or culturally."

So that's a Joe Ricketts repudiation.
Quote
1:45 p.m. update — More damage control, and some highly negative reaction from Mayor Emanuel.
Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a statement, saying, "I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has (repudiated this)."

Chuck's ability to read what he wants to read even when what he's reading says the exact opposite is breathtaking.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CubFaninHydePark on May 17, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 17, 2012, 03:10:34 PM

I, for one, welcome the Ricketts family reviving the Wrigley family's traditions of occasional sabre-rattling to get something out of the city and delicious racism.

Explain the delicious racism part.

Also, there have been plenty of poorly-conceived, offensive, rejected ad campaigns. Is this an indictment of the company that rejected them?

I think the indictment comes from the quotes/opinions attributable to the racist elder Ricketts regarding McCain's nixing the Jeremiah Wright ads and the other racist shit the company produced in 2008 - Ricketts apparently believed that enough people would've bought it, that McCain would've won.

I'd get out the "that's racist" kid, but Tommy Boy doesn't even deserve that.  I'm sure his backpedaling from this is all about money and avoiding alienating a large part of his fan base (if he would've perpetrated this ad, I would've abandoned the team until the family sold), not any actual ability to either recognize blatant racism when he sees it...or belief that employing racism is wrong in achieving desired outcomes.

On the scale of Tom Ricketts and meth-addled Deadbird fans, I know who occupies the lower rung.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on May 17, 2012, 03:43:03 PM
...I... don't understand what's happening in this thread...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 17, 2012, 02:32:41 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Tom Ricketts just called his dad a racist:

Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a statement, saying, "I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120517/BLOGS02/120519836/ricketts-anti-obama-campaign-could-cripple-plan-to-rebuild-wrigley-rahm-reacts#ixzz1v9nWRAJO


(http://9thcivic.com/gallery/albums/post/Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif)

I think what he's saying is like his father has decided not to use any of the stuff that everyone's so pissed off about because none of it is actually happening.

No shit.  But just maybe Tom should have a good PR person making his statements. Or he should have spent less time in the bleachers and more time in his rhetoric class.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 17, 2012, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 02:40:18 PM
Quote
1:45 p.m. update — More damage control, and some highly negative reaction from Mayor Emanuel.
Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts put out a statement, saying, "I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has (repudiated this)."

It's far more fun to go with:

"I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has (returned to racially divisive issues)."

Tom just dangled his participle a little too much.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 04:07:27 PM
Quote from: CubFaninHydePark on May 17, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: Fork on May 17, 2012, 03:10:34 PM

I, for one, welcome the Ricketts family reviving the Wrigley family's traditions of occasional sabre-rattling to get something out of the city and delicious racism.

Explain the delicious racism part.

Also, there have been plenty of poorly-conceived, offensive, rejected ad campaigns. Is this an indictment of the company that rejected them?

I think the indictment comes from the quotes/opinions attributable to the racist elder Ricketts regarding McCain's nixing the Jeremiah Wright ads and the other racist shit the company produced in 2008 - Ricketts apparently believed that enough people would've bought it, that McCain would've won.

I'd get out the "that's racist" kid, but Tommy Boy doesn't even deserve that.  I'm sure his backpedaling from this is all about money and avoiding alienating a large part of his fan base (if he would've perpetrated this ad, I would've abandoned the team until the family sold), not any actual ability to either recognize blatant racism when he sees it...or belief that employing racism is wrong in achieving desired outcomes.

On the scale of Tom Ricketts and meth-addled Deadbird fans, I know who occupies the lower rung.

Without having seen the ad of which Ricketts speaks (I only know that it uses Wright's "God Damn America blah blah blah" roll), I can't form an opinion on it. Have you seen it? Can you link to it? I need a little more context. I know McCain nixed various tactics, but that's not prima facie evidence of said tactics being racist. Reading the infamous document the NY Times is all hot and bothered about and the accompanying storyboards of what was proposed, it all struck me as being ineffective above anything else. The NY Times article also explicitly said that this was one of several proposals from various firms. Joe's spending some cash on this election. We'll see what tactics he uses.

Secondly, I am no defender of the Ricketts, as people might have figured out. But to brand Tom Ricketts or Joe Ricketts as a racist is a pretty incendiary charge.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Onto other 2008 fringe campaign controversies.

Obama's literary agent is a birther, I guess. (http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Onto other 2008 fringe campaign controversies.

Obama's literary agent is a birther, I guess. (http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o)

Wat?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 17, 2012, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Onto other 2008 fringe campaign controversies.

Obama's literary agent is a birther, I guess. (http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o)

Wat?

That link doesn't seem to work anymore, if that's what you're asking about. If you're just asking about the stupidity of it, I understand that too.

Anyway, just in case: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 17, 2012, 06:16:45 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 17, 2012, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Onto other 2008 fringe campaign controversies.

Obama's literary agent is a birther, I guess. (http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o)

Wat?

That link doesn't seem to work anymore, if that's what you're asking about. If you're just asking about the stupidity of it, I understand that too.

Anyway, just in case: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

From Gil's comments section:

QuoteTreason is a 'hangin' offense' and I will be DAMNED if they give this malignant liar and pretender a 'pass' . . . we have to insist that he be made to go to trial and pay the appropriate and ultimate penalty for his crimes . . . prison isn't enough for what this bastard has done to this nation! In 1991 he wasn't even thinking about running for President, so there was no reason to lie about his country of origin.  Hell, lets just tar and feather him and drive him and his butt-ugly wife out of the WH and then fumigate it for about a year!

I'd say it's just one crazy person's opinion but as of right now, 227 people "like" her comment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 09:09:23 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 17, 2012, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Onto other 2008 fringe campaign controversies.

Obama's literary agent is a birther, I guess. (http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o)

Wat?

That link doesn't seem to work anymore, if that's what you're asking about. If you're just asking about the stupidity of it, I understand that too.

Anyway, just in case: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

It is a stickpoke to be sure, but was Obama doing nothing to dispel the myth of his Kenya birth when it benefited him? It's as stupid a story as the Ricketts story.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 17, 2012, 09:22:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 17, 2012, 06:10:27 PM
Quote from: PANK! on May 17, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Brownie on May 17, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Onto other 2008 fringe campaign controversies.

Obama's literary agent is a birther, I guess. (http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html#o)

Wat?

That link doesn't seem to work anymore, if that's what you're asking about. If you're just asking about the stupidity of it, I understand that too.

Anyway, just in case: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

QuoteThe errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Moreover, several contemporaneous accounts of Obama's background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.

The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama--or the people representing and supporting him--manipulate his public persona.

...

Regardless of the reason for Obama's odd biography, the Acton & Dystel booklet raises new questions as part of ongoing efforts to understand Barack Obama--who, despite four years in office remains a mystery to many Americans, thanks to the mainstream media.

'Now, we're not saying an error in a corporate promotional brochure from 1991 proves Obama isn't a natural-born US citizen. We're just saying that it raises... questions. [twists moustache] Questions about things.'
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on May 17, 2012, 11:30:51 PM
For much-needed PR diffusion, I'll take Lesbian Daughter in the upper-right hand corner (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-emanuel-antiobama-ads-would-be-insult-to-nation-20120517,0,1128323.story), Peter, hmmm?

Quote""All of my family members and I love this country and are passionate about doing what is right for the country.  That love of country was instilled in us by my father.  We have different political views on how to achieve what is best for the future of America, but we agree that each of us is entitled to our own views and our right to voice those views.

Though we may have diverse political views, above all we love and respect each other," Laura Ricketts said in a statement. "My own personal view is that President Obama has been a great leader in very difficult times. He has been leading us to an economic recovery; served with great honor as commander-in-chief during a time of war; been a strong proponent on issues important to women and just last week he exhibited great courage in endorsing the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian Americans."

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 21, 2012, 12:03:21 PM
It's time to start talking RACE WAR, people: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/in-conservative-media-a-race-war-rages
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on May 21, 2012, 12:27:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 21, 2012, 12:03:21 PM
It's time to start talking RACE WAR, people: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/in-conservative-media-a-race-war-rages

QuoteTheir message: Black-on-white violence is spiking — and the mainstream media is trying to cover it up.

Well, that's because the majority of media members are white and it would look ... wait, what?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on May 21, 2012, 09:33:18 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 21, 2012, 12:03:21 PM
It's time to start talking RACE WAR, people: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/in-conservative-media-a-race-war-rages

What, like Dale Jr.'s fans vs. Tony Stewart's fans?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on May 23, 2012, 09:34:31 AM
This seamed like the right place to post this.

(http://i.imgur.com/pkNbC.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 23, 2012, 08:25:13 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on April 26, 2012, 06:43:27 PM
CISPSTINK is terrible.

http://gizmodo.com/5905360/what-is-cispa

...

http://www.privacyisawesome.com/

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-cybersecurity-bills-under-fire-from-cispa-opponents.php

QuoteOne of the bills, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, co-sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), has the tentative support of the Obama Administration and could be put to a full Senate vote sometime in early June.

The other Senate bill Fight For the Future opposes, the SECURE IT Act, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), is currently stuck in a Senate committee, which it has to clear before being able to get a full Senate floor vote, so it's not as pertinent.

Fight For the Future's major problem with CISPA, SECURE IT and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 are that all three bills contain language that would allow the government and private companies to share the personal information they've collected about Web users with each other, "notwithstanding any other provision of law," essentially exempting them from current laws restricting how much Web data they can collect in share, and in what instances.

"These provisions would basically waive all existing privacy laws and give corporations legal immunity for sharing information with the government," Shaw said.

Indeed, a close reading of the bills by TPM reveals that, much like in the case of CISPA, the bills do not contain language specifying what information could be collected and shared and what avenue users or others would have for finding out about government use of their data, nor is there clear legal recourse for users who believe their information was shared improperly.

That said, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 does contain language stating that "nothing in this title may be construed to limit liability for a failure to comply," with requirements in the bill that all those government agencies and companies that share information "make reasonable efforts...to safeguard information that can be used to identify specific persons..."

Ron Wyden:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120522/10550819026/senator-ron-wyden-slams-cybersecurity-legislation-proposals-eroding-trust-privacy.shtml

QuoteCongress' effort to develop a comprehensive approach to cyber security must not erode that trust. When Americans go online to consume digital services and goods, they must believe and know with some certainty that their privacy is adequately protected. The content Americans consume must be at least as private as their library records, video rentals, and book purchases in the brick and mortar world. Our law enforcement and Intelligence agencies should not be free to monitor and catalog the speech of Americans just because it's online.

But the bill passed by the other body, known as CISPA, would erode that trust. As an attempt to protect our networks from real cyber-threats CISPA is an example of what not to do. CISPA repeals important provisions of existing electronic surveillance law that have been on the books for years without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards. It creates uncertainty in place of trust, it erodes statutory and constitutional civil rights protections, and it creates a surveillance regime in place of the targeted, nimble, cyber-security program that is needed to truly protect this nation.

Unfortunately, S. 2105, the bill before the Senate shares some of these defects. Currently Internet services and service providers have agreements with their customers that allow them to police and protect their networks and users. Rather than simply allowing these internet companies to share information on users who violate their contracts and pose a security threat, the House and Senate proposals authorize a broad based information sharing regime that can operate with impunity. This would allow the personal data of individual Americans to be shared across a multitude of bureaucratic, military, and law enforcement agencies. This takes place regardless of the privacy agreements individual Americans have with their service providers.

In fact, both the House and Senate bills subordinate all existing privacy rules and constitutional principles to the poorly defined interest of "cyber-security."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on May 23, 2012, 08:45:42 PM
Meanwhile, over at the Wall Street Journal, even the meager privacy safeguards included in the Senate bill are just LIBERTY-DESTROYING GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS that would have the effect of preventing the government from spying on any American it chooses TERRORISTS SEEKING TO DROP COMPUTER TORPEDOES ON OUR INTERNET WEB SITE PEARL HARBORS.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577382410583108118.html

QuoteThe Senate version would introduce new regulations on minimum security standards for the technology infrastructure of private companies—a mandate, in other words. Companies would have to scrub any personal identifying markers from anything they share with the government, at their own cost. Which is a good way to dissuade them from doing anything at all. The feds would also be barred from using any information provided under the law for national security.

In short, the Senate bill slaps on a raft of new regulations and limits the ability of federal agencies to protect the U.S. from attack. Some of these issues could be worked out in conference, assuming the Senate ever acts on the bill. Mr. Lieberman says the chamber could take it up by June at the latest, but that's not his call.

In any event a new regulatory scheme would be an immediate red flag for the House, which passed the more limited CISPA with bipartisan support. As Speaker John Boehner points out, "You want to get the American people a little exercised, put the government in charge of the Internet."

Everyone seems to agree that America can and should better protect its electricity grids, financial system and private networks from cyber attacks. CISPA is a first, small and worthy step. If Congress ignores the ill-informed noise on Twitter and passes this or a similar bill, the U.S. will be better positioned to guard against a "digital Pearl Harbor."

REGULATIONS! MANDATES! OMG!

It's like a funhouse mirror version of libertarianism.

QuoteThe online activists, who don't let facts get in the way of a good campaign, needed no invitation to sound the call to battle. The ACLU, privacy evangelists and tea party libertarian-types are in. Search #CISPA on Twitter to behold the Orwellian future of the National Security Agency prying into your Web affairs. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone's out to get you.

One complaint is that the government could use the data provided by Internet service providers and companies to spy on people. But if this bill set out to create a surveillance program, voluntary information-sharing limited to "cyber threats" sounds like a pretty shoddy way to go about it. The bill's definition of "cyber threat" is vague, which is another netroot complaint, precisely to take account of the fast-changing nature of technology.

Marge: What exactly is it this legislation does again?
Homer: This industry moves so fast it's really hard to tell.

Let's just give the government all the powers now. Precisely to take account of the fact that we don't know now what powers they'll need later.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on May 29, 2012, 09:22:49 AM
Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-met-mark-kirk-20120529,0,6969840.story) so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.

(http://m4.licdn.com/media/p/4/000/15b/118/23e4123.jpg)

I'm still glad Alexi lost.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on May 29, 2012, 12:38:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 29, 2012, 09:22:49 AM
Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-met-mark-kirk-20120529,0,6969840.story) so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.

(http://m4.licdn.com/media/p/4/000/15b/118/23e4123.jpg)

I'm still glad Alexi lost.

I thought beards were for gay dudes.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on May 29, 2012, 02:32:23 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2012, 12:38:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 29, 2012, 09:22:49 AM
Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-met-mark-kirk-20120529,0,6969840.story) so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.

(http://m4.licdn.com/media/p/4/000/15b/118/23e4123.jpg)

I'm still glad Alexi lost.

I thought beards were for gay dudes.

That's how I always knew the term.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on May 29, 2012, 02:36:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 29, 2012, 02:32:23 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2012, 12:38:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 29, 2012, 09:22:49 AM
Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-met-mark-kirk-20120529,0,6969840.story) so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.

(http://m4.licdn.com/media/p/4/000/15b/118/23e4123.jpg)

I'm still glad Alexi lost.

I thought beards were for gay dudes.

That's how I always knew the term.

That's always what I called my "wife."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on May 29, 2012, 03:25:08 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 29, 2012, 02:32:23 PM
Quote from: Slaky on May 29, 2012, 12:38:55 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 29, 2012, 09:22:49 AM
Before Mark Kirk was elected to the senate, he paid his ex-wife hush money (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-met-mark-kirk-20120529,0,6969840.story) so she wouldn't get mad over his new beard. She's a democrat now and is trying to embarrass him while he recuperates from a stroke.

(http://m4.licdn.com/media/p/4/000/15b/118/23e4123.jpg)

I'm still glad Alexi lost.

I thought beards were for gay dudes.

That's how I always knew the term.

Chuck must be reading Andy Martin's newsletter.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on June 01, 2012, 08:15:12 PM
First, Mark Kirk was simply a lightweight.

Then he got sick.

Now, he's down to being a hack (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-mark-kirk-coins-20120601,0,7002071.story).

This guy would have quit already if there was a GOOP Governor in this state.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 03, 2012, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 22, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on January 19, 2011, 10:37:15 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 02:20:40 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 17, 2011, 11:46:38 AM
The more complete story of the computer worm that attacked Iran's uranium facilities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html

Spoiler: The U.S. and Israel did it.

Via Wheezer:

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffreycarr/2011/01/17/the-new-york-times-fails-to-deliver-stuxnets-creators/

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/stuxnet-authors-made-several-basic-errors-011811

QuoteRather than being proud of its stealth and targeting, the authors should be embarrassed at their amateur approach to hiding the payload. I really hope it wasn't written by the USA because I'd like to think our elite cyberweapon developers at least know what Bulgarian teenagers did back in the early 90′s.

And, as everyone knows, the government is incapable of writing shitty code.

To wit...

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/01/ready-for-cyberwar/

(TPD)

Bump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on June 03, 2012, 10:42:36 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 03, 2012, 10:39:57 AM
QuoteWASHINGTON — From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

...

The impetus for Olympic Games dates from 2006, when President George W. Bush saw few good options in dealing with Iran. At the time, America's European allies were divided about the cost that imposing sanctions on Iran would have on their own economies. Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation's nuclear ambitions. The Iranians seemed to sense his vulnerability, and, frustrated by negotiations, they resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before.

...

Hawks in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney urged Mr. Bush to consider a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities before they could produce fuel suitable for a weapon. Several times, the administration reviewed military options and concluded that they would only further inflame a region already at war, and would have uncertain results.

...

The unusually tight collaboration with Israel was driven by two imperatives. Israel's Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.'s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success. But American officials had another interest, to dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. To do that, the Israelis would have to be convinced that the new line of attack was working. The only way to convince them, several officials said in interviews, was to have them deeply involved in every aspect of the program.

Soon the two countries had developed a complex worm that the Americans called "the bug." But the bug needed to be tested. So, under enormous secrecy, the United States began building replicas of Iran's P-1 centrifuges, an aging, unreliable design that Iran purchased from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief who had begun selling fuel-making technology on the black market. Fortunately for the United States, it already owned some P-1s, thanks to the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Qaddafi reportedly traded us his P-1s for a pallet of Billy Beer.

And got the better end of the deal.  We elected the wrong Carter.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 03, 2012, 10:43:43 AM
QuoteWASHINGTON — From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

...

The impetus for Olympic Games dates from 2006, when President George W. Bush saw few good options in dealing with Iran. At the time, America's European allies were divided about the cost that imposing sanctions on Iran would have on their own economies. Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation's nuclear ambitions. The Iranians seemed to sense his vulnerability, and, frustrated by negotiations, they resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before.

...

Hawks in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney urged Mr. Bush to consider a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities before they could produce fuel suitable for a weapon. Several times, the administration reviewed military options and concluded that they would only further inflame a region already at war, and would have uncertain results.

...

The unusually tight collaboration with Israel was driven by two imperatives. Israel's Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.'s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success. But American officials had another interest, to dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. To do that, the Israelis would have to be convinced that the new line of attack was working. The only way to convince them, several officials said in interviews, was to have them deeply involved in every aspect of the program.

Soon the two countries had developed a complex worm that the Americans called "the bug." But the bug needed to be tested. So, under enormous secrecy, the United States began building replicas of Iran's P-1 centrifuges, an aging, unreliable design that Iran purchased from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief who had begun selling fuel-making technology on the black market. Fortunately for the United States, it already owned some P-1s, thanks to the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Qaddafi reportedly traded us his P-1s for a pallet of Billy Beer.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 03, 2012, 10:44:07 AM
Quote"Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers," Michael V. Hayden, the former chief of the C.I.A., said, declining to describe what he knew of these attacks when he was in office. "This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction," rather than just slow another computer, or hack into it to steal data.

"Somebody crossed the Rubicon," he said.

Rubicon. Now there was a decent show.

QuoteThe first attacks were small, and when the centrifuges began spinning out of control in 2008, the Iranians were mystified about the cause, according to intercepts that the United States later picked up. "The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence," one of the architects of the early attack said.

The Iranians were confused partly because no two attacks were exactly alike. Moreover, the code would lurk inside the plant for weeks, recording normal operations; when it attacked, it sent signals to the Natanz control room indicating that everything downstairs was operating normally. "This may have been the most brilliant part of the code," one American official said.

They got the idea from watching Speed.

QuoteBut by the time Mr. Bush left office, no wholesale destruction had been accomplished. Meeting with Mr. Obama in the White House days before his inauguration, Mr. Bush urged him to preserve two classified programs, Olympic Games and the drone program in Pakistan. Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush's advice.

And how!

QuoteBut the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage...

"We think there was a modification done by the Israelis," one of the briefers told the president, "and we don't know if we were part of that activity."

Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. "It's got to be the Israelis," he said. "They went too far."

Intrepid Reader: Joe Biden

THIS TIME THE JOOZ HAVE GONE TOO FAR!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 03, 2012, 10:44:38 AM
CT's a time traveler.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 04, 2012, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.

Bump.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 05, 2012, 10:08:05 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 04, 2012, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.

Bump.

My how times have changed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on June 06, 2012, 05:36:38 PM
Yes, the Hon. C. J. Vaughey (http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/05/forgetting-brandenburg-and-the-rule-of-law-brett-kimberlin-censorship-through-lawfare-update/) is deranged.

QuoteI even can tell you, when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date an Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boy's permission. But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair.

(It actually took me a long time to remember who Kimberlin is; finally, I remembered that I have a mix tape labeled with the National Enquirer hed when the selling-dope-to-Dan-Quayle bit was in the news.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 06, 2012, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 06, 2012, 05:36:38 PM
Yes, the Hon. C. J. Vaughey (http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/05/forgetting-brandenburg-and-the-rule-of-law-brett-kimberlin-censorship-through-lawfare-update/) is deranged.

QuoteI even can tell you, when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date an Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boy's permission. But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair.

(It actually took me a long time to remember who Kimberlin is; finally, I remembered that I have a mix tape labeled with the National Enquirer hed when the selling-dope-to-Dan-Quayle bit was in the news.)

QuoteTHE COURT: Forget Bradenburg [sic]. Let's go by Vaughey right now...

QuoteBrandenbug, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is the United States Supreme Court case that articulates the relevant standard: speech may only be banned on the theory that it is incitement when it is intended to create, and likely to create, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. But Honey Vaughey don't give a shit. In his courtroom, he is the law, and he's suspicious of all this new-fangled stuff, and he'll impose any damn standard he wants.

I'm imagining Judge Dredd enforcing Ginzo Law on Rocky Balboa for attempting to court Adrian.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 06, 2012, 08:27:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 06, 2012, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 06, 2012, 05:36:38 PM
Yes, the Hon. C. J. Vaughey (http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/05/forgetting-brandenburg-and-the-rule-of-law-brett-kimberlin-censorship-through-lawfare-update/) is deranged.

QuoteI even can tell you, when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date an Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boy's permission. But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair.

(It actually took me a long time to remember who Kimberlin is; finally, I remembered that I have a mix tape labeled with the National Enquirer hed when the selling-dope-to-Dan-Quayle bit was in the news.)

QuoteTHE COURT: Forget Bradenburg [sic]. Let's go by Vaughey right now...

QuoteBrandenbug, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is the United States Supreme Court case that articulates the relevant standard: speech may only be banned on the theory that it is incitement when it is intended to create, and likely to create, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. But Honey Vaughey don't give a shit. In his courtroom, he is the law, and he's suspicious of all this new-fangled stuff, and he'll impose any damn standard he wants.

I'm imagining Judge Dredd enforcing Ginzo Law on Rocky Balboa for attempting to court Adrian.

The following is true.  No names have been changed to protect the innocent.  This happened back in the 1960's and I already had about eight years of law practice under my belt.  A SEIU client of mine represented parimutuel clerks and planned to strike and picket the annual Sonoma County Fair for higher wages.  The County Fair Committee went to court in Santa Rosa (which was then a very rural, conservative community about 50 miles up the coast from San Francisco) for an injunction to prevent the picketing and run the race track betting with scabs.  There was no legal basis for an injunction but the judge gave them a temporary restraining order anyway, and set the hearing for a preliminary injunction for the second day of the County Fair.  I went to court to get an order shortening time so we could argue the case before the Fair started.  At the hearing, however, with no motion having been made by the other side, the judge confessed that he had made an error, and extended the TRO out beyond the end of the Fair.  We couldn't get the Appelate Court to intervene, and the union didn't want to risk having members go to jail for violating the TRO, so the strike and picketing never happened.  Nonetheless, the judge made me come back to the hearing on the preliminary the week following the Fair, and even though the Fair was over, no picketing had occurred and there was nothing to enjoin, the judge issued an injunction retroactively prohibiting the union from picketing the previous week.  The judge asked me from the bench if I had any questions.  I said "Yes, your honor, just one.  May I leave now while I still have my citizenship?"  The judge's mouth dropped.  I am stupid, but I wasn't crazy, and I immediately left before he could hold me in contempt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 07, 2012, 12:35:50 PM
http://occupyseattle.org/blog/2012-06-07/shells-epic-private-party-fail

QuoteLast night Logan Price, a Seattle Occupier who's now living in New York, managed to infiltrate a private party thrown by Shell Oil at the Space Needle to celebrate the launch of its Arctic drilling program. He caught this amazing video.

...

"It all started with a malfunction.... of the event's centerpiece, a scale model of the Kulluk, one of the rigs heading up north, which was sitting in a basin of liquor (rum and coke?) next to an ice sculpture in the shape of an iceberg.

I guess the photo-op was meant to be a symbolic tapping of the Arctic. There was a ridiculous three-foot-high scale model of their Arctic drilling rig, the Kulluk, and the mini-rig had a tap to pump liquor for the guests.

"The guest of honor was an elderly Japanese man introduced as the original Chief Engineer of the Kulluk rig who used to work at Mitsui back in the '80s. But when the man went to turn on the 'rig,' the liquor went everywhere - and the first to be hit was another elderly guest, the widow of the man who'd actually designed the Kulluk back in the 1980s.

"The guy in charge kept asking the old engineer to fix it but he obviously had no idea how to turn it off. Shell's PR people got REALLY worked up, and the designer's widow started yelling. At this point the guy who was presenting the new ad campaign told me to turn off my camera and got pretty aggressive."

Heck of a job, PenFoe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 07, 2012, 06:16:59 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 07, 2012, 12:35:50 PM
http://occupyseattle.org/blog/2012-06-07/shells-epic-private-party-fail

QuoteLast night Logan Price, a Seattle Occupier who's now living in New York, managed to infiltrate a private party thrown by Shell Oil at the Space Needle to celebrate the launch of its Arctic drilling program. He caught this amazing video.

...

"It all started with a malfunction.... of the event's centerpiece, a scale model of the Kulluk, one of the rigs heading up north, which was sitting in a basin of liquor (rum and coke?) next to an ice sculpture in the shape of an iceberg.

I guess the photo-op was meant to be a symbolic tapping of the Arctic. There was a ridiculous three-foot-high scale model of their Arctic drilling rig, the Kulluk, and the mini-rig had a tap to pump liquor for the guests.

"The guest of honor was an elderly Japanese man introduced as the original Chief Engineer of the Kulluk rig who used to work at Mitsui back in the '80s. But when the man went to turn on the 'rig,' the liquor went everywhere - and the first to be hit was another elderly guest, the widow of the man who'd actually designed the Kulluk back in the 1980s.

"The guy in charge kept asking the old engineer to fix it but he obviously had no idea how to turn it off. Shell's PR people got REALLY worked up, and the designer's widow started yelling. At this point the guy who was presenting the new ad campaign told me to turn off my camera and got pretty aggressive."

Heck of a job, PenFoe.

http://gawker.com/5916661/hilarious-video-of-shell-oil-party-disaster-is-fake-unfortunately

QuoteUnfortunately, the whole thing is an elaborate fake. The event was ostensibly organized by the communications firm Wainwright & Shore, according to the "New Frontiers" page (http://wainwrightshore-eorg.eventbrite.com/) on Eventbrite. There's a fancy invitation, which looks legit. But a note at the bottom thanks the Joint Pacific Energy Leadership Council, which, according to Google (https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Joint+Pacific+Energy+Leadership+Council%22), does not exist outside of this event.

The main proof that this is a hoax comes from the website of Wainwright & Shore (http://wainwrightshore.com/), "a full service, integrated marketing public relations and interactive firm" supposedly based in Houston, Texas. Wainwright & Shore boasts "The company donates more than 300 hours of pro bono services to non-profit clients each year."

But according to the whois records (http://whois.domaintools.com/wainwrightshore.com), the domain was registered just last month. And the clincher: The domain name server is Mayfirst.org, a lefty-radical hosting company which was also used by notorious pranksters the Yes Men to host a fake Bank of America website back in April (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bottom_line/2012/04/bofa-punked-by-fake-website.html).

The video is fake. We're guessing the whole thing is an anti-Shell Yes Men stunt. (Logan Price, the guy who shot the video, was once quoted in a Yes Men press release (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/04/19-7).) Good one, guys.

...

Update III: AdAge reports (http://adage.com/article/adages/fake-shell-video-fake-shell-lawsuit-video/235248/) that someone is now sending out fake press releases on Shell's behalf claiming Shell is going to sue the activists responsible for this fake video. Shell denies sending them. Fakes upon fakes!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on June 08, 2012, 05:44:51 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 07, 2012, 06:16:59 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 07, 2012, 12:35:50 PM
http://occupyseattle.org/blog/2012-06-07/shells-epic-private-party-fail

QuoteLast night Logan Price, a Seattle Occupier who's now living in New York, managed to infiltrate a private party thrown by Shell Oil at the Space Needle to celebrate the launch of its Arctic drilling program. He caught this amazing video.

...

"It all started with a malfunction.... of the event's centerpiece, a scale model of the Kulluk, one of the rigs heading up north, which was sitting in a basin of liquor (rum and coke?) next to an ice sculpture in the shape of an iceberg.

I guess the photo-op was meant to be a symbolic tapping of the Arctic. There was a ridiculous three-foot-high scale model of their Arctic drilling rig, the Kulluk, and the mini-rig had a tap to pump liquor for the guests.

"The guest of honor was an elderly Japanese man introduced as the original Chief Engineer of the Kulluk rig who used to work at Mitsui back in the '80s. But when the man went to turn on the 'rig,' the liquor went everywhere - and the first to be hit was another elderly guest, the widow of the man who'd actually designed the Kulluk back in the 1980s.

"The guy in charge kept asking the old engineer to fix it but he obviously had no idea how to turn it off. Shell's PR people got REALLY worked up, and the designer's widow started yelling. At this point the guy who was presenting the new ad campaign told me to turn off my camera and got pretty aggressive."

Heck of a job, PenFoe.

http://gawker.com/5916661/hilarious-video-of-shell-oil-party-disaster-is-fake-unfortunately

QuoteUnfortunately, the whole thing is an elaborate fake. The event was ostensibly organized by the communications firm Wainwright & Shore, according to the "New Frontiers" page (http://wainwrightshore-eorg.eventbrite.com/) on Eventbrite. There's a fancy invitation, which looks legit. But a note at the bottom thanks the Joint Pacific Energy Leadership Council, which, according to Google (https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=5&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Joint+Pacific+Energy+Leadership+Council%22), does not exist outside of this event.

The main proof that this is a hoax comes from the website of Wainwright & Shore (http://wainwrightshore.com/), "a full service, integrated marketing public relations and interactive firm" supposedly based in Houston, Texas. Wainwright & Shore boasts "The company donates more than 300 hours of pro bono services to non-profit clients each year."

But according to the whois records (http://whois.domaintools.com/wainwrightshore.com), the domain was registered just last month. And the clincher: The domain name server is Mayfirst.org, a lefty-radical hosting company which was also used by notorious pranksters the Yes Men to host a fake Bank of America website back in April (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bottom_line/2012/04/bofa-punked-by-fake-website.html).

The video is fake. We're guessing the whole thing is an anti-Shell Yes Men stunt. (Logan Price, the guy who shot the video, was once quoted in a Yes Men press release (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/04/19-7).) Good one, guys.

...

Update III: AdAge reports (http://adage.com/article/adages/fake-shell-video-fake-shell-lawsuit-video/235248/) that someone is now sending out fake press releases on Shell's behalf claiming Shell is going to sue the activists responsible for this fake video. Shell denies sending them. Fakes upon fakes!

Nice choice, Thrill.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 08, 2012, 08:47:30 AM
#WeedlordBonerhitler

ObamaCare is almost over, guys!

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3489187
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on June 08, 2012, 08:51:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 08, 2012, 08:47:30 AM
#WeedlordBonerhitler

ObamaCare is almost over, guys!

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3489187

I love the font. Really easy to read.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 08, 2012, 09:22:06 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 08, 2012, 08:47:30 AM
#WeedlordBonerhitler

ObamaCare is almost over, guys!

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3489187

Heh... "Harry Smith."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on June 22, 2012, 01:31:11 AM
I realize that I am at risk of making a habit of this. But let's start here:

(http://www.american-buddha.com/titsandricecollage.jpg)

Gentlemen, smg, and non-entities, I assure you that I am not particularly long for this world. The remark isn't really even timely. I would nonetheless urge you to truly take this in (http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/19/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-v-a-brief-review-of-charles-carreons-complaint/), all the same.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on June 24, 2012, 01:56:30 AM
Oh, fucking terrific (http://soundcloud.com/progressiowa/lathaminterview62212).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on June 24, 2012, 04:42:33 PM
And remember, a savvy businessman knows that the solution to monotonically falling revenue is to increase prices (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-cigarette-tax-enforcement-20120605,0,7839168.story). (Hans Morbach did it unto his death.)

QuoteBut even as taxes on cigarettes climbed, the revenue in Cook County dropped. In 2006, the county garnered more than $200 million in cigarette taxes. That number plummeted to $131 million in 2010, according to annual reports....

Larry DeBoer, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, noted that Indiana benefits as taxes spike in neighboring states.

"There's no doubt that commerce goes back and forth across the borders," DeBoer said. "If Illinois increases its tax by $1, we'll realize about $10 million more in cigarette tax revenue."

(Note to Springfield: The watermelon people have cars.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 25, 2012, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 24, 2012, 04:42:33 PM
(Note to Springfield: The watermelon people have cars.)

Racist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 25, 2012, 03:42:50 PM
Awesome transcript. Abbott and Costello would be proud.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/the-romney-camps-line-on-arizona-127229.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on June 25, 2012, 04:54:00 PM
Quote from: Fork on June 25, 2012, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 24, 2012, 04:42:33 PM
(Note to Springfield: The watermelon people have cars.)

Racist.

Fuck that. I've seen teens trying to hawk bootleg Newports in the dollar store. It's a staggeringly regressive tax.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 28, 2012, 09:20:52 AM
The most shocking aspect of this - Gil was.....right?

@SCOTUSblog CJ Roberts' fifth #SCOTUS vote saved the #ACA.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 09:22:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2012, 09:20:52 AM
The most shocking aspect of this - Gil was.....right?

@SCOTUSblog CJ Roberts' fifth #SCOTUS vote saved the #ACA.

SUCK IT, BONERS!!!

The Medicaid expansion was struck down, however, so poor people have more liberty this morning than they did yesterday!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 09:29:28 AM
Best news of the day?

FUCK YOU TOOBIN!!!  YOU WRONG-ASSED FUCKHEAD!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on June 28, 2012, 09:38:15 AM
Can't wait to hear the vitriol from the right on how Roberts betrayed everybody.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on June 28, 2012, 09:50:11 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 28, 2012, 09:38:15 AM
Can't wait to hear the vitriol from the right on how Roberts betrayed everybody.

My head is spinning around the concept of Roberts as the swing vote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on June 28, 2012, 10:01:29 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 28, 2012, 09:38:15 AM
Can't wait to hear the vitriol from the right on how Roberts betrayed everybody.

Roberstink is terrible.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 28, 2012, 10:10:03 AM
Quote from: PANK! on June 28, 2012, 09:38:15 AM
Can't wait to hear the vitriol from the right on how Roberts betrayed everybody.

And somehow the Left has to praise Roberts for having the "courage" to swing over while maintaining a good asshurt over Citizens United.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2012, 10:11:40 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 09:22:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2012, 09:20:52 AM
The most shocking aspect of this - Gil was.....right?

@SCOTUSblog CJ Roberts' fifth #SCOTUS vote saved the #ACA.

SUCK IT, BONERS!!!

The Medicaid expansion was struck down, however, so poor people have more liberty this morning than they did yesterday!!

Gil said that it would be a 6-3 decision.  We can't give him credit for being right.

I'm ready to die on this hill.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 10:12:28 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2012, 10:11:40 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 09:22:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2012, 09:20:52 AM
The most shocking aspect of this - Gil was.....right?

@SCOTUSblog CJ Roberts' fifth #SCOTUS vote saved the #ACA.

SUCK IT, BONERS!!!

The Medicaid expansion was struck down, however, so poor people have more liberty this morning than they did yesterday!!

Gil said that it would be a 6-3 decision.  We can't give him credit for being right.

I'm ready to die on this hill.

The Switch in Time that Saved 40 Million.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 10:17:51 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/hK9IG.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on June 28, 2012, 10:18:25 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2012, 10:11:40 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 09:22:09 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2012, 09:20:52 AM
The most shocking aspect of this - Gil was.....right?

@SCOTUSblog CJ Roberts' fifth #SCOTUS vote saved the #ACA.

SUCK IT, BONERS!!!

The Medicaid expansion was struck down, however, so poor people have more liberty this morning than they did yesterday!!

Gil said that it would be a 6-3 decision.  We can't give him credit for being right.

I'm ready to die on this hill.

I'm ready to lie about winning 20 medals on the hill with you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 11:01:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Well, definitely broccoli-eating now.

#IMPEACHROBERTS
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 11:17:08 AM
Behold the spectre of liberal fascist tyranny...

(http://urbanext.illinois.edu/veggies/images/broccoli.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on June 28, 2012, 11:22:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 11:17:08 AM
Behold the spectre of liberal fascist tyranny...

(http://urbanext.illinois.edu/veggies/images/broccoli.jpg)
If the man is forcing it down my throat, maybe that'll be the only way I don't have the diet of a fat 7 year old
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:



quite ingenious really
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:


  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
  • but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']


quite ingenious really

This is what I figured he'd do: find a way to limit commerce clause expansion (which has always been a conservative boogeyman), but support the law and preserve the Court's (and his) legacy.

It's amazing.  He achieved one of the biggest conservative judicial goals in over half a century and about 50 people realize it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 12:02:36 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:


  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
  • but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']


quite ingenious really

DPD, when we look back on the death of the expanding Commerce Clause, it'll begin with Lopez, move on to Morrison, and end with these PPACA cases.

So, cheer up, conservatives.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 12:05:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

How about the parts of your life where you don't engage in commerce while expecting everyone else to foot the bill through their onerous taxes? (What is this, like some kind of socialist country or some kind of communist dictatorship? (http://www.livedash.com/transcript/it's_always_sunny_in_philadelphia-(sweet_dee_has_a_heart_attack)/6732/COMEDYP/Monday_August_2_2010/395821/))

Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AMRoberts' ruling isn't outlandish,...

His ruling that the Federal government has the power to levy taxes, onerous or not?

Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM... but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Then, insofar as he still decided otherwise, it seems he did his job: judging the Constitutionality of the legislation, not the wisdom of it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM

  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action

Where? In striking down the Medicaid expansion?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 12:10:05 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM

  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action

Where? In striking down the Medicaid expansion?

Read page 23 of the majority.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 12:14:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 12:10:05 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM

  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action

Where? In striking down the Medicaid expansion?

Read page 23 of the majority.

I'm no law-talking guy, but I'm not seeing anything that levels with my limited understanding of the Dormant Commerce Clause (that limited understanding being that the Dormant Commerce Clause is about preventing states from horning in on interstate commerce).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on June 28, 2012, 12:20:11 PM
So, what happens now?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2012, 12:21:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 28, 2012, 12:20:11 PM
So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 12:27:05 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2012, 12:21:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 28, 2012, 12:20:11 PM
So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox.

But he was off by like 20-25 percent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 12:30:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 12:14:20 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 12:10:05 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM

  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action

Where? In striking down the Medicaid expansion?

Read page 23 of the majority.

I'm no law-talking guy, but I'm not seeing anything that levels with my limited understanding of the Dormant Commerce Clause (that limited understanding being that the Dormant Commerce Clause is about preventing states from horning in on interstate commerce).

QuoteEveryone will likely participate in the markets for food, clothing, transportation, shelter, or energy; that does not authorize Congress to direct them to purchase particular products in those or other markets today. The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individualfrom cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on June 28, 2012, 12:43:05 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 28, 2012, 12:20:11 PM
So, what happens now?

CANADA HERE WE COME!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 28, 2012, 02:01:50 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2012, 12:21:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 28, 2012, 12:20:11 PM
So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox while congratulating himself for being one of only, like, 50 people in the WORLD who can read AND comprehend a Supreme Court opinion.

Fully douche chill'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 02:05:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2012, 02:01:50 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2012, 12:21:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 28, 2012, 12:20:11 PM
So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox while congratulating himself for being one of only, like, 50 people in the WORLD who can read AND comprehend a Supreme Court opinion.

Fully douche chill'd

I never said "...in the world..."

I'm sure there are some Mongolian yak-herders who take more than a passing interest in American constitutional jurisprudence.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 28, 2012, 02:25:04 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 02:05:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on June 28, 2012, 02:01:50 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on June 28, 2012, 12:21:28 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 28, 2012, 12:20:11 PM
So, what happens now?

Gil spends the day JOing in the sbox while congratulating himself for being one of only, like, 50 people in the WORLD who can read AND comprehend a Supreme Court opinion.

Fully douche chill'd

I never said "...in the world..."

I'm sure there are some Mongolian yak-herders who take more than a passing interest in American constitutional jurisprudence.

Shit, Gil's secret is out. Sounds like Yale's constitutional scholar has been reading his Desipio today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-political-genius-of-john-roberts/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 02:30:11 PM
QuoteRep. Mike Pence (R-IN) reportedly compared the Supreme Court decision upholding President Obama's health care law to the September 11 attacks at a closed door GOP meeting on Thursday.

Wow.

EDIT: He's since apologized.  http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/pence-likens-health-care-ruling-to-127628.html#.T-yk4sxlh6w.twitter

DOUBLE EDIT:  Here's GOP Rep. Jack Kingston:
QuoteWith #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 28, 2012, 02:34:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 02:30:11 PM
QuoteRep. Mike Pence (R-IN) reportedly compared the Supreme Court decision upholding President Obama's health care law to the September 11 attacks at a closed door GOP meeting on Thursday.

Wow.

EDIT: He's since apologized.  http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/pence-likens-health-care-ruling-to-127628.html#.T-yk4sxlh6w.twitter

DOUBLE EDIT:  Here's GOP Rep. Jack Kingston:
QuoteWith #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts.

"Hey, sorry guys. I didn't mean to say that the Obamacare ruling was just like 9/11 really loudly and a few times defiantly while pounding my desk. I must have misspoke. I didn't mean that at all."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:


  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
  • but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']


quite ingenious really

I was sort of leaning in Barry's direction when I said "Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish" in that it seems rooted in logic. The government has rather broad taxing power, and this ruling only energizes those who would like to make sweeping changes to tax law in this country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 03:55:37 PM
In other SCOTUS news, meatball hero Brian Dennehy will sleep a bit more soundly tonight (PDF) (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 05:48:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:


  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
  • but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']


quite ingenious really

I was sort of leaning in Barry's direction when I said "Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish" in that it seems rooted in logic. The government has rather broad taxing power, and this ruling only energizes those who would like to make sweeping changes to tax law in this country.

His ruling may not be outlandish, but it is quite radical.  I am trying to figure out if the Civil Rights Act would be considered constitutional by Roberts, as it was based on the fact that discrimation as to the use of public conveyances and enterprises would depress interstate commerce.  It is an obligation to serve anyone regardless of race, religion etc.  My con law is a bit rusty however.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 06:17:13 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 05:48:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:


  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
  • but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']


quite ingenious really

I was sort of leaning in Barry's direction when I said "Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish" in that it seems rooted in logic. The government has rather broad taxing power, and this ruling only energizes those who would like to make sweeping changes to tax law in this country.

His ruling may not be outlandish, but it is quite radical.  I am trying to figure out if the Civil Rights Act would be considered constitutional by Roberts, as it was based on the fact that discrimation as to the use of public conveyances and enterprises would depress interstate commerce.  It is an obligation to serve anyone regardless of race, religion etc.  My con law is a bit rusty however.

Roberts appears to view it favorably:

QuoteThe proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197 (1938) (regulating the labor practices of utility companies); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by hotel operators); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by restaurant owners). But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on June 29, 2012, 08:30:35 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 28, 2012, 06:17:13 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 05:48:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: thehawk on June 28, 2012, 11:53:50 AM
Quote from: Brownie on June 28, 2012, 10:51:49 AM
So... what part of your life can Congress not regulate through onerous taxes?

Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish, but he's not exactly saying it's good policy.

Roberts opinion might as well have been written by the RNC:


  • He overturns the dormant commerce clause (in dicta but its pretty clear), which will serve as a major limitation on government action
  • but he doesn't overturn the individual mandate [which would have energized the Obama base], allowing it to stand under the power to tax [so now the ACA is purely a 'tax increase']


quite ingenious really

I was sort of leaning in Barry's direction when I said "Roberts' ruling isn't outlandish" in that it seems rooted in logic. The government has rather broad taxing power, and this ruling only energizes those who would like to make sweeping changes to tax law in this country.

His ruling may not be outlandish, but it is quite radical.  I am trying to figure out if the Civil Rights Act would be considered constitutional by Roberts, as it was based on the fact that discrimation as to the use of public conveyances and enterprises would depress interstate commerce.  It is an obligation to serve anyone regardless of race, religion etc.  My con law is a bit rusty however.

Roberts appears to view it favorably:

QuoteThe proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity. See, e.g., Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U. S. 197 (1938) (regulating the labor practices of utility companies); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by hotel operators); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964) (prohibiting discrimination by restaurant owners). But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.

Nice to see, I guess (I haven't read the case yet).  Still am wondering that, if decided today, whether the Court would determine that a failure to sell a hotel room to someone is an economic activity effecting commerce or a regulation where  someone who fails to take the requested action that would lead to prophesied future activity.  I just don't see a lot of distinction in that distinction, but I don't wear a black robe for a living either.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on June 29, 2012, 08:40:50 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 03:55:37 PM
In other SCOTUS news, meatball hero Brian Dennehy will sleep a bit more soundly tonight (PDF) (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf).

ONIONS
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on June 29, 2012, 09:31:22 AM
Quote from: Slaky on June 29, 2012, 08:40:50 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 28, 2012, 03:55:37 PM
In other SCOTUS news, meatball hero Brian Dennehy will sleep a bit more soundly tonight (PDF) (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf).

ONIONS

(http://i.imgur.com/TJT6w.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on June 29, 2012, 10:08:51 AM
So Roberts may have switched his vote late in the process? Talk about a GAME CHANGER.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on June 29, 2012, 10:24:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on June 29, 2012, 10:08:51 AM
So Roberts may have switched his vote late in the process? Talk about a GAME CHANGER.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/more-hints-that-roberts-switched-his-vote/

Gilling the comments, I have to say there is some choice hilarity down there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 01, 2012, 05:43:55 PM
It appears that the mandate (and the whole law) was poised to be struck down, until that dastardly liberal media (and its socialist buddy/usurper-in-chief) got to the Chief.

It is somewhat redundant, given RV's link, but it has UNNAMED SOURCES CLOSE TO THE COURT!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 02, 2012, 10:28:09 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 01, 2012, 05:43:55 PM
It appears that the mandate (and the whole law) was poised to be struck down, until that dastardly liberal media (and its socialist buddy/usurper-in-chief) got to the Chief.

It is somewhat redundant, given RV's link, but it has UNNAMED SOURCES CLOSE TO THE COURT!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody)

This guy's been on top of the real story since April: (http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2012/04/speculation-this-is-merely-gaming.html)

QuoteSATURDAY, APRIL 07, 2012

SPECULATION: THIS IS MERELY A GAMING SCENARIO: IF OBAMA THREATENED TO KILL CHELSEA, THEN MIGHT HE THREATEN A JUSTICE OF THE SCOTUS TO SAVE OBAMACARE?

BETTINA VIVIANO CLAIMS THAT IN 2008 OBAMA CRONIES THREATENED TO KILL CHELSEA TO GET THE CLINTONS TO BACK DOWN FROM USING THE BIRTHER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OBAMA. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-MzKvVi1FI)

IF THIS IS TRUE - REPEAT IF, THEN IT IS EQUALLY POSSIBLE THAT THESE SAME CRONIES MIGHT THREATEN TO KILL ONE OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS' CHILDREN IN ORDER TO GET HIM TO VOTE FOR OBAMACARE.

THE QUESTIONING ON THE SECOND DAY LED SOME SCOTUS OBSERVERS TO BELIEVE THAT ROBERTS SEEMED MORE LIKELY THAN KENNEDY TO BE A SWING VOTE. IOW: ROBERTS - AND NOT KENNEDY - MIGHT BE THE FIFTH VOTE FOR OBAMACARE.

THIS WOULD EXPLAIN WHY OBAMA MADE HIS SEEMINGLY IGNORANT AND TYRANNICAL ATTACK AGAINST THE SCOTUS.

OBAMA AND HIS COMRADES KNOW - (BECAUSE OF THE DEATH THREAT) - THAT THEY WILL WIN A 5-4 DECISION, AND BY LAMELY ATTACKING THE COURT THEY SUCKERED THE GOP INTO SAYING "WHATEVER THE COURT SAYS IS FINAL."

EITHER THIS IS THE CASE, OR OBAMA'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE IMPENDING DECISION (AND HIS A.P. SPEECH) INDICATE OBAMA IS AN IDIOTIC, MISINFORMED, ARROGANT  AND TYRANNICAL EGOMANIAC AND AN ANGRY POS.

(http://i.imgur.com/etsgW.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 03, 2012, 10:57:48 AM
On the eve of America's independence, here's Deadbeat Dad Congressman Joe Walsh talking about his opponent, Iraq War (and double-amputee) vet Tammy Duckworth.

Quote"Now I'm running against a woman who, my God, that's all she talks about. Our true heroes, it's the last thing in the world they talk about."


Apologies for the source link. (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/03/510443/joe-walsh-tammy-duckworth-service/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 03, 2012, 05:18:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 07:32:36 PM
Quote from: MAD on July 07, 2010, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 07, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 07, 2010, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 07, 2010, 06:42:28 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 07, 2010, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 07, 2010, 05:29:11 PM
Gallagher? Really? (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/gallagher-is-a-paranoid-right-wing-watermelon-smashing-maniac/Content?oid=4357855)

Quote"Hey, President Obama," he spits out the name like a mouthful of burning hair. "You ain't black. I don't care what you say—you're a latte. You're half whole-milk. It could be goat milk—you could be a terrorist!" I am too busy losing my mind to catch the next joke, which is about Ted Kennedy's brain cancer.

(At least Salon confirms (http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/03/this_week_crazy_gallagher) that it is not Gallager II.)

Yeah, he's an angry, angry man.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gallagher,36622/

Angry, angry = racist and unfunny?

Racist, unfunny and angry.

All told, this may be one of the strangest Q-and-A combos I've ever read:

QuoteAVC: Why has prop comedy been stagnating more and more?

G: I told you: an emphasis on the mediocre. You're giving the audience what they want, but, that's, I guess, a reflection on our society. It's so thin, it's a veneer, it's not deep, it doesn't have a moral direction. 'Cause we really don't know, we don't know.

This gives me a new appreciation for Carrot Top.

At least he didn't go batshit crazy.

Probably. Yet.

Just give it about 15 years'd.

Define "batshit crazy"...

(http://i.imgur.com/xGveS.jpg)

Gallagher gets deep. (http://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=801947)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 05, 2012, 09:16:41 AM
The Wall Street Journal tells Mitt: Get going or we're done with you (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506652734793044.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop).

QuoteAll of these attacks were predictable, in particular because they go to the heart of Mr. Romney's main campaign theme—that he can create jobs as President because he is a successful businessman and manager. But candidates who live by biography typically lose by it. See President John Kerry.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 05, 2012, 09:17:45 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 05, 2012, 09:16:41 AM
The Wall Street Journal tells Mitt: Get going or we're done with you (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506652734793044.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop).

QuoteAll of these attacks were predictable, in particular because they go to the heart of Mr. Romney's main campaign theme—that he can create jobs as President because he is a successful businessman and manager. But candidates who live by biography typically lose by it. See President John Kerry.

It'd help to have a plan for the economy that's simply "I'm not Obama."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 05, 2012, 09:37:49 AM
Apropos of nothing, but I'm laying my money down on New Hampshire GOP Senator Kelly Ayotte being Romney's veep pick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 05, 2012, 01:53:36 PM
TPD...

Let the robot meme continue. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-family-in-tow-steals-the-show-at-the-wolfeboro-parade/)

Quote"Lemon. Wet. Good."

-- Mitt Romney, quoted by ABC News, when asked how a glass of lemonade tasted.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 06, 2012, 02:55:19 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/of7EE.jpg)

http://sharpwriter.deviantart.com/art/Ronald-Reagan-Riding-a-Velociraptor-312025579

Quote"Mr. Gorbachev, I tore down that wall" The famous speech President Ronald Reagan gave after he destroyed the berlin wall. He rode he most trusty steed into battle...a raptor which he had the CIA clone for such an occasion. Practice Reaganomics today and buy this print to show your love for 'merica!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 08, 2012, 11:53:04 PM
This blow-by-blow postmortem of the reporting on the SCOTUS ACA ruling (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/were-getting-wildly-differing-assessments/) is beyond burlesque. 7137 words covering just over 8 minutes worth of mass media "action".

It's like a detailed after action review of "wait... who the fuck cares?"

And yet, some of it is oddly interesting.

It seems, for one thing, that CNN's media empire resembles nothing so much as a sprawling Soviet doomsday device. Once that first domino fell, there was no stopping the chain reaction:

QuoteIn the press room, the CNN producer is still on the conference call with the network executives.  Within moments of having confirmed that the mandate was invalidated – a couple of seconds, at most – he reads two-thirds of the way down page 3 of the syllabus, "Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable."  He immediately recognizes that the Court has turned to an alternative defense of the government, and says into both phones, "Wait, wait."

But it is already too late.  CNN has been carefully orchestrating its transformation into a shockingly efficient news distribution company.  They have been planning to saturate every screen in reach with this story as fast as possible, and the producer's initial go-ahead pulled the trigger.  On the air, Wolf Blitzer is sending the coverage to the Courthouse steps.  And as planned the reporter is putting her phone down to go on the air, which cuts herself off from the only CNN employee with access to the opinion.

No less important, the network's web and social media teams are plugged directly into the call through CNN central.  They immediately publish unequivocal tweets and a breaking news email saying that the mandate had been invalidated.

QuoteCNN had also converted itself into an integrated circuit in which its electronic media teams were tied directly into the broadcast operation.  But not anticipating the possibility of an error or confusion, its first web, electronic, and Twitter reports did not hedge.  And the network did not have a clear plan to reverse the circuit on the electronic-media side and tell readers that its initial reports may have been wrong.

"Wait, wait."

And, even as I'm wondering in what world any of this could really matter, I have to admit that I hadn't considered this angle:

Quote... At 10:07:32 – 52 seconds after the Chief Justice began speaking – Bloomberg issues an alert:  "OBAMA'S HEALTH-CARE OVERHAUL UPHELD BY U.S.SUPREME COURT."  Bloomberg is first, and it is right.

Because the Act is important to stock prices, stock traders will have a very rare opportunity to arbitrage the conflicting media reports and the fact that no one outside the Court has the opinion. The market had been betting against the mandate surviving.  That would have been bad for hospitals (which would lose revenues) and good for many insurers (which could be more selective in their customers).  Now hospital stock prices begin to spike:  Hospital Corp. of America, the nation's largest private hospital chain, quickly rises from $27.38 to $29.35.  Many insurance stocks start to tumble:  United Health Group falls from $58.69 to $55.73.

QuoteAnd many millions of dollars were gained and lost in the markets based on which media reports traders and investors happened to be watching.

There's also a certain entertainment value found in a Gilling of their own live blog:

Quote10:08:30 – SCOTUSblog

On the blog, readers are starting to taunt us via our comments feature (there ultimately will be 13,500 comments over the course of the Live Blog):  Guest, "CNN was first, guys..."; Bill, "Fox is already announcing decision"; yolanda, "TV just announced the decision beat you to it"; Guest, "Fox News beats soctusblog...."

...

Opponents of the Act, having seen the television reports, are incredulous and vocal in their responses:  Guest, "WHAT???"; Guest, "no reports says its gone!"; Republican, "OMFG"; Tim, "No it isn't"; Ryan, "Bullshit"; Guest, "apparently you have it wrong"; Sarika, "IT IS NOT SURVIVING AS A TAX!!"; Fred, "It sounds like you guys are spinning this thing.  Knock it off and read the law!"

Others have seen enough to know that they need another news source:  Guest, "I'm outta here.  Turning on TV"; David, "I won't be back to this site."

And some indicate we are simply too late, and that Fox and CNN's earlier reports are res judicata on other journalists:  John, "They already struck it down"; Guest, "The mandate is GONE."

This guy's schadenboner is so firm you'd think he'd just pwned Chuck Todd on Twitter or something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 10, 2012, 11:30:16 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on June 22, 2012, 01:31:11 AM
Gentlemen, smg, and non-entities, I assure you that I am not particularly long for this world. The remark isn't really even timely. I would nonetheless urge you to truly take this in (http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/19/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-v-a-brief-review-of-charles-carreons-complaint/), all the same.

Update:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/charity_money
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/09/oatmeal.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 10, 2012, 08:37:58 PM
Senator Lindsay Graham is right!  (Apologies for it being from HuffPo)  Very sorry. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/lindsey-graham-taxes-really-american-mitt-romney_n_1662939.html)

Key quotes:

QuoteMitt Romney shouldn't be criticized for using off-shore tax havens because "it's really American to avoid paying taxes, legally," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday.

Quote"As long as it was legal, I'm OK with it," Graham said. "I don't blame anybody for using the tax code to their advantage. I blame us for having it so complicated and confused. Pick a rate and make people pay it."

Quote"I want to end the game," Graham said. "I want to make it so simple that you know what you owe, and if you don't pay, we're going to whack the heck out of you. It's a game, and people play the game to their advantage. Sometimes they lose when they play the game. I've got no problem with people playing the game, as long as they don't cheat."

Bravo.

Also, I blame Michael Scott for this. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/scranton-minimum-wage-city-police-firemen-140229063.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 10, 2012, 10:54:01 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 10, 2012, 08:37:58 PM
Senator Lindsay Graham is right!  (Apologies for it being from HuffPo)  Very sorry. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/lindsey-graham-taxes-really-american-mitt-romney_n_1662939.html)

Key quotes:

QuoteMitt Romney shouldn't be criticized for using off-shore tax havens because "it's really American to avoid paying taxes, legally," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday.

Quote"As long as it was legal, I'm OK with it," Graham said. "I don't blame anybody for using the tax code to their advantage. I blame us for having it so complicated and confused. Pick a rate and make people pay it."

Quote"I want to end the game," Graham said. "I want to make it so simple that you know what you owe, and if you don't pay, we're going to whack the heck out of you. It's a game, and people play the game to their advantage. Sometimes they lose when they play the game. I've got no problem with people playing the game, as long as they don't cheat."

Bravo.

Lindsey Graham finally said what needed to be said, even if no one wanted to hear it and even if there will be hell to pay for telling it like it is. You know, about how those clowns in Congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns!

Bravo, Lindsey. Bravo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"


I anxiously await the handwringing over Debbie Wasserman Schultz's foreign investments.  This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2012, 08:54:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

Right.  Like either guy is interested in having an honest debate over issues and policies. Obama is playing the tax the 2% card while Romney is won't even get specific on what he ate for breakfast.

Helluva way we've devolved into choosing who gets to control $2 trillion of money every year.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2012, 08:54:50 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

Right.  Like either guy is interested in having an honest debate over issues and policies. Obama is playing the tax the 2% card while Romney is won't even get specific on what he ate for breakfast.

Helluva way we've devolved into choosing who gets to control $2 trillion of money every year.

Something something officials who want to serve.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 11, 2012, 12:37:01 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"


I anxiously await the handwringing over Debbie Wasserman Schultz's foreign investments.  This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

(http://i50.tinypic.com/rrksxt.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"


I anxiously await the handwringing over Debbie Wasserman Schultz's foreign investments.  This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

1. When did Schultz enter the race for president?
2. Since when are off-shore bank accounts considered 'investments'?
3. Just how to you make such a large strawman on a fringe message board?  is there a youtube video for that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on July 11, 2012, 01:28:05 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"


I anxiously await the handwringing over Debbie Wasserman Schultz's foreign investments.  This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

1. When did Schultz enter the race for president?
2. Since when are off-shore bank accounts considered 'investments'?
3. Just how to you make such a large strawman on a fringe message board? is there a youtube video Can you construct Photoshop for that?


Let's accentuate people's positives'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:05:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"


I anxiously await the handwringing over Debbie Wasserman Schultz's foreign investments.  This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

1. When did Schultz enter the race for president?
2. Since when are off-shore bank accounts considered 'investments'?
3. Just how to you make such a large strawman on a fringe message board?  is there a youtube video for that?

OK... so it's only bad to have money invested offshore if you're a Presidential candidate, or something?  Why is that acceptable for Presidential non-candidates but somehow the worst thing since poll taxes if you're a Presidential candidate?  I think my strawman may have some competition with your #1 "point" there, although I think "red herring" is the more appropriate fallacy.  Hey, look, Nancy Pelosi is also an active international investor!  Is that a strawman, too?

Why is it a big deal for anyone to have an offshore bank account?  And, since you don't consider a bank account an "investment" for some reason (I always have), I should also ask why you think anyone would bother putting their money in a bank at all, whether it's onshore or offshore? 

As for the idea that I somehow put up a strawman here... I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated, so perhaps it is possible that I misrepresented them (although I believe "strawman" is deliberate misrepresentation, of which I did no such thing).

So much time has been wasted on something that means nothing at all as far as who would make the better President.  Seriously, if this is the best that the Dems have, wow.  It's disappointing, really.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:05:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"


I anxiously await the handwringing over Debbie Wasserman Schultz's foreign investments.  This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

1. When did Schultz enter the race for president?
2. Since when are off-shore bank accounts considered 'investments'?
3. Just how to you make such a large strawman on a fringe message board?  is there a youtube video for that?

OK... so it's only bad to have money invested offshore if you're a Presidential candidate, or something?  Why is that acceptable for Presidential non-candidates but somehow the worst thing since poll taxes if you're a Presidential candidate?  I think my strawman may have some competition with your #1 "point" there, although I think "red herring" is the more appropriate fallacy.  Hey, look, Nancy Pelosi is also an active international investor!  Is that a strawman, too?

Why is it a big deal for anyone to have an offshore bank account?  And, since you don't consider a bank account an "investment" for some reason (I always have), I should also ask why you think anyone would bother putting their money in a bank at all, whether it's onshore or offshore? 

As for the idea that I somehow put up a strawman here... I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated, so perhaps it is possible that I misrepresented them (although I believe "strawman" is deliberate misrepresentation, of which I did no such thing).

So much time has been wasted on something that means nothing at all as far as who would make the better President.  Seriously, if this is the best that the Dems have, wow.  It's disappointing, really.

Sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on July 11, 2012, 03:13:38 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:05:22 PM

So much time has been wasted on something that means nothing at all as far as who would make the better President.  Seriously, if this is the best that the Dems have, wow.  It's disappointing, really.

He's right.  Everyone should concentrate on figuring out where these guys were actually born.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 11, 2012, 03:13:38 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:05:22 PM

So much time has been wasted on something that means nothing at all as far as who would make the better President.  Seriously, if this is the best that the Dems have, wow.  It's disappointing, really.

He's right.  Everyone should concentrate on figuring out where these guys were actually born.

I admit it, I LOLed.  That said, this seems like a good place to post this, in honor of the last birther I heard about:

(http://i.imgur.com/Z59eH.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on July 11, 2012, 03:28:27 PM
Quote from: CT III on July 11, 2012, 03:13:38 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:05:22 PM

So much time has been wasted on something that means nothing at all as far as who would make the better President.  Seriously, if this is the best that the Dems have, wow.  It's disappointing, really.

He's right.  Everyone should concentrate on figuring out where these guys were actually born.

It's 11-on-11. Pick a tax rate and make people pay it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 11, 2012, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:05:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"


I anxiously await the handwringing over Debbie Wasserman Schultz's foreign investments.  This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

1. When did Schultz enter the race for president?
2. Since when are off-shore bank accounts considered 'investments'?
3. Just how to you make such a large strawman on a fringe message board?  is there a youtube video for that?

OK... so it's only bad to have money invested offshore if you're a Presidential candidate, or something?  Why is that acceptable for Presidential non-candidates but somehow the worst thing since poll taxes if you're a Presidential candidate?  I think my strawman may have some competition with your #1 "point" there, although I think "red herring" is the more appropriate fallacy.  Hey, look, Nancy Pelosi is also an active international investor!  Is that a strawman, too?

Why is it a big deal for anyone to have an offshore bank account?  And, since you don't consider a bank account an "investment" for some reason (I always have), I should also ask why you think anyone would bother putting their money in a bank at all, whether it's onshore or offshore? 

As for the idea that I somehow put up a strawman here... I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated, so perhaps it is possible that I misrepresented them (although I believe "strawman" is deliberate misrepresentation, of which I did no such thing).

So much time has been wasted on something that means nothing at all as far as who would make the better President.  Seriously, if this is the best that the Dems have, wow.  It's disappointing, really.

Sure.

I think it matters when the Republican candidate's own father released 12 years of tax records when he ran for president.  I think it matters when the Republican candidate advocates increasing tax cuts (which we can't afford) that will primarily benefit people like him, i.e. wealthy people.  I think it matters that when the Republican candidate is running for the highest office in the land, he does everything within his legal power to take advantage of various loopholes in the tax code to reduce his personal tax burden.

I personally don't give a shit where Romney puts his money in all honesty, but I think that after 3.5 years of people in his party either overtly or furtively insinuating that his opponent wasn't born in the United States, or that his opponent is a socialist, Muslim, Kenyan, or that his opponent is actively hoping to make every person in the country dependent on food stamps (or is secretly destroying the country), I think this is a pretty mild charge to level at Mr. Romney.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 11, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
I'm going to start prefacing sentences with, "I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated" just to see what it feels like to be a giant asshole.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 11, 2012, 04:02:33 PM
For the record, I don't think Morph is an asshole, but ... geez.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
I'm going to start prefacing sentences with, "I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated" just to see what it feels like to be a giant asshole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story

QuoteA New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2012, 04:10:28 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 11, 2012, 03:44:35 PM
I think it matters when the Republican candidate's own father released 12 years of tax records when he ran for president.

How did that work out?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:13:35 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 11, 2012, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:05:22 PM
Quote from: Oleg on July 11, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 08:47:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 11, 2012, 07:30:56 AM

What Romney is doing is completely legal, but this is hardly the political climate to try winning by saying, "What's a millionaire to do?"


I anxiously await the handwringing over Debbie Wasserman Schultz's foreign investments.  This is all so pointless, and takes up space and time that honest debate over issues and policies would much better fill.

1. When did Schultz enter the race for president?
2. Since when are off-shore bank accounts considered 'investments'?
3. Just how to you make such a large strawman on a fringe message board?  is there a youtube video for that?

OK... so it's only bad to have money invested offshore if you're a Presidential candidate, or something?  Why is that acceptable for Presidential non-candidates but somehow the worst thing since poll taxes if you're a Presidential candidate?  I think my strawman may have some competition with your #1 "point" there, although I think "red herring" is the more appropriate fallacy.  Hey, look, Nancy Pelosi is also an active international investor!  Is that a strawman, too?

Why is it a big deal for anyone to have an offshore bank account?  And, since you don't consider a bank account an "investment" for some reason (I always have), I should also ask why you think anyone would bother putting their money in a bank at all, whether it's onshore or offshore? 

As for the idea that I somehow put up a strawman here... I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated, so perhaps it is possible that I misrepresented them (although I believe "strawman" is deliberate misrepresentation, of which I did no such thing).

So much time has been wasted on something that means nothing at all as far as who would make the better President.  Seriously, if this is the best that the Dems have, wow.  It's disappointing, really.

Sure.

I think it matters when the Republican candidate's own father released 12 years of tax records when he ran for president.  I think it matters when the Republican candidate advocates increasing tax cuts (which we can't afford) that will primarily benefit people like him, i.e. wealthy people.  I think it matters that when the Republican candidate is running for the highest office in the land, he does everything within his legal power to take advantage of various loopholes in the tax code to reduce his personal tax burden.

I personally don't give a shit where Romney puts his money in all honesty, but I think that after 3.5 years of people in his party either overtly or furtively insinuating that his opponent wasn't born in the United States, or that his opponent is a socialist, Muslim, Kenyan, or that his opponent is actively hoping to make every person in the country dependent on food stamps (or is secretly destroying the country), I think this is a pretty mild charge to level at Mr. Romney.

I don't even know what the charge is.  "HE'S RICH!"  "HE'S GOT INVESTMENTS OUTSIDE THE U.S.!"  What is it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
I'm going to start prefacing sentences with, "I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated" just to see what it feels like to be a giant asshole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story

QuoteA New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

I love it.  Her child is a "not as educated college kid?"  Whose fault is that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on July 11, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
I'm going to start prefacing sentences with, "I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated" just to see what it feels like to be a giant asshole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story

QuoteA New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

I love it.  Her child is a "not as educated college kid?"  Whose fault is that?

Obama's man, don't you get it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 04:23:51 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 04:16:06 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
I'm going to start prefacing sentences with, "I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated" just to see what it feels like to be a giant asshole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story

QuoteA New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

I love it.  Her child is a "not as educated college kid?"  Whose fault is that?

The nanny's?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:13:35 PM
I don't even know what the charge is.  "HE'S RICH!"  "HE'S GOT INVESTMENTS OUTSIDE THE U.S.!"  What is it?

You are kidding, right?   He has been asked to be more transparent about his economic interests.  Rather than make disclosures, he appears to be going to the extreme of hiding his assets in off shore accounts.  Gypsy Rose Lee told us that she never showed very much because she believed in having her audiences wanting to see more.  It worked for Gypsy, but I think that it is bad advice for someone running for President.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:26:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 04:02:33 PM
For the record, I don't think Morph is an asshole, but ... geez.

Thanks, Eli.  For the record, I take no stand on the financial knowledge of those on this fringe messageboard... However in hindsight I see that phrase does look assholish, and I apologize for that.  Poor choice of words.

I was, by way of clarification, referring to those raising the issue in the first place as part of the campaign.  I suppose they could be very well educated on financial matters and are just deliberately misleading, since there is nothing wrong with investing one's money internationally, either in the moral or legal sense.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on July 11, 2012, 04:31:39 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:26:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 04:02:33 PM
For the record, I don't think Morph is an asshole, but ... geez.

Thanks, Eli.  For the record, I take no stand on the financial knowledge of those on this fringe messageboard... However in hindsight I see that phrase does look assholish, and I apologize for that.  Poor choice of words.

I was, by way of clarification, referring to those raising the issue in the first place as part of the campaign.  I suppose they could be very well educated on financial matters and are just deliberately misleading, since there is nothing wrong with investing one's money internationally, either in the moral or legal sense.

What's morph really hiding? Have we seen his statements posted on this site yet?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:41:10 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:13:35 PM
I don't even know what the charge is.  "HE'S RICH!"  "HE'S GOT INVESTMENTS OUTSIDE THE U.S.!"  What is it?

You are kidding, right?   He has been asked to be more transparent about his economic interests.  Rather than make disclosures, he appears to be going to the extreme of hiding his assets in off shore accounts.  Gypsy Rose Lee told us that she never showed very much because she believed in having her audiences wanting to see more.  It worked for Gypsy, but I think that it is bad advice for someone running for President.

No, I'm serious.  How do you think the world found out about his SECRET EVIL OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS WITH HIDDEN ASSETS IN THEM?  He didn't do a very good job of hiding them, since he declared the accounts to the IRS.  He doesn't "appear" to be doing anything other that holding a fuckload of wealth in a variety of investments, all of which have been disclosed to the IRS as required.  This is not going to an extreme at all for folks with this size of a portfolio.  So, tell me again, what is the exact assertion here?  That he didn't tell the world exactly what he held in an investment vehicle?  That's it?

Hell, even the DAILY KOS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/11/1108535/-The-potentially-Sobering-Truth-About-Romney-s-Offshore-Investments) gets it.  This whole thing is a complete waste of time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 11, 2012, 04:43:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:41:10 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:13:35 PM
I don't even know what the charge is.  "HE'S RICH!"  "HE'S GOT INVESTMENTS OUTSIDE THE U.S.!"  What is it?

You are kidding, right?   He has been asked to be more transparent about his economic interests.  Rather than make disclosures, he appears to be going to the extreme of hiding his assets in off shore accounts.  Gypsy Rose Lee told us that she never showed very much because she believed in having her audiences wanting to see more.  It worked for Gypsy, but I think that it is bad advice for someone running for President.

No, I'm serious.  How do you think the world found out about his SECRET EVIL OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS WITH HIDDEN ASSETS IN THEM?  He didn't do a very good job of hiding them, since he declared the accounts to the IRS.  He doesn't "appear" to be doing anything other that holding a fuckload of wealth in a variety of investments, all of which have been disclosed to the IRS as required.  This is not going to an extreme at all for folks with this size of a portfolio.  So, tell me again, what is the exact assertion here?  That he didn't tell the world exactly what he held in an investment vehicle?  That's it?

Hell, even the DAILY KOS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/11/1108535/-The-potentially-Sobering-Truth-About-Romney-s-Offshore-Investments) gets it.  This whole thing is a complete waste of time.

It's a big deal because one party thinks this stuff makes the other party look really bad.  Like two monkeys throwing foeces.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 04:45:26 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:26:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 04:02:33 PM
For the record, I don't think Morph is an asshole, but ... geez.

Thanks, Eli.  For the record, I take no stand on the financial knowledge of those on this fringe messageboard... However in hindsight I see that phrase does look assholish, and I apologize for that.  Poor choice of words.

I was, by way of clarification, referring to those raising the issue in the first place as part of the campaign.  I suppose they could be very well educated on financial matters and are just deliberately misleading, since there is nothing wrong with investing one's money internationally, either in the moral or legal sense.

Does it make sense, however, to distinguish between investing your money in companies overseas and investing it in the Cayman Islands Offshore Holding Corporation?

(http://i.imgur.com/KBeRG.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/phd2f.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:45:52 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 11, 2012, 04:43:52 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:41:10 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:13:35 PM
I don't even know what the charge is.  "HE'S RICH!"  "HE'S GOT INVESTMENTS OUTSIDE THE U.S.!"  What is it?

You are kidding, right?   He has been asked to be more transparent about his economic interests.  Rather than make disclosures, he appears to be going to the extreme of hiding his assets in off shore accounts.  Gypsy Rose Lee told us that she never showed very much because she believed in having her audiences wanting to see more.  It worked for Gypsy, but I think that it is bad advice for someone running for President.

No, I'm serious.  How do you think the world found out about his SECRET EVIL OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS WITH HIDDEN ASSETS IN THEM?  He didn't do a very good job of hiding them, since he declared the accounts to the IRS.  He doesn't "appear" to be doing anything other that holding a fuckload of wealth in a variety of investments, all of which have been disclosed to the IRS as required.  This is not going to an extreme at all for folks with this size of a portfolio.  So, tell me again, what is the exact assertion here?  That he didn't tell the world exactly what he held in an investment vehicle?  That's it?

Hell, even the DAILY KOS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/11/1108535/-The-potentially-Sobering-Truth-About-Romney-s-Offshore-Investments) gets it.  This whole thing is a complete waste of time.

It's a big deal because one party thinks this stuff makes the other party look really bad.  Like two monkeys throwing foeces.

As long as that monkey foaeces doesn't get anywhere near a human toilet...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2012, 04:47:55 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:41:10 PM
This whole thing is a complete waste of time.

The offshore holdings or the presidential race as a whole?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 05:07:11 PM
Is it a crime to invest money overseas?  No.  But I think that if someone has money to invest and wants to be president that it certainly looks better if he invests it in the American economy rather than in Dubai.   
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on July 11, 2012, 05:09:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 04:26:20 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 04:02:33 PM
For the record, I don't think Morph is an asshole, but ... geez.

Thanks, Eli.  For the record, I take no stand on the financial knowledge of those on this fringe messageboard... However in hindsight I see that phrase does look assholish, and I apologize for that.  Poor choice of words.

I was, by way of clarification, referring to those raising the issue in the first place as part of the campaign.  I suppose they could be very well educated on financial matters and are just deliberately misleading, since there is nothing wrong with investing one's money internationally, either in the moral or legal sense.


I know a little about money, and I think you are being a bit hyperbolic. There are certainly lots of good reasons to invest overseas  (in fact anyone with any savings at all should do so to some degree).  But people have and do put money overseas to avoid rightful creditors, avoid taxes (thus the new IRS reporting rules regarding overseas investments which are a royal pain) or to avoid financial disclosure laws (which may well be a problem for Mitt, as he was subject to those rules as Governor of Massachusetts).

As for morals, Mitt is a main beneficiary of Citizens United, which now allows cubic assloads of money to flow into campaigns. It is an open political question as to how much of disclosure of that "speech" should be required, and in my mind Romney's seeming evasion on his own personal finances is relevant to that point.  Romney is also running on jobs, jobs, jobs, and I would posit that investment in Cayman Islands hedge funds are not typically an efficient method of US job creation (of course its hard to say, because we really don't know the trading strategies or investments of the funds themselves, but its safe to assume he did not invest in an overseas tax-free related fund to a US private equity fund).

With that said, I am uncomfortable with the demonizing of Romney because he is rich or demonizing hedge funds or private equity funds or overseas funds in general  (and that clearly is out there).  Mitt needs to set straight what this money is, and why it wasn't previously reported.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 05:09:53 PM
Is there a record of any post on this thread ever changing anyone else's mind?  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 05:14:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/business/economy/the-spreading-scourge-of-corporate-corruption.html

Quote...

The misconduct of the financial industry no longer surprises most Americans. Only about one in five has much trust in banks, according to Gallup polls, about half the level in 2007. And it's not just banks that are frowned upon. Trust in big business overall is declining. Sixty-two percent of Americans believe corruption is widespread across corporate America. According to Transparency International, an anticorruption watchdog, nearly three in four Americans believe that corruption has increased over the last three years.

We should be alarmed that corporate wrongdoing has come to be seen as such a routine occurrence. Capitalism cannot function without trust. As the Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow observed, "Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust."

The parade of financiers accused of misdeeds, booted from the executive suite and even occasionally jailed, is undermining this essential element. Have corporations lost whatever ethical compass they once had? Or does it just look that way because we are paying more attention than we used to?

...

Last year, the economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson from the University of Pennsylvania published a study suggesting that trust in government and business falls when unemployment rises. "Much of the recent decline in confidence — particularly in the financial sector — may simply be a standard response to a cyclical downturn," they wrote.

And waves of mistrust can spread broadly. After years of dismal employment prospects, Americans are losing trust in a broad range of institutions, including Congress, the Supreme Court, the presidency, public schools, labor unions and the church.

...

Company executives are paid to maximize profits, not to behave ethically. Evidence suggests that they behave as corruptly as they can, within whatever constraints are imposed by law and reputation. In 1977, the United States Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to stop the rampant practice of bribing foreign officials. Business by American multinationals in the most corrupt countries dropped. But they didn't stop bribing. And American companies have been lobbying against the law ever since.

Extrapolating from frauds that were uncovered during and after the dot-com bubble, the economists Luigi Zingales and Adair Morse of the University of Chicago and Alexander Dyck of the University of Toronto estimated conservatively that in any given year a fraud was being committed by 11 to 13 percent of the large companies in the country.

Yet it may be wrong to shrug off the latest boomlet of corporate crimes and misdemeanors as a mere reflection of the business cycle. Americans appear to believe that corruption has become more prevalent over the years. And some indicators suggest they may be right.

In 2001, Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index ranked the United States as the 16th least-corrupt country. By last year, the nation had fallen to 24th place. The World Bank also reports a weakening of corruption controls in the United States since the late 1990s, so that it is falling behind most other developed nations.

...

Bigger markets allow bigger frauds. Bigger companies, with more complex balance sheets, have more places to hide them. And banks, when they get big enough that no government will let them fail, have the biggest incentive of all. A 20-year-old study by the economists Paul Romer and George Akerlof pointed out that the most lucrative strategy for executives at too-big-to-fail banks would be to loot them to pay themselves vast rewards — knowing full well that the government would save them from bankruptcy.

Globalization can encourage corruption, as companies compete tooth and claw for new markets. And the furious rush of corporate cash into the political process — which differs from bribery in that companies pay politicians to change laws rather than bureaucrats to ignore them — is unlikely to foment ethical behavior.

The inexorable rise of income inequality is also likely to encourage fraud, fostering resentment and undermining trust in capitalism's institutions and rules. Economic research shows that participants in contests in which the winner takes all are much more likely to cheat. And the United States is becoming a winner-takes-all economy.

It's hard to fathom the broader social implications of corporate wrongdoing. But its most long-lasting impact may be on Americans' trust in the institutions that underpin the nation's liberal market democracy.

Stick: poked.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 11, 2012, 05:14:43 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 05:09:53 PM
Is there a record of any post on this thread ever changing anyone else's mind?  

MikeC quit his day job and went to work in Kucinich's office.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 11, 2012, 05:28:09 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 05:14:43 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 05:09:53 PM
Is there a record of any post on this thread ever changing anyone else's mind?  

MikeC quit his day job and went to work in Kucinich's office.

Or died. Whichever.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on July 11, 2012, 05:28:39 PM
If America sucks so bad how come Tonker is paying money to come here?

THATS WHAT I THOUGHT
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 11, 2012, 05:28:39 PM
If America sucks so bad how come Tonker is paying money to come here?

THATS WHAT I THOUGHT

Has anyone ever seen Tonker's birth certificate?  I have it on good authority that he was not born in the United States.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 12, 2012, 07:24:59 AM
Quote from: CBStew on July 11, 2012, 05:36:08 PM
Quote from: Slaky on July 11, 2012, 05:28:39 PM
If America sucks so bad how come Tonker is paying money to come here?

THATS WHAT I THOUGHT

Has anyone ever seen Tonker's birth certificate?  I have it on good authority that he was not born in the United States.

Since Tonkner is Australian, his birth certificate is on a boomerang. He's tried showing it to us, but it keeps going back to him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 12, 2012, 08:09:35 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 11, 2012, 03:05:22 PM
Why is it a big deal for anyone to have an offshore bank account?  And, since you don't consider a bank account an "investment" for some reason (I always have), I should also ask why you think anyone would bother putting their money in a bank at all, whether it's onshore or offshore? 

As for the idea that I somehow put up a strawman here... I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated, so perhaps it is possible that I misrepresented them (although I believe "strawman" is deliberate misrepresentation, of which I did no such thing).

So much time has been wasted on something that means nothing at all as far as who would make the better President.  Seriously, if this is the best that the Dems have, wow.  It's disappointing, really.

Of course it's not a big deal to have offshore investments.

But when you're running for President mainly on the proposition that cutting taxes for people like Mitt Romney will spur job creation in the United States, except for the fact that even in this cheddar-friendly tax structure, that cheddar is leaving these shores, I'd say the Republicans are by far the larger disappointment.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 12, 2012, 08:26:10 AM
Quote from: Fork on July 12, 2012, 07:24:59 AM
Since Tonkner is Australian, his birth certificate is on a boomerang.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg)

QuoteHe's tried showing it to us, but it keeps going back to him.

(http://allthingsd.com/files/2011/11/double_facepalm.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 12, 2012, 08:55:11 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
I'm going to start prefacing sentences with, "I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated" just to see what it feels like to be a giant asshole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story

QuoteA New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

Oleg is a nails lady? I KNEW IT.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 12, 2012, 10:07:04 AM
Quote from: R-V on July 12, 2012, 08:55:11 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 11, 2012, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 11, 2012, 03:50:11 PM
I'm going to start prefacing sentences with, "I guess I don't really understand the arguments of the financially uneducated" just to see what it feels like to be a giant asshole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story

QuoteA New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

Oleg is a nails lady? I KNEW IT.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78402.html

QuoteRush Limbaugh said Mitt Romney's speech Wednesday to the NAACP fell flat because it was "over these people's heads" and that the group booed the Republican candidate, who "sounded like Snow White with testicles," simply because he's white.

...

After playing a clip of the crowd booing Romney for criticizing the president's health care reform law, Limbaugh said the audience doesn't "know what's in it. They don't care what's in it. All they know is it's Obama's plan, and here comes Snow White with testicles in there ripping it to shreds, and so they're booing him." (Romney did receive a standing ovation at the end of the speech.)

"I would love to see somebody poll the conventioneers at the NAALCP and find out how many of them realize that they're not getting free health care under Obamacare," the conservative host continued. "That, in fact, they're gonna be fined for not buying health insurance. I wonder how many of them know." Limbaugh then cited "anecdotal" evidence from his "rich and powerful friends that owned and own businesses" that workers asked them after the Supreme Court decision if they would get free health care.

These lazy, free-loading blacks are so ignorant, they don't even know that Obama's not actually giving them Maobamacare Cadillacs!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 12, 2012, 10:15:30 AM
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/quote/gov-romney-3/

QuoteBy the way, I had the privelege of speaking today at the NAACP convention in Houston and I gave them the same speech I am giving you. I don't give different speeches to different audiences alright. I gave them the same speech. When I mentioned I am going to get rid of Obamacare they weren't happy, I didn't get the same response. That's ok, I want people to know what I stand for and if I don't stand for what they want, go vote for someone else, that's just fine. But I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy—more free stuff. But don't forget nothing is really free. it has to paid for by people in the private sector creating goods and services, and if people want jobs more than they want free stuff from government, then they are going to have to get government to be smaller. And if they don't want to repeal Obamacare they are going to have to give me some other stuff they are thinking about cutting, but my list takes Obamacare off first and I have a lot of other things I am thinking of cutting.

Now I'm confused... Is Maobamacare a bunch of free health-care Cadillacs for free-loaders or not?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on July 12, 2012, 10:31:30 AM
Back to Romney's tax returns (and hopefully working in the tax profession has given me a sufficient base of financial knowledge to meet morph's standards) - I'm more interested in the valuation method he used for those Class A Bain shares when he contributed 2k a year's worth to his IRA in the 90s than I am in the mere existence of offshore accounts. I'm guessing most Americans haven't enjoyed $100 million of tax deferred earnings in their IRAs.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 13, 2012, 04:15:54 PM
http://eclectablog.com/2012/07/who-wants-free-stuff.html

QuoteWhen did we become a country where the millionaires are jealous of the people on food stamps? A country that thinks teachers and fire fighters are soaking us dry? A country that thinks the richest who are paying the lowest taxes in 80 years are the ones being beaten up?

Mmmm... That's good poke-stick.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2012, 01:00:37 PM
Ann Romney dresses like a man. How embarrassing that must be for Barack Obama. (http://leestranahan.com/the-vetting-of-the-presidents-outfit-aka-mom-jeans-gate)

#MORTSGATE
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 14, 2012, 09:23:47 PM
Romney PWNed? (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/new-obama-ad-bashes-romneys-jobs-record?ref=fpblg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on July 15, 2012, 08:13:31 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 14, 2012, 09:23:47 PM
Romney PWNed? (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/new-obama-ad-bashes-romneys-jobs-record?ref=fpblg)

Boom. Roasted.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
In addition to Iowa being, well, Iowa, they are also hip to the fact that there is is a secret right-wing oriented US Government out there that one can just join at any minute. (http://thegazette.com/2012/07/13/state-senate-candidate-drops-out-says-she-will-be-part-of-alternate-government-2/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 16, 2012, 11:35:10 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
In addition to Iowa being, well, Iowa, they are also hip to the fact that there is is a secret right-wing oriented US Government out there that one can just join at any minute. (http://thegazette.com/2012/07/13/state-senate-candidate-drops-out-says-she-will-be-part-of-alternate-government-2/)

The Iowa delegation has also submitted a new National Anthem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeCakh3VMfE).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 11:48:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
In addition to Iowa being, well, Iowa, they are also hip to the fact that there is is a secret right-wing oriented US Government out there that one can just join at any minute. (http://thegazette.com/2012/07/13/state-senate-candidate-drops-out-says-she-will-be-part-of-alternate-government-2/)

THE REPUBLIC HAS BEEN RESTORED! (http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.org/)

This shit takes the Constitution in Exile to a whole new level.

QuoteThe original United States has been usurped by a separate and different UNITED STATES formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it's territories, and which is actually a corporation (the UNITED STATES CORPORATION) that acts as our current government. The United States Corporation operates under Corporate/Commercial/Public Law rather than Common/Private Law.

The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871. It is still intact to this day. This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion: "Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument."

The Restore America Plan reclaimed the De Jure institutions of government of the 50 State Republics in order to restore Common Law that represents the voice of the people and ends Corporate Law that ignores the voice of the people while operating under Maritime/Admiralty/International Law. This occurred when warrants were delivered to all 50 Governors on March 30, 2010.

Love it.

(Connoisseurs of the genre should recognize the claim that the gold fringe on a courtroom flag (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm) means that the proceedings are taking place under admiralty/military law as a classic of tax protestor/militia movement/sovereign citizen literature.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
MESSAGE FROM: President: James Timothy Turner 02/23/2011 President's statement regarding our Christian Nation: 02/23/2011

http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/documents/LetterAddressingNonChristianAgenda-2-22-2011.pdf

QuoteAmerica progressed and continued to move away from Christian ideals and in 1860 we were thrust into a civil war under the leadership of President Lincoln. Although he claimed to be a Christian man his actions would suggest otherwise. During his reign he imprisoned more than two thousand political prisoners without a trial. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result of war, injuries, famine and disease. All Americans were thrust into debt due to the war while the Rothschild family and their relatives were gathering the wealth of the people. He was shot by his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, for having a baby with a mistress. Abraham Lincoln was a descendant of the Rothschild banking cartel. He was the illegitimate son of A.A. Springs who was a direct descendant of the Rothschild family. This information was found in A.A. Springs last will and testament filed in a county courthouse. See the book "Pandora's Box" by Alex Christopher. It was popular and necessary in those days to appear to be a Christian in order to get elected so many politicians used the Christian platform to get into office. Some still use it today.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 03:12:29 PM
Rahm twists the knife: (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rahm-emanuel-john-mccain-looked-at-romneys-tax-returns-and-decided-palin-would-be-a-better-vp/)

QuoteHe has only released one year, to the McCain campaign he released 23 years. And he's telling the people, "I'm not going to give you what I gave John McCain's people in 2008." And when he gave them 23 years, John McCain's campaign looked at it and went, "Let's go with Sarah Palin." So whatever's in there is far worse than just the first year.

Fair? Probably not.

But I do think it qualifies for a "BOOM ROASTED".
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 06:07:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 03:12:29 PM
Rahm twists the knife: (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rahm-emanuel-john-mccain-looked-at-romneys-tax-returns-and-decided-palin-would-be-a-better-vp/)

QuoteHe has only released one year, to the McCain campaign he released 23 years. And he's telling the people, "I'm not going to give you what I gave John McCain's people in 2008." And when he gave them 23 years, John McCain's campaign looked at it and went, "Let's go with Sarah Palin." So whatever's in there is far worse than just the first year.

Fair? Probably not.

But I do think it qualifies for a "BOOM ROASTED".

Here is the link to McCain's 2008 200-page research file on Mitt Romney: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78582788/McCain-2008-Oppo-File
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 07:44:46 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 06:07:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 03:12:29 PM
Rahm twists the knife: (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rahm-emanuel-john-mccain-looked-at-romneys-tax-returns-and-decided-palin-would-be-a-better-vp/)

QuoteHe has only released one year, to the McCain campaign he released 23 years. And he's telling the people, "I'm not going to give you what I gave John McCain's people in 2008." And when he gave them 23 years, John McCain's campaign looked at it and went, "Let's go with Sarah Palin." So whatever's in there is far worse than just the first year.

Fair? Probably not.

But I do think it qualifies for a "BOOM ROASTED".

Here is the link to McCain's 2008 200-page research file on Mitt Romney: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78582788/McCain-2008-Oppo-File

That's their opposition research file from the primaries.

Unrelated to their veepstakes vetting ahead of the general.

FWIW.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
MESSAGE FROM: President: James Timothy Turner 02/23/2011 President's statement regarding our Christian Nation: 02/23/2011

http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/documents/LetterAddressingNonChristianAgenda-2-22-2011.pdf

QuoteAmerica progressed and continued to move away from Christian ideals and in 1860 we were thrust into a civil war under the leadership of President Lincoln. Although he claimed to be a Christian man his actions would suggest otherwise. During his reign he imprisoned more than two thousand political prisoners without a trial. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result of war, injuries, famine and disease. All Americans were thrust into debt due to the war while the Rothschild family and their relatives were gathering the wealth of the people. He was shot by his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, for having a baby with a mistress. Abraham Lincoln was a descendant of the Rothschild banking cartel. He was the illegitimate son of A.A. Springs who was a direct descendant of the Rothschild family. This information was found in A.A. Springs last will and testament filed in a county courthouse. See the book "Pandora's Box" by Alex Christopher. It was popular and necessary in those days to appear to be a Christian in order to get elected so many politicians used the Christian platform to get into office. Some still use it today.

You omitted these parts:

QuotePresident Franklin Delano Roosevelt also followed non-Christian Principles. He gave complete control of the banks to the Federal Reserve, confiscated the gold from the people of America, gave us worthless paper money, created inflation, strengthened the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to steal the people's wealth, and promoted laws that would imprison people for just about anything, including standing up for their God given constitutional rights. He chose to follow his will instead of God which led us into the Second World War.

QuotePresident Carter was also a man claiming to be a Christian. He teaches a Sunday school class and builds homes for the poor but his tree does not bear good fruit.

QuotePresident Reagan followed a non-Christian agenda. He brought us mediums and séances to the White House, participated in moloch worship which is a form of luciferian human sacrifice. Remember the owl in California? These things are strictly forbidden by the scriptures. Reagan sowed the seeds that led us to un-sustainable debt in America.

QuoteWe have George Bush president number 41. He was a Christian, right? Let's take a closer look. He gave us the Gulf War and the GulfWar syndrome. I guess our soldiers are allergic to depleted uranium after all. He was the first President to publicly support the New World Order. He is a member of Scull and Bones, an occult organization.

He literally gave us the GulfWar syndrome.  You're welcome, America.

QuoteGeorge Bush 43 claimed he was a Christian. He was a member of Skull and Bones, supported the New World Order, created more un-sustainable debt, the GulfWar, supported Halliburton and their non-accountability of government funds, and don't forget 9-11 and the Patriot Act.

Wait, so is it "Scull and Bones" or "Skull and Bones?"  I'm confused.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 16, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
MESSAGE FROM: President: James Timothy Turner 02/23/2011 President's statement regarding our Christian Nation: 02/23/2011

http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/documents/LetterAddressingNonChristianAgenda-2-22-2011.pdf

QuoteAmerica progressed and continued to move away from Christian ideals and in 1860 we were thrust into a civil war under the leadership of President Lincoln. Although he claimed to be a Christian man his actions would suggest otherwise. During his reign he imprisoned more than two thousand political prisoners without a trial. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result of war, injuries, famine and disease. All Americans were thrust into debt due to the war while the Rothschild family and their relatives were gathering the wealth of the people. He was shot by his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, for having a baby with a mistress. Abraham Lincoln was a descendant of the Rothschild banking cartel. He was the illegitimate son of A.A. Springs who was a direct descendant of the Rothschild family. This information was found in A.A. Springs last will and testament filed in a county courthouse. See the book "Pandora's Box" by Alex Christopher. It was popular and necessary in those days to appear to be a Christian in order to get elected so many politicians used the Christian platform to get into office. Some still use it today.

You omitted these parts:

QuotePresident Franklin Delano Roosevelt also followed non-Christian Principles. He gave complete control of the banks to the Federal Reserve, confiscated the gold from the people of America, gave us worthless paper money, created inflation, strengthened the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to steal the people's wealth, and promoted laws that would imprison people for just about anything, including standing up for their God given constitutional rights. He chose to follow his will instead of God which led us into the Second World War.

QuotePresident Carter was also a man claiming to be a Christian. He teaches a Sunday school class and builds homes for the poor but his tree does not bear good fruit.

QuotePresident Reagan followed a non-Christian agenda. He brought us mediums and séances to the White House, participated in moloch worship which is a form of luciferian human sacrifice. Remember the owl in California? These things are strictly forbidden by the scriptures. Reagan sowed the seeds that led us to un-sustainable debt in America.

QuoteWe have George Bush president number 41. He was a Christian, right? Let's take a closer look. He gave us the Gulf War and the GulfWar syndrome. I guess our soldiers are allergic to depleted uranium after all. He was the first President to publicly support the New World Order. He is a member of Scull and Bones, an occult organization.

He literally gave us the GulfWar syndrome.  You're welcome, America.

QuoteGeorge Bush 43 claimed he was a Christian. He was a member of Skull and Bones, supported the New World Order, created more un-sustainable debt, the GulfWar, supported Halliburton and their non-accountability of government funds, and don't forget 9-11 and the Patriot Act.

Wait, so is it "Scull and Bones" or "Skull and Bones?"  I'm confused.

The inescapable conclusion is that we have never had a Christian President.  Could have fooled me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 16, 2012, 11:02:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 16, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
MESSAGE FROM: President: James Timothy Turner 02/23/2011 President's statement regarding our Christian Nation: 02/23/2011

http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/documents/LetterAddressingNonChristianAgenda-2-22-2011.pdf

QuoteAmerica progressed and continued to move away from Christian ideals and in 1860 we were thrust into a civil war under the leadership of President Lincoln. Although he claimed to be a Christian man his actions would suggest otherwise. During his reign he imprisoned more than two thousand political prisoners without a trial. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result of war, injuries, famine and disease. All Americans were thrust into debt due to the war while the Rothschild family and their relatives were gathering the wealth of the people. He was shot by his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, for having a baby with a mistress. Abraham Lincoln was a descendant of the Rothschild banking cartel. He was the illegitimate son of A.A. Springs who was a direct descendant of the Rothschild family. This information was found in A.A. Springs last will and testament filed in a county courthouse. See the book "Pandora's Box" by Alex Christopher. It was popular and necessary in those days to appear to be a Christian in order to get elected so many politicians used the Christian platform to get into office. Some still use it today.

You omitted these parts:

QuotePresident Franklin Delano Roosevelt also followed non-Christian Principles. He gave complete control of the banks to the Federal Reserve, confiscated the gold from the people of America, gave us worthless paper money, created inflation, strengthened the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to steal the people's wealth, and promoted laws that would imprison people for just about anything, including standing up for their God given constitutional rights. He chose to follow his will instead of God which led us into the Second World War.

QuotePresident Carter was also a man claiming to be a Christian. He teaches a Sunday school class and builds homes for the poor but his tree does not bear good fruit.

QuotePresident Reagan followed a non-Christian agenda. He brought us mediums and séances to the White House, participated in moloch worship which is a form of luciferian human sacrifice. Remember the owl in California? These things are strictly forbidden by the scriptures. Reagan sowed the seeds that led us to un-sustainable debt in America.

QuoteWe have George Bush president number 41. He was a Christian, right? Let's take a closer look. He gave us the Gulf War and the GulfWar syndrome. I guess our soldiers are allergic to depleted uranium after all. He was the first President to publicly support the New World Order. He is a member of Scull and Bones, an occult organization.

He literally gave us the GulfWar syndrome.  You're welcome, America.

QuoteGeorge Bush 43 claimed he was a Christian. He was a member of Skull and Bones, supported the New World Order, created more un-sustainable debt, the GulfWar, supported Halliburton and their non-accountability of government funds, and don't forget 9-11 and the Patriot Act.

Wait, so is it "Scull and Bones" or "Skull and Bones?"  I'm confused.

The inescapable conclusion is that we have never had a Christian President.  Could have fooled me.

According to that article, Ford was.  Or at least he wasn't non-Christian enough to be singled out.

Of course, Gil only linked it because it implicitly exonerates Nixon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 11:11:17 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 16, 2012, 11:02:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 16, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
MESSAGE FROM: President: James Timothy Turner 02/23/2011 President's statement regarding our Christian Nation: 02/23/2011

http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/documents/LetterAddressingNonChristianAgenda-2-22-2011.pdf

QuoteAmerica progressed and continued to move away from Christian ideals and in 1860 we were thrust into a civil war under the leadership of President Lincoln. Although he claimed to be a Christian man his actions would suggest otherwise. During his reign he imprisoned more than two thousand political prisoners without a trial. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result of war, injuries, famine and disease. All Americans were thrust into debt due to the war while the Rothschild family and their relatives were gathering the wealth of the people. He was shot by his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, for having a baby with a mistress. Abraham Lincoln was a descendant of the Rothschild banking cartel. He was the illegitimate son of A.A. Springs who was a direct descendant of the Rothschild family. This information was found in A.A. Springs last will and testament filed in a county courthouse. See the book "Pandora's Box" by Alex Christopher. It was popular and necessary in those days to appear to be a Christian in order to get elected so many politicians used the Christian platform to get into office. Some still use it today.

You omitted these parts:

QuotePresident Franklin Delano Roosevelt also followed non-Christian Principles. He gave complete control of the banks to the Federal Reserve, confiscated the gold from the people of America, gave us worthless paper money, created inflation, strengthened the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to steal the people's wealth, and promoted laws that would imprison people for just about anything, including standing up for their God given constitutional rights. He chose to follow his will instead of God which led us into the Second World War.

QuotePresident Carter was also a man claiming to be a Christian. He teaches a Sunday school class and builds homes for the poor but his tree does not bear good fruit.

QuotePresident Reagan followed a non-Christian agenda. He brought us mediums and séances to the White House, participated in moloch worship which is a form of luciferian human sacrifice. Remember the owl in California? These things are strictly forbidden by the scriptures. Reagan sowed the seeds that led us to un-sustainable debt in America.

QuoteWe have George Bush president number 41. He was a Christian, right? Let's take a closer look. He gave us the Gulf War and the GulfWar syndrome. I guess our soldiers are allergic to depleted uranium after all. He was the first President to publicly support the New World Order. He is a member of Scull and Bones, an occult organization.

He literally gave us the GulfWar syndrome.  You're welcome, America.

QuoteGeorge Bush 43 claimed he was a Christian. He was a member of Skull and Bones, supported the New World Order, created more un-sustainable debt, the GulfWar, supported Halliburton and their non-accountability of government funds, and don't forget 9-11 and the Patriot Act.

Wait, so is it "Scull and Bones" or "Skull and Bones?"  I'm confused.

The inescapable conclusion is that we have never had a Christian President.  Could have fooled me.

According to that article, Ford was.  Or at least he wasn't non-Christian enough to be singled out.

Of course, Gil only linked it because it implicitly exonerates Nixon.

Well, did you see anything criticizing him in there?  Well, did you??!!

Maybe this guy's got a thing for Quakers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on July 17, 2012, 08:48:14 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 11:11:17 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on July 16, 2012, 11:02:13 PM
Quote from: CBStew on July 16, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 16, 2012, 08:16:43 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 16, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
MESSAGE FROM: President: James Timothy Turner 02/23/2011 President's statement regarding our Christian Nation: 02/23/2011

http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/documents/LetterAddressingNonChristianAgenda-2-22-2011.pdf

QuoteAmerica progressed and continued to move away from Christian ideals and in 1860 we were thrust into a civil war under the leadership of President Lincoln. Although he claimed to be a Christian man his actions would suggest otherwise. During his reign he imprisoned more than two thousand political prisoners without a trial. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result of war, injuries, famine and disease. All Americans were thrust into debt due to the war while the Rothschild family and their relatives were gathering the wealth of the people. He was shot by his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, for having a baby with a mistress. Abraham Lincoln was a descendant of the Rothschild banking cartel. He was the illegitimate son of A.A. Springs who was a direct descendant of the Rothschild family. This information was found in A.A. Springs last will and testament filed in a county courthouse. See the book "Pandora's Box" by Alex Christopher. It was popular and necessary in those days to appear to be a Christian in order to get elected so many politicians used the Christian platform to get into office. Some still use it today.

You omitted these parts:

QuotePresident Franklin Delano Roosevelt also followed non-Christian Principles. He gave complete control of the banks to the Federal Reserve, confiscated the gold from the people of America, gave us worthless paper money, created inflation, strengthened the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to steal the people's wealth, and promoted laws that would imprison people for just about anything, including standing up for their God given constitutional rights. He chose to follow his will instead of God which led us into the Second World War.

QuotePresident Carter was also a man claiming to be a Christian. He teaches a Sunday school class and builds homes for the poor but his tree does not bear good fruit.

QuotePresident Reagan followed a non-Christian agenda. He brought us mediums and séances to the White House, participated in moloch worship which is a form of luciferian human sacrifice. Remember the owl in California? These things are strictly forbidden by the scriptures. Reagan sowed the seeds that led us to un-sustainable debt in America.

QuoteWe have George Bush president number 41. He was a Christian, right? Let's take a closer look. He gave us the Gulf War and the GulfWar syndrome. I guess our soldiers are allergic to depleted uranium after all. He was the first President to publicly support the New World Order. He is a member of Scull and Bones, an occult organization.

He literally gave us the GulfWar syndrome.  You're welcome, America.

QuoteGeorge Bush 43 claimed he was a Christian. He was a member of Skull and Bones, supported the New World Order, created more un-sustainable debt, the GulfWar, supported Halliburton and their non-accountability of government funds, and don't forget 9-11 and the Patriot Act.

Wait, so is it "Scull and Bones" or "Skull and Bones?"  I'm confused.

The inescapable conclusion is that we have never had a Christian President.  Could have fooled me.

According to that article, Ford was.  Or at least he wasn't non-Christian enough to be singled out.

Of course, Gil only linked it because it implicitly exonerates Nixon.

Well, did you see anything criticizing him in there?  Well, did you??!!

Maybe this guy's got a thing for Quakers.

Or cuakers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
Another bad Giannoulias loan to guys with mob ties leads to jail time (http://www.suntimes.com/13761306-761/failed-broadway-banks-money-wasted-on-internet-poker-drugs.html). Massive hugs and kisses to anyone who testified against these assholes.

Scroll halfway down to find out just who gets the hugs and kisses.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 17, 2012, 11:24:57 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
Scroll halfway down to find out just who gets the hugs and kisses.

Or you could just tell us.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 17, 2012, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
Another bad Giannoulias loan to guys with mob ties leads to jail time (http://www.suntimes.com/13761306-761/failed-broadway-banks-money-wasted-on-internet-poker-drugs.html). Massive hugs and kisses to anyone who testified against these assholes.

Scroll halfway down to find out just who gets the hugs and kisses.

Does this mean said person and his/her immediate family must enter the witness protection program? I'm imagining the witness's son having to change his name to Al Patterson and become a vacuum cleaner salesman in Clayton, Mo.

Because that would be awesome.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 01:30:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 17, 2012, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
Another bad Giannoulias loan to guys with mob ties leads to jail time (http://www.suntimes.com/13761306-761/failed-broadway-banks-money-wasted-on-internet-poker-drugs.html). Massive hugs and kisses to anyone who testified against these assholes.

Scroll halfway down to find out just who gets the hugs and kisses.

Does this mean said person and his/her immediate family must enter the witness protection program? I'm imagining the witness's son having to change his name to Al Patterson and become a vacuum cleaner salesman in Clayton, Mo.

Because that would be awesome.

Yes, we're just haggling over if "Al" is short for "Alvin" or "Alfonso."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 17, 2012, 06:34:08 PM
Those damned liberals over at the National Review are now pressing Mitt Romney to release more tax returns. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309738/release-returns-editors)

QuoteThe Romney campaign says he has released as many returns as candidate John Kerry did in 2004, and cites Teresa Heinz Kerry's refusal to release any of her tax returns. Neither is an apt comparison. John Kerry actually released returns from 1999 through 2003, and also released tax returns during his Senate runs. As for Teresa Heinz, Romney isn't the wealthy spouse of a candidate, but the candidate himself. In 2008, John McCain released two years of returns, but he had been filling out financial disclosure forms for decades as a senator. Romney protests that he is not legally obliged to release any tax returns. Of course not. He is no longer in the realm of the private sector, though, where he can comply with the letter of the law with the Securities and Exchange Commission and leave it at that. Perceptions matter.

Commies.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 17, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 01:30:01 PM
Quote from: Brownie on July 17, 2012, 12:35:37 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
Another bad Giannoulias loan to guys with mob ties leads to jail time (http://www.suntimes.com/13761306-761/failed-broadway-banks-money-wasted-on-internet-poker-drugs.html). Massive hugs and kisses to anyone who testified against these assholes.

Scroll halfway down to find out just who gets the hugs and kisses.

Does this mean said person and his/her immediate family must enter the witness protection program? I'm imagining the witness's son having to change his name to Al Patterson and become a vacuum cleaner salesman in Clayton, Mo.

Because that would be awesome.

Yes, we're just haggling over if "Al" is short for "Alvin" or "Alfonso."

But you probably want the mob to clip both Alvin and Alfonso.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 18, 2012, 08:26:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 17, 2012, 06:34:08 PM
Those damned liberals over at the National Review are now pressing Mitt Romney to release more tax returns. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309738/release-returns-editors)

QuoteThe Romney campaign says he has released as many returns as candidate John Kerry did in 2004, and cites Teresa Heinz Kerry's refusal to release any of her tax returns. Neither is an apt comparison. John Kerry actually released returns from 1999 through 2003, and also released tax returns during his Senate runs. As for Teresa Heinz, Romney isn't the wealthy spouse of a candidate, but the candidate himself. In 2008, John McCain released two years of returns, but he had been filling out financial disclosure forms for decades as a senator. Romney protests that he is not legally obliged to release any tax returns. Of course not. He is no longer in the realm of the private sector, though, where he can comply with the letter of the law with the Securities and Exchange Commission and leave it at that. Perceptions matter.

Commies.

I think, from a politics/strategy point of view, that it's probably the right thing to do now.  The National Review editors make a pretty good case for it in that article, and the story is clearly not going away.  Then we can move on to actual substantive issues.  Yeah, right.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 18, 2012, 08:35:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 18, 2012, 08:26:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 17, 2012, 06:34:08 PM
Those damned liberals over at the National Review are now pressing Mitt Romney to release more tax returns. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309738/release-returns-editors)

QuoteThe Romney campaign says he has released as many returns as candidate John Kerry did in 2004, and cites Teresa Heinz Kerry's refusal to release any of her tax returns. Neither is an apt comparison. John Kerry actually released returns from 1999 through 2003, and also released tax returns during his Senate runs. As for Teresa Heinz, Romney isn't the wealthy spouse of a candidate, but the candidate himself. In 2008, John McCain released two years of returns, but he had been filling out financial disclosure forms for decades as a senator. Romney protests that he is not legally obliged to release any tax returns. Of course not. He is no longer in the realm of the private sector, though, where he can comply with the letter of the law with the Securities and Exchange Commission and leave it at that. Perceptions matter.

Commies.

I think, from a politics/strategy point of view, that it's probably the right thing to do now.  The National Review editors make a pretty good case for it in that article, and the story is clearly not going away.  Then we can move on to actual substantive issues.  Yeah, right.

Shoah.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on July 18, 2012, 08:42:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 18, 2012, 08:35:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 18, 2012, 08:26:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 17, 2012, 06:34:08 PM
Those damned liberals over at the National Review are now pressing Mitt Romney to release more tax returns. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309738/release-returns-editors)

QuoteThe Romney campaign says he has released as many returns as candidate John Kerry did in 2004, and cites Teresa Heinz Kerry's refusal to release any of her tax returns. Neither is an apt comparison. John Kerry actually released returns from 1999 through 2003, and also released tax returns during his Senate runs. As for Teresa Heinz, Romney isn't the wealthy spouse of a candidate, but the candidate himself. In 2008, John McCain released two years of returns, but he had been filling out financial disclosure forms for decades as a senator. Romney protests that he is not legally obliged to release any tax returns. Of course not. He is no longer in the realm of the private sector, though, where he can comply with the letter of the law with the Securities and Exchange Commission and leave it at that. Perceptions matter.

Commies.

I think, from a politics/strategy point of view, that it's probably the right thing to do now.  The National Review editors make a pretty good case for it in that article, and the story is clearly not going away.  Then we can move on to actual substantive issues.  Yeah, right.

Shoah.

You didn't read my whole post.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 18, 2012, 09:20:04 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 18, 2012, 08:42:47 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 18, 2012, 08:35:02 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 18, 2012, 08:26:50 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 17, 2012, 06:34:08 PM
Those damned liberals over at the National Review are now pressing Mitt Romney to release more tax returns. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309738/release-returns-editors)

QuoteThe Romney campaign says he has released as many returns as candidate John Kerry did in 2004, and cites Teresa Heinz Kerry's refusal to release any of her tax returns. Neither is an apt comparison. John Kerry actually released returns from 1999 through 2003, and also released tax returns during his Senate runs. As for Teresa Heinz, Romney isn't the wealthy spouse of a candidate, but the candidate himself. In 2008, John McCain released two years of returns, but he had been filling out financial disclosure forms for decades as a senator. Romney protests that he is not legally obliged to release any tax returns. Of course not. He is no longer in the realm of the private sector, though, where he can comply with the letter of the law with the Securities and Exchange Commission and leave it at that. Perceptions matter.

Commies.

I think, from a politics/strategy point of view, that it's probably the right thing to do now.  The National Review editors make a pretty good case for it in that article, and the story is clearly not going away.  Then we can move on to actual substantive issues.  Yeah, right.

Shoah.

You didn't read my whole post.

Chuck just wants to know the candidates' views on the Holocaust.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 18, 2012, 09:25:37 AM
I'm still trying to figure out when Chuck is going to have to attend his own funeral as Phil Shifley.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 18, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
Another bad Giannoulias loan to guys with mob ties leads to jail time (http://www.suntimes.com/13761306-761/failed-broadway-banks-money-wasted-on-internet-poker-drugs.html). Massive hugs and kisses to anyone who testified against these assholes.

Scroll halfway down to find out just who gets the hugs and kisses.

Well, to be fair, our President knows a guy who understands how banking works, an honest guy who can clean up the system. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBE77hRRkVc)

He's a champion of clean and honest government, so Chuck, I really call your patriotism into question. Going after our President's judgment on banking matters during this time of crisis. YOU'RE A BANKER! You prefer Wall Street to Main Street! You are the 1 percent, probably, and here you are criticizing the actions of Broadway Bank's lending practices mid-decade when they were purportedly run  by the guy Obama felt understood finance better than just about anyone. (Plus, he would let Obama beat him at basketball at the East Bank Club). You should be ashamed of yourself, Chuck. America is facing all kinds of economic crises like the money your sister and mother lost during and because of the Bushitler-Cheney Administration, and you're calling Obama's judgment into question?

I expect Stephanie Cutter to be uncovering all kinds of felonies you have committed somewhere. Speaking of felonies, you'd probably note that our CHAMPION of honest government also stood behind one Rod Blagojevich. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d2d_1229116825)


Our President also believed that Todd Stroger and John Stroger were the best Cook County could do. (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/11/obama_endorses_.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on July 18, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 18, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
Another bad Giannoulias loan to guys with mob ties leads to jail time (http://www.suntimes.com/13761306-761/failed-broadway-banks-money-wasted-on-internet-poker-drugs.html). Massive hugs and kisses to anyone who testified against these assholes.

Scroll halfway down to find out just who gets the hugs and kisses.

Well, to be fair, our President knows a guy who understands how banking works, an honest guy who can clean up the system. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBE77hRRkVc)

He's a champion of clean and honest government, so Chuck, I really call your patriotism into question. Going after our President's judgment on banking matters during this time of crisis. YOU'RE A BANKER! You prefer Wall Street to Main Street! You are the 1 percent, probably, and here you are criticizing the actions of Broadway Bank's lending practices mid-decade when they were purportedly run  by the guy Obama felt understood finance better than just about anyone. (Plus, he would let Obama beat him at basketball at the East Bank Club). You should be ashamed of yourself, Chuck. America is facing all kinds of economic crises like the money your sister and mother lost during and because of the Bushitler-Cheney Administration, and you're calling Obama's judgment into question?

I expect Stephanie Cutter to be uncovering all kinds of felonies you have committed somewhere. Speaking of felonies, you'd probably note that our CHAMPION of honest government also stood behind one Rod Blagojevich. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d2d_1229116825)


Our President also believed that Todd Stroger and John Stroger were the best Cook County could do. (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/11/obama_endorses_.html)

All accurate. Yet the Goopers go after Rezko and Reverend Wright.

No wonder Obama kicked their ass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 18, 2012, 11:44:34 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 18, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on July 18, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 17, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
Another bad Giannoulias loan to guys with mob ties leads to jail time (http://www.suntimes.com/13761306-761/failed-broadway-banks-money-wasted-on-internet-poker-drugs.html). Massive hugs and kisses to anyone who testified against these assholes.

Scroll halfway down to find out just who gets the hugs and kisses.

Well, to be fair, our President knows a guy who understands how banking works, an honest guy who can clean up the system. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBE77hRRkVc)

He's a champion of clean and honest government, so Chuck, I really call your patriotism into question. Going after our President's judgment on banking matters during this time of crisis. YOU'RE A BANKER! You prefer Wall Street to Main Street! You are the 1 percent, probably, and here you are criticizing the actions of Broadway Bank's lending practices mid-decade when they were purportedly run  by the guy Obama felt understood finance better than just about anyone. (Plus, he would let Obama beat him at basketball at the East Bank Club). You should be ashamed of yourself, Chuck. America is facing all kinds of economic crises like the money your sister and mother lost during and because of the Bushitler-Cheney Administration, and you're calling Obama's judgment into question?

I expect Stephanie Cutter to be uncovering all kinds of felonies you have committed somewhere. Speaking of felonies, you'd probably note that our CHAMPION of honest government also stood behind one Rod Blagojevich. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d2d_1229116825)


Our President also believed that Todd Stroger and John Stroger were the best Cook County could do. (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/11/obama_endorses_.html)

All accurate. Yet the Goopers go after Rezko and Reverend Wright.

No wonder Obama kicked their ass.

It looks like the Romney team is preparing to go thermonuclear against Obama with some of these things soon. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-the-romney-campaign-decided-to-take-the-gloves)

Quote...the Republican's campaign is now prepared to go eye for an eye in an intense, no-holds-barred act of political reprisal, said two Romney advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the next chapter of Boston's pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a "liar" — very little will be off-limits, from the president's youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.

I don't know if that's really going to work.  Isn't this an attack avenue that the Romney-aligned Super PACs should use rather than the candidate himself?  Or a VP nominee even?  I think the polls are pretty clear that even though Americans may not like much of Obama's policies, they find him somewhat likeable.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 18, 2012, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 18, 2012, 11:44:34 AM

It looks like the Romney team is preparing to go thermonuclear against Obama with some of these things soon. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-the-romney-campaign-decided-to-take-the-gloves)

Quote...the Republican's campaign is now prepared to go eye for an eye in an intense, no-holds-barred act of political reprisal, said two Romney advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the next chapter of Boston's pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a "liar" — very little will be off-limits, from the president's youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.

I don't know if that's really going to work.  Isn't this an attack avenue that the Romney-aligned Super PACs should use rather than the candidate himself?  Or a VP nominee even?  I think the polls are pretty clear that even though Americans may not like much of Obama's policies, they find him somewhat likeable.

Plus, given Romney's failed foray into being a barber, I'm not sure youthful indescretions would be a good platform for choosing your fight.

Anyway, all that kind of thit (on both sides) is just red meat for the base. Romney needs to win some moderates, and he's not going to get there this way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on July 18, 2012, 12:10:23 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 18, 2012, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 18, 2012, 11:44:34 AM

It looks like the Romney team is preparing to go thermonuclear against Obama with some of these things soon. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-the-romney-campaign-decided-to-take-the-gloves)

Quote...the Republican's campaign is now prepared to go eye for an eye in an intense, no-holds-barred act of political reprisal, said two Romney advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the next chapter of Boston's pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a "liar" — very little will be off-limits, from the president's youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.

I don't know if that's really going to work.  Isn't this an attack avenue that the Romney-aligned Super PACs should use rather than the candidate himself?  Or a VP nominee even?  I think the polls are pretty clear that even though Americans may not like much of Obama's policies, they find him somewhat likeable.

Plus, given Romney's failed foray into being a barber, I'm not sure youthful indescretions would be a good platform for choosing your fight.

Anyway, all that kind of thit (on both sides) is just red meat for the base. Romney needs to win some moderates, and he's not going to get there this way.

He will need better thit to phling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on July 18, 2012, 01:04:16 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 18, 2012, 12:10:23 PM
Quote from: Fork on July 18, 2012, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on July 18, 2012, 11:44:34 AM

It looks like the Romney team is preparing to go thermonuclear against Obama with some of these things soon. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/how-the-romney-campaign-decided-to-take-the-gloves)

Quote...the Republican's campaign is now prepared to go eye for an eye in an intense, no-holds-barred act of political reprisal, said two Romney advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity. In the next chapter of Boston's pushback — which began last week when they began labeling Obama a "liar" — very little will be off-limits, from the president's youthful drug habit, to his ties to disgraced Chicago politicians.

I don't know if that's really going to work.  Isn't this an attack avenue that the Romney-aligned Super PACs should use rather than the candidate himself?  Or a VP nominee even?  I think the polls are pretty clear that even though Americans may not like much of Obama's policies, they find him somewhat likeable.

Plus, given Romney's failed foray into being a barber, I'm not sure youthful indescretions would be a good platform for choosing your fight.

Anyway, all that kind of thit (on both sides) is just red meat for the base. Romney needs to win some moderates, and he's not going to get there this way.

He will need better thit to phling.

He better wear hith pith helmet.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on July 18, 2012, 06:18:21 PM
If nothing else, this is well-executed:

(http://i.imgur.com/8wDhR.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on July 23, 2012, 10:35:53 AM
An interesting look at Obama's campaign spending. (http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/nine-things-we-learned-from-ob.php) Lots of it is mundane, and there's no political point to be made. They are burning through cash at a nice clip, but if they can sustain fundraising, this will not be an issue.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on July 26, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
DRLP? If so, I apologize and would welcome a Thrill-Link to the discussion you guys had about THIS:

http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/ChicagoPolitics/leadingthepack.pdf

Summarized:

http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/02-15-2012/Changing_our_corrupt_city%27s_course

Conclusion: Chicago is the most corrupt city in the country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on July 26, 2012, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on July 26, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
DRLP? If so, I apologize and would welcome a Thrill-Link to the discussion you guys had about THIS:

http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/ChicagoPolitics/leadingthepack.pdf

Summarized:

http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/02-15-2012/Changing_our_corrupt_city%27s_course

Conclusion: Chicago is the most corrupt city in the country.

Most corrupt? I thought Tonker was only there for a few days.

/joke would be better if made after Tonker came and went. But in the retrospect of years, who will remember?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on July 26, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 26, 2012, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on July 26, 2012, 04:58:28 PM
DRLP? If so, I apologize and would welcome a Thrill-Link to the discussion you guys had about THIS:

http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/ChicagoPolitics/leadingthepack.pdf

Summarized:

http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/02-15-2012/Changing_our_corrupt_city%27s_course

Conclusion: Chicago is the most corrupt city in the country.

Most corrupt? I thought Tonker was only there for a few days.

/joke would be better if made after Tonker came and went. But in the retrospect of years, who will remember?

Hell, who will remember on the day after?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on July 31, 2012, 10:11:50 PM
John Rocker opines that the First Amendment was intended to prevent people from having their feelings hurt (http://"http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/the-myth-of-free-speech/").

QuoteTechnically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement. I supposedly have the same right to express myself as you do. In a perfect world, my rights should be no different from yours. I'm quite certain that given the current stage of the world's social climate, however, anyone ascribing to the ridiculous notion that our world is perfect is kidding himself. Our "perfect" world was replaced many moons ago by the defective reality in which we are all forced to reside – and one of the most blatant areas to view the erosion of perfection is seen in the lack of ability many in this great country have to speak freely without fear of chastisement.

[Edit.--Longer scorn (http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/31/the-right-not-to-be-criticized-john-rocker-edition/).]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 01, 2012, 12:50:40 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on July 31, 2012, 10:11:50 PM
Quote from: John RockerOur "perfect" world was replaced many moons ago by the defective reality in which we are all forced to reside – and one of the most blatant areas to view the erosion of perfection is seen in the lack of ability many in this great country have to speak freely without fear of chastisement.

What We Lost, And What We Never Had...

(http://i.imgur.com/jgGzB.jpg)

Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 03, 2012, 12:59:46 AM
Holy shit. I think Harry Reid just bit off Romney's ear, à la Holyfield-Tyson II.

The fallout from this could certainly get "interesting", as they say.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 03, 2012, 05:15:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 03, 2012, 12:59:46 AM
Holy shit. I think Harry Reid just bit off Romney's ear, à la Holyfield-Tyson II.

The fallout from this could certainly get "interesting", as they say.

I don't know what happened but I feel like Harry Reid can certainly fuck things up for the dems.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 03, 2012, 08:39:36 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 03, 2012, 05:15:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 03, 2012, 12:59:46 AM
Holy shit. I think Harry Reid just bit off Romney's ear, à la Holyfield-Tyson II.

The fallout from this could certainly get "interesting", as they say.

I don't know what happened but I feel like Harry Reid can certainly fuck things up for the dems.

He may well have put Romney in a no-win situation with something that seems on the merits well beyond a cheap shot. In an interview with Huffpo, no less.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html

QuoteSaying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

...

Tellingly, neither Reid nor his office would reveal who the investor was, making it impossible to verify if the accusation is true. And as his quote makes clear, he's uncertain if the information is accurate. The Romney campaign's press secretary, Andrea Saul, has previously denied rumors that Romney didn't pay "any taxes at all."

Romney's response so far?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/romney-to-reid-put-up-or-shut-up/

Quote(CNN) - Mitt Romney on Thursday pushed back against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's allegations that the presumptive GOP nominee has not been paying his taxes.

"It's time for Harry to put up or shut up," Romney said on Sean Hannity's radio show.

Okay...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 03, 2012, 09:08:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 03, 2012, 08:39:36 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 03, 2012, 05:15:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 03, 2012, 12:59:46 AM
Holy shit. I think Harry Reid just bit off Romney's ear, à la Holyfield-Tyson II.

The fallout from this could certainly get "interesting", as they say.

I don't know what happened but I feel like Harry Reid can certainly fuck things up for the dems.

He may well have put Romney in a no-win situation with something that seems on the merits well beyond a cheap shot. In an interview with Huffpo, no less.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html

QuoteSaying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.

"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

...

Tellingly, neither Reid nor his office would reveal who the investor was, making it impossible to verify if the accusation is true. And as his quote makes clear, he's uncertain if the information is accurate. The Romney campaign's press secretary, Andrea Saul, has previously denied rumors that Romney didn't pay "any taxes at all."

Romney's response so far?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/romney-to-reid-put-up-or-shut-up/

Quote(CNN) - Mitt Romney on Thursday pushed back against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's allegations that the presumptive GOP nominee has not been paying his taxes.

"It's time for Harry to put up or shut up," Romney said on Sean Hannity's radio show.

Okay...

Why won't Harry Reid release Mitt Romney's tax records?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 03, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: R-V on April 05, 2011, 09:46:33 AM
Climatefreude! (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story)

QuoteA team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

More climatefreude (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story)! I look forward to morph explaining why Muller is a TRADER. Did Obama get to him like he got to John Roberts?

QuoteThe verdict is in: Global warming is occurring and emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity are the main cause.

This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, MacArthur Fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Never mind that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. The difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 03, 2012, 02:45:30 PM
Straight from the horse's op-ed pen...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

QuoteCALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

...

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn't change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

...

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.

Intrepid Reader: Gil

How chilling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2012, 08:58:03 AM
Conservapedia tackles the Summer Games...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Olympics_2012

QuoteMultiple: How many athletes will do the equivalent of Tebowing (http://www.conservapedia.com/Tebowing) after a victory? American Meb Keflezighi, who won the silver medal in the marathon in 2004, typically gives glory to God (http://www.conservapedia.com/God) with the sign of the Cross (http://www.conservapedia.com/Cross) after finishing a race.[3]

Missy Franklin, who has won the most gold medals of anyone in 2012 (tied with Michael Phelps), thanked God (http://www.conservapedia.com/God) as one of her first comments after winning.

Gabby Douglas gave glory to God when she qualified to represent Team USA (http://www.conservapedia.com/Team_USA), and subsequently won two gold medals.

Soccer players in the United Arab Emirates team bowed toward Mecca when they scored a goal. They did not advance to the quarterfinals.

UAE: pwned by God.

QuoteMultiple: Will almost no athletes from public school (http://www.conservapedia.com/Public_school) sports programs win any gold medals, despite how public schools spend more than $500 billion annually to teach and train Americans (http://www.conservapedia.com/American)?

The lamestream media (http://www.conservapedia.com/Lamestream_media) state that Missy Franklin, the star swimmer, is a high school student, but fail to mention that she attends Catholic (http://www.conservapedia.com/Catholic) school rather than public school (http://www.conservapedia.com/Public_school).

American 2012 Olympic gold medal winners (as of 8/1/2012)


  • Private: Missy Franklin (Catholic (http://www.conservapedia.com/Roman_Catholic_Church) high school)
  • Homeschooled (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homeschooled): Gabby Douglas, McKayla Maroney
  • College or adult: Michael Phelps,[4] Dana Vollmer, Vincent Hancock, Conor Dwyer, Kristin Armstrong, Nathan Adrian, Allison Schmitt, Shannon Vreeland, Kim Rhode, Ryan Lochte, Matt Grevers, Aly Raisman, Ricky Berens
  • Public school (http://www.conservapedia.com/Public_school): Kyla Ross, Jordyn Wieber
  • Still to categorize:

QuoteMultiple: How many athletes will be unfairly expelled based on liberal (http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal) censorship (http://www.conservapedia.com/Censorship) of their free speech (http://www.conservapedia.com/Free_speech)?

...

The liberal (http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal) thought police expelled a Swiss soccer player for tweeting that South Koreans are "retards."[5]

Quotewrestling: have feminist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Feminist) Title IX quotas (http://www.conservapedia.com/Title_IX_quotas) destroyed the U.S. (http://www.conservapedia.com/U.S.) team?

TBA
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2012, 09:03:20 AM
Other questions to be answered in London:

QuoteMultiple:

will atheist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist) nations underachieve in team sports?

QuoteMultiple:

Similarly, will atheist nations underachieve in general?

Quotemen's basketball:

will selfless play by outspoken Christian (http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian) Kevin Durant (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kevin_Durant) overcome ball-hogging by Overrated Sports Stars (http://www.conservapedia.com/Overrated_Sports_Stars) Kobe Bryant (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kobe_Bryant) and LeBron James (http://www.conservapedia.com/LeBron_James) on USA Basketball (http://www.conservapedia.com/USA_Basketball)?

Quotemen's tennis:

will one of the Greatest Conservative Sports Stars (http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Sports_Stars) -- such as Novak Djokovic -- win the gold medal? Will Andy Murray (http://www.conservapedia.com/Andy_Murray) of atheistic Britain underperform?

Quote8-month pregnant athlete:

Will the lamestream media (http://www.conservapedia.com/Lamestream_media) report on Nur Suryani Mohamed Taibi of Malaysia, who is competing while being 8 months pregnant, or does that send too pro-life (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pro-life) of a message?

Quotewomen's soccer:

ranked #1 and won the gold in the last two Olympics, most recently with a foreign coach. Now that this U.S. (http://www.conservapedia.com/U.S.) team is politically correct (http://www.conservapedia.com/Politically_correct), will it underachieve?[14] Major rivals will be Japan, Brazil and France.

...

14. A foreigner, reportedly a lesbian, was selected as the head coach of the already champion American Olympic women's soccer team in 2007, and in the following year that team repeated its gold medal-winning performance of 2004. Aren't there American, although perhaps not politically correct, soccer coaches good enough to run the Olympic team?

No one tell Andy Schlafly about Megan Rapinoe (http://www.out.com/travel-nightlife/london/2012/07/02/fever-pitch).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2012, 09:15:23 AM
And, if that's not enough for you, there's always the talk page...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics

QuoteBaseball being removed from list

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [10] (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/) "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. SharonW (http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SharonW) 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

   Baseball (http://www.conservapedia.com/Baseball) was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too conservative (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative)?--Andy Schlafly (http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Aschlafly) 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

       If it is, why did Cuba win most of the gold medals? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table) (And the most medals overall?) JeffreyB (http://www.conservapedia.com/User:JeffreyB) 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

QuoteMore evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: Mental Health and Homosexuality (http://www.conservapedia.com/Mental_Health_and_Homosexuality)). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. Conservative (http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative) 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

QED. Ceteris paribus.

QuoteSo let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? RayM 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

That's some catch, that Catch 22.

Quote(http://i.imgur.com/JchzI.jpg)

It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist Chuck Norris (http://www.conservapedia.com/Chuck_Norris) lives in the state of Texas (http://www.conservapedia.com/Texas) and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness.

That last one might be a joke.

But, you know... Poe's law (http://www.conservapedia.com/Poe%27s_law) and all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 04, 2012, 11:00:12 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2012, 09:03:20 AM
Other questions to be answered in London:

QuoteMultiple:

will atheist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist) nations underachieve in team sports?

QuoteMultiple:

Similarly, will atheist nations underachieve in general?

Quotemen's basketball:

will selfless play by outspoken Christian (http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian) Kevin Durant (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kevin_Durant) overcome ball-hogging by Overrated Sports Stars (http://www.conservapedia.com/Overrated_Sports_Stars) Kobe Bryant (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kobe_Bryant) and LeBron James (http://www.conservapedia.com/LeBron_James) on USA Basketball (http://www.conservapedia.com/USA_Basketball)?

Quotemen's tennis:

will one of the Greatest Conservative Sports Stars (http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Sports_Stars) -- such as Novak Djokovic -- win the gold medal? Will Andy Murray (http://www.conservapedia.com/Andy_Murray) of atheistic Britain underperform?

Quote8-month pregnant athlete:

Will the lamestream media (http://www.conservapedia.com/Lamestream_media) report on Nur Suryani Mohamed Taibi of Malaysia, who is competing while being 8 months pregnant, or does that send too pro-life (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pro-life) of a message?

Quotewomen's soccer:

ranked #1 and won the gold in the last two Olympics, most recently with a foreign coach. Now that this U.S. (http://www.conservapedia.com/U.S.) team is politically correct (http://www.conservapedia.com/Politically_correct), will it underachieve?[14] Major rivals will be Japan, Brazil and France.

...

14. A foreigner, reportedly a lesbian, was selected as the head coach of the already champion American Olympic women's soccer team in 2007, and in the following year that team repeated its gold medal-winning performance of 2004. Aren't there American, although perhaps not politically correct, soccer coaches good enough to run the Olympic team?

No one tell Andy Schlafly about Megan Rapinoe (http://www.out.com/travel-nightlife/london/2012/07/02/fever-pitch).

Israel is out of any medal competition!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 04, 2012, 03:47:23 PM

Asked at Tonklunch today:

Who would win in a fight - Christian Cassius Clay or MUSLIN Muhammed Ali?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 04, 2012, 04:03:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2012, 08:58:03 AM
QuoteMultiple: How many athletes will do the equivalent of Tebowing (http://www.conservapedia.com/Tebowing) after a victory? American Meb Keflezighi, who won the silver medal in the marathon in 2004, typically gives glory to God (http://www.conservapedia.com/God) with the sign of the Cross (http://www.conservapedia.com/Cross) after finishing a race.[3]

Is that really what signum crucis is about?

(http://www.glorytogod.com/imagesnew/team2010001.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on August 07, 2012, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

About time. I can't convey how overjoyed I was when they opened a restaurant in Buffalo.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2012, 01:12:49 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

This Dr. John Wright sounds like a real socialist.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 07, 2012, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

About time. I can't convey how overjoyed I was when they opened a restaurant in Buffalo.

Slowly I turned. Note to New Yorker: the small caps are even dumber than the fucking dieresis.

Oh, and fuck HCAHPS. You get a Z-pack if you need one, not because you want one.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on August 07, 2012, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 07, 2012, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

About time. I can't convey how overjoyed I was when they opened a restaurant in Buffalo.

Slowly I turned. Note to New Yorker: the small caps are even dumber than the fucking dieresis.

Oh, and fuck HCAHPS. You get a Z-pack if you need one, not because you want one.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I understand less than 1% of your posts.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 07, 2012, 01:57:04 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 07, 2012, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

About time. I can't convey how overjoyed I was when they opened a restaurant in Buffalo.

Slowly I turned. Note to New Yorker: the small caps are even dumber than the fucking dieresis.

Oh, and fuck HCAHPS. You get a Z-pack if you need one, not because you want one.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I understand less than 1% of your posts.
I got the Three Stooges riff.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 07, 2012, 02:23:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 07, 2012, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

About time. I can't convey how overjoyed I was when they opened a restaurant in Buffalo.

Slowly I turned. Note to New Yorker: the small caps are even dumber than the fucking dieresis.

Oh, and fuck HCAHPS. You get a Z-pack if you need one, not because you want one.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I understand less than 1% of your posts.

Does Wheezer even like sports? How did he end up here?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2012, 02:27:27 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 07, 2012, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

About time. I can't convey how overjoyed I was when they opened a restaurant in Buffalo.

Slowly I turned. Note to New Yorker: the small caps are even dumber than the fucking dieresis.

Oh, and fuck HCAHPS. You get a Z-pack if you need one, not because you want one.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I understand less than 1% of your posts.

I gather that this is what sent him over the edge:

QuoteCerberus has owned controlling stakes in Chrysler and GMAC Financing...

I'll double down and say that such persnickety typographic dictates are utterly undermined by the savagery of using the HTML <small> element for this instead of <abbr>.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 07, 2012, 02:23:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 07, 2012, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

About time. I can't convey how overjoyed I was when they opened a restaurant in Buffalo.

Slowly I turned. Note to New Yorker: the small caps are even dumber than the fucking dieresis.

Oh, and fuck HCAHPS. You get a Z-pack if you need one, not because you want one.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I understand less than 1% of your posts.

Does Wheezer even like sports? How did he end up here?

It has something to do with moving into an apartment with poor shortwave radio reception or something, which forced him to start listening to Cubs games on WGN again. Or something.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
Quote from: Eli on August 07, 2012, 02:23:47 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 07, 2012, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: R-V on August 07, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
The Cheesecake Factory finally gets some recognition.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

About time. I can't convey how overjoyed I was when they opened a restaurant in Buffalo.

Slowly I turned. Note to New Yorker: the small caps are even dumber than the fucking dieresis.

Oh, and fuck HCAHPS. You get a Z-pack if you need one, not because you want one.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I understand less than 1% of your posts.

Does Wheezer even like sports? How did he end up here?

It has something to do with moving into an apartment with poor shortwave radio reception or something, which forced him to start listening to Cubs games on WGN again. Or something.

That, in a nutshell, is it. I think the actual vector (fomite, perhaps) was a Sosa Dose.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2012, 04:51:48 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/07/158320294/one-clue-to-romneys-veep-pick-whose-wiki-page-is-getting-the-most-edits

QuoteTech President reminds us that one way to possibly figure out who will be a vice presidential pick is to watch the various contenders' Wikipedia pages in the days before such an announcement is likely.

In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, "just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about her approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days."

Meanwhile, the Post said, "on Aug. 22, the day before the Obama campaign officially named [then-Sen. Joe] Biden as the veep pick, Biden's Wiki page garnered roughly 40 changes. Over the five days prior, users would make at least 111 other changes to his entry."

The obvious — in hindsight — implications of the Wiki activity: Aides were going into the entries to tune them up and clean out any material that was either embarrassing or erroneous.

So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket?

— Ohio Sen. Rob Portman's Wiki page has been revised 16 times so far today, by someone called "River8009."

— Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's Wiki page has been revised nine times so far today and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.

— Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Wiki page has been tweaked four times today.

— Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's Wiki page has been edited once today, and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.

— Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Wiki page hasn't been edited today, but was revised eight times from Aug. 3-4.

— New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte's Wiki page has not been touched today. It was last revised on July 28.

— New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's Wiki page hasn't been revised since July 24.

In unrelated news, Gil has reportedly been out of the country since the end of July.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2012, 04:51:48 PM
In unrelated news, Gil has reportedly been out of the country since the end of July.

Oh, I have my guesses (http://sharesend.com/iyrzq).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 07, 2012, 07:41:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 07, 2012, 04:51:48 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/07/158320294/one-clue-to-romneys-veep-pick-whose-wiki-page-is-getting-the-most-edits

QuoteTech President reminds us that one way to possibly figure out who will be a vice presidential pick is to watch the various contenders' Wikipedia pages in the days before such an announcement is likely.

In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, "just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about her approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days."

Meanwhile, the Post said, "on Aug. 22, the day before the Obama campaign officially named [then-Sen. Joe] Biden as the veep pick, Biden's Wiki page garnered roughly 40 changes. Over the five days prior, users would make at least 111 other changes to his entry."

The obvious — in hindsight — implications of the Wiki activity: Aides were going into the entries to tune them up and clean out any material that was either embarrassing or erroneous.

So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket?

— Ohio Sen. Rob Portman's Wiki page has been revised 16 times so far today, by someone called "River8009."

— Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's Wiki page has been revised nine times so far today and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.

— Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Wiki page has been tweaked four times today.

— Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's Wiki page has been edited once today, and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.

— Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Wiki page hasn't been edited today, but was revised eight times from Aug. 3-4.

— New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte's Wiki page has not been touched today. It was last revised on July 28.

— New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's Wiki page hasn't been revised since July 24.

In unrelated news, Gil has reportedly been out of the country since the end of July.

I LOL'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on August 07, 2012, 08:25:41 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 04, 2012, 09:03:20 AM

Quotemen's basketball:

will selfless play by outspoken Christian (http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian) Kevin Durant (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kevin_Durant) overcome ball-hogging by Overrated Sports Stars (http://www.conservapedia.com/Overrated_Sports_Stars) Kobe Bryant (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kobe_Bryant) and LeBron James (http://www.conservapedia.com/LeBron_James) on USA Basketball (http://www.conservapedia.com/USA_Basketball)?


If only LeBron would pass more instead of always trying to be the hero. Sigh....
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 10, 2012, 11:18:00 PM
Gil was wrong.

It's Paul Ryan.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 10, 2012, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 10, 2012, 11:18:00 PM
Gil was wrong.

It's Paul Ryan.

If Paul Ryan is so amazing as the Internet says he is right now, why isn't he running for President?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2012, 08:39:19 AM
Quote from: Slaky on August 10, 2012, 11:23:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 10, 2012, 11:18:00 PM
Gil was wrong.

It's Paul Ryan.

If Paul Ryan is so amazing as the Internet says he is right now, why isn't he running for President?

Because he's going to run in 2016. Dur...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 11, 2012, 09:28:03 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 10, 2012, 11:18:00 PM
Gil was wrong.

It's Paul Ryan.

If nothing else, this should go a long way towards winning back the Beltway media vote. They love them some Paul Ryan baby blues.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2012, 09:29:52 AM
Wait! Ryan's running now!

http://youtu.be/FKJjkP6AJqQ
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 11, 2012, 10:22:11 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2012, 09:29:52 AM
Wait! Ryan's running now!

http://youtu.be/FKJjkP6AJqQ

If Romney can retroactively retire, why can't he also preemptively resign?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 11, 2012, 10:36:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2012, 09:29:52 AM
Wait! Ryan's running now!

http://youtu.be/FKJjkP6AJqQ

Yeah.  That's totally a reason not to vote for him. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElChQ6g2Io)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2012, 11:08:21 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 11, 2012, 10:36:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2012, 09:29:52 AM
Wait! Ryan's running now!

http://youtu.be/FKJjkP6AJqQ

Yeah.  That's totally a reason not to vote for him. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElChQ6g2Io)

I think I'd rather vote for Ryan over Romney. At least Ryan has a governing philosophy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 11, 2012, 02:03:02 PM
Ryan's appeal is to the far right, a group that -- while they don't like Romney -- already hates Obama. How does this help Mitt?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 11, 2012, 02:11:49 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2012, 11:08:21 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 11, 2012, 10:36:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 11, 2012, 09:29:52 AM
Wait! Ryan's running now!

http://youtu.be/FKJjkP6AJqQ

Yeah.  That's totally a reason not to vote for him. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElChQ6g2Io)

I think I'd rather vote for Ryan over Romney. At least Ryan has a governing philosophy.

I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 11, 2012, 10:20:26 PM
It appears that The Jefferson Lies was ironically titled (http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/19840).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 12, 2012, 10:46:24 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/

QuoteUnder Paul Ryan's plan (http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8514), Mitt Romney wouldn't pay any taxes for the next ten years -- or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that's true. Yes, I'm certain.

Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a full return (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/romney-2010-tax-return.html) from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/us/politics/romneys-tax-returns-show-21-6-million-income-in-10.html?_r=1&hp) he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.

Romney, of course, criticized this idea (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/romney-i-wouldnt-pay-taxes-under-newt-plan-111988.html) when Newt Gingrich proposed it back in January by pointing out that zeroing out taxes on savings and investment would mean zeroing out his own taxes.

Almost. Romney did earn $593,996 in author and speaking fees in 2010 that would still be taxed under the Ryan plan. Just not much. Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax -- saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent.

But what about corporate taxes? Aren't they a double tax on savings and investment, so Romney's "real" rate is higher than his headline rate? No. As Jared Bernstein (http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/just-passing-through/) of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, Romney has structured his investments as "pass-throughs" that avoid corporate tax. In other words, the 0.82 percent tax rate is really a 0.82 percent tax rate.

It might seem impossible to fund the government when the super-rich pay no taxes. That is accurate. Ryan would actually raise taxes on the bottom 30 percent of earners, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3384&DocTypeID=1), but that hardly fills the revenue hole he would create. The solution? All but eliminate all government outside of Social Security and defense -- a point my colleague Derek Thompson (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-worst-part-of-paul-ryans-budget/254845/) has made in incredible chart form.

Maybe Harry Reid's mysterious source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html) that Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade was really a time-traveler from the future. If Romney wins, it could very well be true.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 12, 2012, 11:56:38 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 11, 2012, 02:03:02 PM
Ryan's appeal is to the far right, a group that -- while they don't like Romney -- already hates Obama. How does this help Mitt?

Mitt won't need to run the risk of frizzy hair visiting Florida, as Obama's carrying it by 10 percent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on August 12, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
For TEC and maybe Chuck...

(http://i.imgur.com/x3ZEN.jpg)

I'll show myself out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 12, 2012, 10:09:35 PM
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lh4.ggpht.com/_CE-mGUixJ3M/SShGnTZGyBI/AAAAAAAAAKo/F4TboAF0BcM/alfred_e_neuman.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dariusgoeswest.org/blog/dgw-celebrity-resemblances/&h=427&w=330&sz=37&tbnid=kL_3ng2zXWM28M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=70&zoom=1&usg=__8JLyu2XcQga5Ukg4scebJOeMnxk=&docid=odrDtg6pIQtMzM&sa=X&ei=uW8oUKL0BYGriALXpYDYAQ&ved=0CGEQ9QEwBA&dur=0
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 12, 2012, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 12, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
For TEC and maybe Chuck...

And no one else.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 12, 2012, 10:27:44 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 12, 2012, 10:09:35 PM
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lh4.ggpht.com/_CE-mGUixJ3M/SShGnTZGyBI/AAAAAAAAAKo/F4TboAF0BcM/alfred_e_neuman.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dariusgoeswest.org/blog/dgw-celebrity-resemblances/&h=427&w=330&sz=37&tbnid=kL_3ng2zXWM28M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=70&zoom=1&usg=__8JLyu2XcQga5Ukg4scebJOeMnxk=&docid=odrDtg6pIQtMzM&sa=X&ei=uW8oUKL0BYGriALXpYDYAQ&ved=0CGEQ9QEwBA&dur=0

_____________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                           |
|        |                          \ | /                          |        |
|        |\                          \|/                          /|        |
|  |XXXXX||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ((*))  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<||XXXXX|  |
|        |/                          /|\                          \|        |
|        |                          / | \                          |        |
|                                                                           |
| Death Star                                                                |
| War Lord of the West                               Dkline@doc.bmd.trw.com |
|___________________________________________________________________________|


[Edit.--Thank G-d somebody has taken this task (http://www.roysac.com/blog/2009/03/matching-nude-ascii-art-pieces-with-playboy-centerfolds/) on. (NSFW, I suppose, as it includes one and a half each of BUAG and actual nipples.)]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 12, 2012, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 12, 2012, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 12, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
For TEC and maybe Chuck...

And no one else.

SKO will appreciate it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on August 12, 2012, 11:06:36 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 12, 2012, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 12, 2012, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 12, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
For TEC and maybe Chuck...

And no one else.

SKO will appreciate it.

Please, I'm no ghey nerdboy. If you'll need me I'll be in the Batman thread. Like a man.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 16, 2012, 10:21:44 AM
Quote from: SKO on August 12, 2012, 11:06:36 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on August 12, 2012, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 12, 2012, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on August 12, 2012, 06:56:25 PM
For TEC and maybe Chuck...

And no one else.

SKO will appreciate it.

Please, I'm no ghey nerdboy. If you'll need me I'll be in the Batman Superman thread. Like a man of steel.

Bort'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

His daddy just bought him a little Deuce Coupe.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 16, 2012, 10:51:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

Because Sarah Palin said it should happen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2012, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

His daddy just bought him a little Deuce Coupe.

Much appreciated.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 16, 2012, 11:09:26 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

It'd be a risky move though, and could be seen as desperate. Despite Biden being a bit of a doofus, Obama isn't really in a position right now where he needs to look desperate or shake anything up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2012, 11:10:36 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

DPD.

The basic GOP strategy has been to try transferring their greatest weknesses onto Obama. Ryan was a stinker of a pick - the VP pick can only harm a ticket, or leave it unaffected. Ryan hurts the ticket by bringing the Ryan Budget into sharper focus, along with Ryan's legislative history of rubberstamping spending increases while the GOP held the pursestrings. So, try painting Biden as a liability.

So they send the attack dogs on Biden. Today Mayor Ballpark attacked Biden (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/giuliani-biden-has-never-been-bright/?hpt=hp_bn3), saying he has "never been bright". Although, this is tasty butthurt, since Biden pretty much torpedoed Giuliani's entire campaign with the "noun, verb, and 9/11" line.

If Obama was going to replace Biden with Hillary, it would have been months ago. Not when there's more money being spent in Ohio to beat Sherrod Brown than there is to beat Obama. He'll be coasting after the Conventions.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 16, 2012, 11:17:04 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

There's any easy way to get Biden off the ticket that's face saving for everyone.  Biden has had surgery for two brain aneurysms.

At this point, Obama-Clinton would be a cinch for re-election so long as employment growth reports between now and the election are +100,000 each report.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

Let me guess, these secrets meetings you know about, your source is the drudge report?
Que red sounding alarms!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

Let me guess, these secrets meetings you know about, your source is the drudge report?
Que red sounding alarms!

They're not secret meetings, just closed-door meetings. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:54:42 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

Let me guess, these secrets meetings you know about, your source is the drudge report?
Que red sounding alarms!

They're not secret meetings, just closed-door meetings. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule)

Where else besides drudge, who links to the weekly standard is this being followed?
Does anyone actually think they'd make this change now?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2012, 12:02:27 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

Let me guess, these secrets meetings you know about, your source is the drudge report?
Que red sounding alarms!

They're not secret meetings, just closed-door meetings. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule)

I'm sure that meeting with the Secretary of State, followed by lunch with the Vice President (who was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee previously) is all about scrapping the ticket, and Egypt, Syria, and Netanyahu's raging WARBONER won't be on the docket at all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 16, 2012, 12:05:49 PM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:54:42 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

Let me guess, these secrets meetings you know about, your source is the drudge report?
Que red sounding alarms!

They're not secret meetings, just closed-door meetings. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule)

Where else besides drudge, who links to the weekly standard is this being followed?
Does anyone actually think they'd make this change now?
I would prefer that someone other than Biden or Ryan was a heartbeat away from being president of the U.S.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on August 16, 2012, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:54:42 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

Let me guess, these secrets meetings you know about, your source is the drudge report?
Que red sounding alarms!

They're not secret meetings, just closed-door meetings. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule)

Where else besides drudge, who links to the weekly standard is this being followed?
Does anyone actually think they'd make this change now?

I'm just trying to imagine the level of foaming at the mouth during the RNC if this were to happen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 12:09:39 PM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:54:42 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: BH on August 16, 2012, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

He's too much of a distraction for his boss, who might also think that his Secretary of State would provide some extra juice to make up for the enthusiasm gap this year.

Obama's schedule today was a private meeting with Biden, followed by a private meeting with Hillary followed by a private lunch with Biden. Other than the cash burn involved with rebranding Obama-Biden with Obama-Clinton, perhaps she would re-energize the race. Also, Biden's freelancing with the "Y'all are gonna be put back in chains, yo" and invoking Paul Ryan's dead father, etc. is a bit embarrassing for his boss, who earned the nickname "No Drama Obama" for being so disciplined on the trail. Hillary would provide some discipline, might shut her husband up, and give him some more bite in the swing states.

For the sake of Romney/Ryan, I hope Biden keeps his spot on the ticket.

Let me guess, these secrets meetings you know about, your source is the drudge report?
Que red sounding alarms!

They're not secret meetings, just closed-door meetings. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule)

Where else besides drudge, who links to the weekly standard is this being followed?
Does anyone actually think they'd make this change now?

The Weekly Standard is where I saw it. As for who's following it, Axelrod and Jay Carney each addressed questions on this the last couple of days.

Eli's and Chuck's analysis are probably most spot-on. "Firing" Biden would look desperate unless he's being replaced because of health reasons.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2012, 12:14:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 12:09:39 PM
Axelrod and Jay Carney each addressed questions on this the last couple of days.


Who was doing the asking?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 11:10:36 AM
If Obama was going to replace Biden with Hillary, it would have been months ago.

This.

It's not like Biden's propensity for saying stupid shit (and/or reasonable shit stupidly) is news to anyone.

If these tendencies were seen as such a liability, they would have removed him from the ticket early on and in a way that didn't seem totally reactive.

And only Chuck could think that the health excuse would go over at this stage in the game.

Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 12:02:27 PM
I'm sure that meeting with the Secretary of State, followed by lunch with the Vice President (who was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee previously) is all about scrapping the ticket, and Egypt, Syria, and Netanyahu's raging WARBONER won't be on the docket at all.

Fork is right × 2.

What the fuck, you guys?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

His daddy just bought him a little Deuce Coupe.

Much appreciated.

I don't know whether Fork being the only person who appreciated my little joke there is a good thing or not.  Nonetheless, thanks, mate - for a while there it was like I'd wet my pants in a dark suit.  It gave me a warm feeling, but nobody else noticed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2012, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

His daddy just bought him a little Deuce Coupe.

Much appreciated.

I don't know whether Fork being the only person who appreciated my little joke there is a good thing or not.  Nonetheless, thanks, mate - for a while there it was like I'd wet my pants in a dark suit.  It gave me a warm feeling, but nobody else noticed.

Me & Bort are the only two acknowledged/admitted Beach Boys geeks here. You had a 50/50 chance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 16, 2012, 01:08:48 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

His daddy just bought him a little Deuce Coupe.

Much appreciated.

I don't know whether Fork being the only person who appreciated my little joke there is a good thing or not.  Nonetheless, thanks, mate - for a while there it was like I'd wet my pants in a dark suit.  It gave me a warm feeling, but nobody else noticed.

Me & Bort are the only two acknowledged/admitted Beach Boys geeks here. You had a 50/50 chance.

I did notice it, but I was on my phone and didn't feel like typing at the time. But I will give you a belated kudos.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on August 16, 2012, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 16, 2012, 01:08:48 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

His daddy just bought him a little Deuce Coupe.

Much appreciated.

I don't know whether Fork being the only person who appreciated my little joke there is a good thing or not.  Nonetheless, thanks, mate - for a while there it was like I'd wet my pants in a dark suit.  It gave me a warm feeling, but nobody else noticed.

Me & Bort are the only two acknowledged/admitted Beach Boys geeks here. You had a 50/50 chance.

I did notice it, but I was on my phone and didn't feel like typing at the time. But I will give you a belated kudos.

Do I get half credit for thinking it had to do with the Veeps love of the thunder chicken? 

Also if they wanted to get rid of Biden for shooting off his mouth, they wouldn't had named him veep in 2008, as he's been shooting off his mouth for well on 2 or 3 decades now. I also would suggest that Biden's 'slips' have been just as often a help to his boss than a hinderance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 02:14:18 PM
Quote from: Bort on August 16, 2012, 01:08:48 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 12:58:05 PM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 12:40:33 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 16, 2012, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
Is Biden getting the pink slip today?

Why?

His daddy just bought him a little Deuce Coupe.

Much appreciated.

I don't know whether Fork being the only person who appreciated my little joke there is a good thing or not.  Nonetheless, thanks, mate - for a while there it was like I'd wet my pants in a dark suit.  It gave me a warm feeling, but nobody else noticed.

Me & Bort are the only two acknowledged/admitted Beach Boys geeks here. You had a 50/50 chance.

I did notice it, but I was on my phone and didn't feel like typing at the time. But I will give you a belated kudos.

I, too, laughed. But the conversation had moved on.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 16, 2012, 02:45:02 PM
Quote from: Fork on August 16, 2012, 12:14:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 16, 2012, 12:09:39 PM
Axelrod and Jay Carney each addressed questions on this the last couple of days.

Who was doing the asking?

DPD.

Fox News was doing the asking, of course.

Carney's addressing John McCain calling for Obama to drop Biden (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jay-carney-mocks-mccain-for-calling-on-obama-to-drop-biden-wouldnt-go-to-mccain-for-advice-on-veeps/):

Quote

While I appreciate – I have great admiration for and great respect for and a long relationship with Sen. John McCain, but one place I would not go to for advice for vice presidential running mates is to Sen. McCain.


Boom, roasted.




Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 17, 2012, 04:11:35 PM
OK, for some bipartisan agreement:

Is it time to sell any property you might have in Romeoville? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/romeoville/ct-met-mongo-romeoville-0817-20120817,0,2718826.story)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 17, 2012, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 17, 2012, 04:11:35 PM
OK, for some bipartisan agreement:

Is it time to sell any property you might have in Romeoville? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/romeoville/ct-met-mongo-romeoville-0817-20120817,0,2718826.story)

Throw down your Romeoville.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 17, 2012, 08:43:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 17, 2012, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 17, 2012, 04:11:35 PM
OK, for some bipartisan agreement:

Is it time to sell any property you might have in Romeoville? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/romeoville/ct-met-mongo-romeoville-0817-20120817,0,2718826.story)

Throw down your Romeoville.

Doesn't Romeoville suffer from regular explosions in any event?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM
I think the birther movement just reached its baroque stage...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/17/anti_obama_navy_seal_leader_i_m_a_birther

Quote"I have to admit that I'm a Birther," said SOS founder Larry Bailey, a retired 27-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, in an interview. "If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is."

Bailey, who is part of the leadership of SOS's effort to mobilize thousands to take to the streets to denounce Obama's treatment of the military through an SOS project called Operation Street Corner (http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/join-operation-street-corner), doesn't only believe that the president is a foreigner. He also believes that he is not actually the son of Barack Obama, Sr. Bailey trumpeted the conspiracy theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk) that the president is actually the love child of Ann Dunham and writer Frank Marshall Davis.

So Barack Obama is a Communist foreigner who was secretly the son of two Americans.

I think the looking glass just shattered.

This is like discovering that the Antarctic Reptiloid Space Lizards were actually just Jewish Nazi bankers in disguise all along. Jewish Nazi bankers from outer space.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 18, 2012, 10:23:02 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM
I think the birther movement just reached its baroque stage...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/17/anti_obama_navy_seal_leader_i_m_a_birther

Quote"I have to admit that I'm a Birther," said SOS founder Larry Bailey, a retired 27-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, in an interview. "If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is."

Bailey, who is part of the leadership of SOS's effort to mobilize thousands to take to the streets to denounce Obama's treatment of the military through an SOS project called Operation Street Corner (http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/join-operation-street-corner), doesn't only believe that the president is a foreigner. He also believes that he is not actually the son of Barack Obama, Sr. Bailey trumpeted the conspiracy theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk) that the president is actually the love child of Ann Dunham and writer Frank Marshall Davis.

So Barack Obama is a Communist foreigner who was secretly the son of two Americans.

I think the looking glass just shattered.

This is like discovering that the Antarctic Reptiloid Space Lizards were actually just Jewish Nazi bankers in disguise all along. Communist Jewish Nazi bankers from outer space.

Fixed
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 18, 2012, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM
I think the birther movement just reached its baroque stage...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/17/anti_obama_navy_seal_leader_i_m_a_birther

Quote"I have to admit that I'm a Birther," said SOS founder Larry Bailey, a retired 27-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, in an interview. "If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is."

Bailey, who is part of the leadership of SOS's effort to mobilize thousands to take to the streets to denounce Obama's treatment of the military through an SOS project called Operation Street Corner (http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/join-operation-street-corner), doesn't only believe that the president is a foreigner. He also believes that he is not actually the son of Barack Obama, Sr. Bailey trumpeted the conspiracy theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk) that the president is actually the love child of Ann Dunham and writer Frank Marshall Davis.

So Barack Obama is a Communist foreigner who was secretly the son of two Americans.

I think the looking glass just shattered.

This is like discovering that the Antarctic Reptiloid Space Lizards were actually just Jewish Nazi bankers in disguise all along. Jewish Nazi bankers from outer space.

I'm fairly certain, and if anyone wants to correct me on this, you can, but a child of an American abroad is a naturally-born American citizen. So Ann Dunham could have delivered Barack in the middle of Red Square with Kruschev watching and he'd be as eligible to President as anyone. I wish this thing would go away.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on August 18, 2012, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2012, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM
I think the birther movement just reached its baroque stage...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/17/anti_obama_navy_seal_leader_i_m_a_birther

Quote"I have to admit that I'm a Birther," said SOS founder Larry Bailey, a retired 27-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, in an interview. "If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is."

Bailey, who is part of the leadership of SOS's effort to mobilize thousands to take to the streets to denounce Obama's treatment of the military through an SOS project called Operation Street Corner (http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/join-operation-street-corner), doesn't only believe that the president is a foreigner. He also believes that he is not actually the son of Barack Obama, Sr. Bailey trumpeted the conspiracy theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk) that the president is actually the love child of Ann Dunham and writer Frank Marshall Davis.

So Barack Obama is a Communist foreigner who was secretly the son of two Americans.

I think the looking glass just shattered.

This is like discovering that the Antarctic Reptiloid Space Lizards were actually just Jewish Nazi bankers in disguise all along. Jewish Nazi bankers from outer space.

I'm fairly certain, and if anyone wants to correct me on this, you can, but a child of an American abroad is a naturally-born American citizen. So Ann Dunham could have delivered Barack in the middle of Red Square with Kruschev watching and he'd be as eligible to President as anyone. I wish this thing would go away.

I've heard there were some closed door white house meetings on this very topic, to replace obama with Hillary.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 18, 2012, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: BH on August 18, 2012, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2012, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM
I think the birther movement just reached its baroque stage...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/17/anti_obama_navy_seal_leader_i_m_a_birther

Quote"I have to admit that I'm a Birther," said SOS founder Larry Bailey, a retired 27-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, in an interview. "If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is."

Bailey, who is part of the leadership of SOS's effort to mobilize thousands to take to the streets to denounce Obama's treatment of the military through an SOS project called Operation Street Corner (http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/join-operation-street-corner), doesn't only believe that the president is a foreigner. He also believes that he is not actually the son of Barack Obama, Sr. Bailey trumpeted the conspiracy theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk) that the president is actually the love child of Ann Dunham and writer Frank Marshall Davis.

So Barack Obama is a Communist foreigner who was secretly the son of two Americans.

I think the looking glass just shattered.

This is like discovering that the Antarctic Reptiloid Space Lizards were actually just Jewish Nazi bankers in disguise all along. Jewish Nazi bankers from outer space.

I'm fairly certain, and if anyone wants to correct me on this, you can, but a child of an American abroad is a naturally-born American citizen. So Ann Dunham could have delivered Barack in the middle of Red Square with Kruschev watching and he'd be as eligible to President as anyone. I wish this thing would go away.

I've heard there were some closed door white house meetings on this very topic, to replace obama with Hillary.

Why the butthurt over the suggestion Obama wants to shake up his ticket?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on August 18, 2012, 03:44:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2012, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: BH on August 18, 2012, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2012, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM
I think the birther movement just reached its baroque stage...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/17/anti_obama_navy_seal_leader_i_m_a_birther

Quote"I have to admit that I'm a Birther," said SOS founder Larry Bailey, a retired 27-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, in an interview. "If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is."

Bailey, who is part of the leadership of SOS's effort to mobilize thousands to take to the streets to denounce Obama's treatment of the military through an SOS project called Operation Street Corner (http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/join-operation-street-corner), doesn't only believe that the president is a foreigner. He also believes that he is not actually the son of Barack Obama, Sr. Bailey trumpeted the conspiracy theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk) that the president is actually the love child of Ann Dunham and writer Frank Marshall Davis.

So Barack Obama is a Communist foreigner who was secretly the son of two Americans.

I think the looking glass just shattered.

This is like discovering that the Antarctic Reptiloid Space Lizards were actually just Jewish Nazi bankers in disguise all along. Jewish Nazi bankers from outer space.

I'm fairly certain, and if anyone wants to correct me on this, you can, but a child of an American abroad is a naturally-born American citizen. So Ann Dunham could have delivered Barack in the middle of Red Square with Kruschev watching and he'd be as eligible to President as anyone. I wish this thing would go away.

I've heard there were some closed door white house meetings on this very topic, to replace obama with Hillary.

Why the butthurt over the suggestion Obama wants to shake up his ticket?

You'll have to excuse BH. He's super butthurt right now.

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7FxVqNaQ6n3bFzKfDN9RnX-tm1_To4rQM_5LePgFangPVTzGRyA)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 18, 2012, 04:33:54 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2012, 12:34:48 PM
Quote from: BH on August 18, 2012, 12:16:41 PM
Quote from: Brownie on August 18, 2012, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 18, 2012, 09:24:04 AM
I think the birther movement just reached its baroque stage...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/17/anti_obama_navy_seal_leader_i_m_a_birther

Quote"I have to admit that I'm a Birther," said SOS founder Larry Bailey, a retired 27-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, in an interview. "If there were a jury of 12 good men and women and the evidence were placed before them, there would be absolutely no question Barack Obama was not born where he said he was and is not who he says he is."

Bailey, who is part of the leadership of SOS's effort to mobilize thousands to take to the streets to denounce Obama's treatment of the military through an SOS project called Operation Street Corner (http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/join-operation-street-corner), doesn't only believe that the president is a foreigner. He also believes that he is not actually the son of Barack Obama, Sr. Bailey trumpeted the conspiracy theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMUlWbO1rhk) that the president is actually the love child of Ann Dunham and writer Frank Marshall Davis.

So Barack Obama is a Communist foreigner who was secretly the son of two Americans.

I think the looking glass just shattered.

This is like discovering that the Antarctic Reptiloid Space Lizards were actually just Jewish Nazi bankers in disguise all along. Jewish Nazi bankers from outer space.

I'm fairly certain, and if anyone wants to correct me on this, you can, but a child of an American abroad is a naturally-born American citizen. So Ann Dunham could have delivered Barack in the middle of Red Square with Kruschev watching and he'd be as eligible to President as anyone. I wish this thing would go away.

I've heard there were some closed door white house meetings on this very topic, to replace obama with Hillary.

Why the butthurt over the suggestion Obama wants to shake up his ticket?

Why the butthurt over stock-standard Desipio ribbing over the Weekly Standard's wishful thinking?

Quote from: Slaky on August 18, 2012, 03:44:05 PM
You'll have to excuse BH. He's super butthurt right now.

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7FxVqNaQ6n3bFzKfDN9RnX-tm1_To4rQM_5LePgFangPVTzGRyA)

Her name was Roberta Paulson.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 22, 2012, 04:46:30 PM
NSFW  (if you work at Republican Party National Headquarters)

http://gawker.com/5936939/high+res-photos-of-mitt-romney-and-paul-ryan-provide-internet-with-hours-of-photoshopping-fun
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 22, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
I blame Morph. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/21/chicago-young-republicans-need-you-so-so-bad)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 22, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 22, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
I blame Morph. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/21/chicago-young-republicans-need-you-so-so-bad)

Those look nothing like the Young Republicans from the time I participated in an acid-loaded visit to one of their mixers. Indeed, those fellows of yore seem quite preferable by comparison.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on August 22, 2012, 08:01:30 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 22, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 22, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
I blame Morph. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/21/chicago-young-republicans-need-you-so-so-bad)

Those look nothing like the Young Republicans from the time I participated in an acid-loaded visit to one of their mixers. Indeed, those fellows of yore seem quite preferable by comparison.

Goddamn that sounds like fun.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 22, 2012, 08:30:30 PM
Quote from: Oleg on August 22, 2012, 08:01:30 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 22, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 22, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
I blame Morph. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/21/chicago-young-republicans-need-you-so-so-bad)

Those look nothing like the Young Republicans from the time I participated in an acid-loaded visit to one of their mixers. Indeed, those fellows of yore seem quite preferable by comparison.

Goddamn that sounds like fun.

Are they trying to get the "Glee" vote?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 22, 2012, 08:37:46 PM
Quote from: CBStew on August 22, 2012, 08:30:30 PM
Quote from: Oleg on August 22, 2012, 08:01:30 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 22, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 22, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
I blame Morph. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/21/chicago-young-republicans-need-you-so-so-bad)

Those look nothing like the Young Republicans from the time I participated in an acid-loaded visit to one of their mixers. Indeed, those fellows of yore seem quite preferable by comparison.

Goddamn that sounds like fun.

Are they trying to get the "Glee" vote?

The Young Republicans were very hospitable. I think they knew something was up but not quite what (low light, dark paneling). If only we had had a newsletter, I think a couple might have bitten.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 23, 2012, 01:24:38 AM
Holy shit...

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/313504/boss

QuoteWhat do women want?...

...It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama's vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don't do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He's a boss.

...

Elections are not about public policy. They aren't even about the economy. Elections are tribal, and tribes are — Occupy types, cover your delicate ears — ruthlessly hierarchical. Somebody has to be the top dog....

...

Reassuring arch-patriarch — maybe one with enough sons and grandsons to form a pillaging band of marauders? Hillary Rodham Clinton told us that it takes a village, and Mitt Romney showed us how to populate a village with thriving offspring. Newsweek, which as of this writing is still in business, recently ran a cover photo of Romney with the headline: "The Wimp Factor: Is He Just Too Insecure to Be President?" Look at his fat stacks. Look at that mess of sons and grandchildren. Look at a picture of Ann Romney on her wedding day and that cocky smirk on his face. What exactly has Mitt Romney got to be insecure about? That he's not as prodigious a patriarch as Ramses II or as rich as >Lakshmi Mittal? I bet he sleeps at night and never worries about that. He has done everything right in life, and he should own it. And by own it, I mean put it on the black card and stow it in the G6 — or at least in first class, for Pete's sake.

Apparently the National Review has been reduced to publishing Gordon Gecko-meets-Conan the Barbarian fan fiction.

Kevin D. Williamson! What is best in life?

(http://i.imgur.com/IzBhe.jpg)

Sweet earrings, bro.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on August 23, 2012, 08:21:44 AM
I assume that whole thing was a joke.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 23, 2012, 08:52:46 AM
Quote from: Eli on August 23, 2012, 08:21:44 AM
I assume that whole thing was a joke.

The National Review? I guess that's a possibility.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on August 23, 2012, 01:24:10 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 23, 2012, 01:24:38 AM
Kevin D. Williamson! What is best in life?

(http://i.imgur.com/IzBhe.jpg)

Sweet earrings, bro.

I've never seen a vest with lapels before. It's like something out of H.R. Giger. (Speaking of which, this could use something big (http://www.hrgiger.com/images/maske.jpg).)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2012, 03:29:58 PM
Napolitanstink (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175880#msg175880) is terrible (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176129#msg176129)...

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/prosecutor-ga-murder-case-1507533.html

QuoteLUDOWICI, Ga. — Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday.

Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group composed of active duty and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components and was serious enough to kill two people — former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York — by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret.

"This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

...

Prosecutors said the group called itself F.E.A.R., short for Forever Enduring Always Ready. Pauley said authorities don't know how many members the militia had.

Burnett, 26, said he knew the group's leaders from serving with them at Fort Stewart. He agreed to testify against fellow soldiers Pvt. Isaac Aguigui, identified by prosecutors as the militia's founder and leader, Sgt. Anthony Peden and Pvt. Christopher Salmon.

...

In a videotaped interview with military investigators, Pauley said, Aguigui called himself "the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet." He used the Army to recruit militia members, who wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol, she said. Prosecutors say they have no idea how many members belong to the group.

"All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military," Pauley said. "He targeted soldiers who were in trouble or disillusioned."

The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state's apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia's goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president.

Disillusioned anarchist right-wing baby-killers with plans for an assault on Georgia?

Finally, something we can blame on both TEC and Bort.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on August 27, 2012, 10:27:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2012, 03:29:58 PM
Napolitanstink (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175880#msg175880) is terrible (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176129#msg176129)...

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/prosecutor-ga-murder-case-1507533.html

QuoteLUDOWICI, Ga. — Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday.

Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group composed of active duty and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components and was serious enough to kill two people — former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York — by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret.

"This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

...

Prosecutors said the group called itself F.E.A.R., short for Forever Enduring Always Ready. Pauley said authorities don't know how many members the militia had.

Burnett, 26, said he knew the group's leaders from serving with them at Fort Stewart. He agreed to testify against fellow soldiers Pvt. Isaac Aguigui, identified by prosecutors as the militia's founder and leader, Sgt. Anthony Peden and Pvt. Christopher Salmon.

...

In a videotaped interview with military investigators, Pauley said, Aguigui called himself "the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet." He used the Army to recruit militia members, who wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol, she said. Prosecutors say they have no idea how many members belong to the group.

"All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military," Pauley said. "He targeted soldiers who were in trouble or disillusioned."

The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state's apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia's goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president.

Disillusioned anarchist right-wing baby-killers with plans for an assault on Georgia?

Finally, something we can blame on both TEC and Bort.

I knew it was the TECs! Even when it was the Borts!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on August 29, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
Romney is Gordon Gekko.  (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 10:39:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/us/lubbock-official-tom-head-stirs-city-with-remark.html

QuoteA few days before, the county's top elected official, County Judge Tom Head, made an appearance on a local television station to generate support for the tax increase. He said he was expecting civil unrest if President Obama is re-elected, and that the president would send United Nations forces into Lubbock, population 233,740, to stop any uprising.

"He is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N.," Mr. Head said on Fox 34 last week. "O.K., what's going to happen when that happens? I'm thinking worst-case scenario: civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war, maybe. And we're not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations. We're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

And if the president did send in United Nations troops, Mr. Head continued, "I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. O.K. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carriers and say, 'You're not coming in here.' And the sheriff, I've already asked him. I said, 'You gonna back me?' He said, 'Yeah, I'll back you.'

"Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there," Mr. Head said. "I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."

It'll be just like the time Clinton used the Northern Showdown of 1997 (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/branton/esp_sociopol_omega09b.htm) as pretense to declare martial law over the nation's vaginas.

QuoteMr. Head, a Republican who serves as the county's emergency management director and presides over the commissioner's court, made international headlines. He has not apologized, though he said that his statements were taken out of context and that he was using civil unrest only as an example of how he must prepare for worst-case scenarios.

On Monday, Mr. Head sat straight-faced and calm at the hearing as more than two dozen residents sounded off on the tax increase and his statements. In an interview, Sheriff Kelly Rowe said he never had any discussions with Mr. Head involving any Obama-related uprisings or invasions, but he declined to say what he thought of Mr. Head's remarks.

To many in Lubbock, the notion of United Nations armored personnel carriers rolling down the brick-paved Buddy Holly Avenue, past the Greyhound bus station and the Disabled American Veterans thrift store, has been an outrage and an embarrassment.

...

As the hearing on Monday made clear, Mr. Head and his statements have received a small but vocal chorus of support in a place that the Bay Area Center for Voting Research, based in California, once called the second-most conservative city in the country (behind Provo, Utah) among those with more than 100,000 people. A handful of residents said that Mr. Head was right in preparing for the worst.

"I believe that we need a sheriff's militia to protect Lubbock County, and get all the sheriffs in Texas to start a militia to protect Texas," Kim Wade Gatewood, 48, told the commissioners and Mr. Head.

After the hearing, Mr. Gatewood, an agricultural contractor, identified himself as the counsel general of the interim government of the Republic of Texas, which he said was not active at the moment. "If secession happens," he said, "it'll be active in a split second."

So... Will the Provisional Republic of Texas be aligned with the Republic for the united States of America (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg256857#msg256857) in the coming race war?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on August 29, 2012, 11:30:12 AM
I'm headed to Tampa to open a push cart selling nuts.  Anyone want to Kickstart me some capital?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on August 29, 2012, 11:43:53 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on August 29, 2012, 11:30:12 AM
I'm headed to Tampa to open a push cart selling nuts.  Anyone want to Kickstart me some capital?

I would recommend a local bank, but most of the bankers around here are treacherous, so maybe this (http://www.kickstartcapital.com/) is a route you'd prefer to go.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: BH on August 29, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
Romney is Gordon Gekko.  (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829)

QuoteRomney has always kept his distance from the real-life consequences of his profiteering. At one point during Bain's looting of Ampad, a worker named Randy Johnson sent a handwritten letter to Romney, asking him to intervene to save an Ampad factory in Marion, Indiana. In a sterling demonstration of manliness and willingness to face a difficult conversation, Romney, who had just lost his race for the Senate in Massachusetts, wrote Johnson that he was "sorry," but his lawyers had advised him not to get involved. (So much for the candidate who insists that his way is always to "fight to save every job.")

Randy: You're fucked.

Mitt: What?

Randy: You are totally fucked. You're garbage for letting us all go down the drain.

Mitt: I don't think you understand finance.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 29, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 10:39:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/us/lubbock-official-tom-head-stirs-city-with-remark.html

QuoteA few days before, the county's top elected official, County Judge Tom Head, made an appearance on a local television station to generate support for the tax increase. He said he was expecting civil unrest if President Obama is re-elected, and that the president would send United Nations forces into Lubbock, population 233,740, to stop any uprising.

"He is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N.," Mr. Head said on Fox 34 last week. "O.K., what's going to happen when that happens? I'm thinking worst-case scenario: civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war, maybe. And we're not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations. We're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

And if the president did send in United Nations troops, Mr. Head continued, "I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. O.K. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carriers and say, 'You're not coming in here.' And the sheriff, I've already asked him. I said, 'You gonna back me?' He said, 'Yeah, I'll back you.'

"Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there," Mr. Head said. "I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."

It'll be just like the time Clinton used the Northern Showdown of 1997 (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/branton/esp_sociopol_omega09b.htm) as pretense to declare martial law over the nation's vaginas.

QuoteMr. Head, a Republican who serves as the county's emergency management director and presides over the commissioner's court, made international headlines. He has not apologized, though he said that his statements were taken out of context and that he was using civil unrest only as an example of how he must prepare for worst-case scenarios.

On Monday, Mr. Head sat straight-faced and calm at the hearing as more than two dozen residents sounded off on the tax increase and his statements. In an interview, Sheriff Kelly Rowe said he never had any discussions with Mr. Head involving any Obama-related uprisings or invasions, but he declined to say what he thought of Mr. Head's remarks.

To many in Lubbock, the notion of United Nations armored personnel carriers rolling down the brick-paved Buddy Holly Avenue, past the Greyhound bus station and the Disabled American Veterans thrift store, has been an outrage and an embarrassment.

...

As the hearing on Monday made clear, Mr. Head and his statements have received a small but vocal chorus of support in a place that the Bay Area Center for Voting Research, based in California, once called the second-most conservative city in the country (behind Provo, Utah) among those with more than 100,000 people. A handful of residents said that Mr. Head was right in preparing for the worst.

"I believe that we need a sheriff's militia to protect Lubbock County, and get all the sheriffs in Texas to start a militia to protect Texas," Kim Wade Gatewood, 48, told the commissioners and Mr. Head.

After the hearing, Mr. Gatewood, an agricultural contractor, identified himself as the counsel general of the interim government of the Republic of Texas, which he said was not active at the moment. "If secession happens," he said, "it'll be active in a split second."

So... Will the Provisional Republic of Texas be aligned with the Republic for the united States of America (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg256857#msg256857) in the coming race war?

Nice civics knowledge exhibited by this paranoid cracker dipshit.  the UN does not have their own troops.  Rather, they rely on nations providing their troops to them.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on August 29, 2012, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 29, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 10:39:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/us/lubbock-official-tom-head-stirs-city-with-remark.html

QuoteA few days before, the county's top elected official, County Judge Tom Head, made an appearance on a local television station to generate support for the tax increase. He said he was expecting civil unrest if President Obama is re-elected, and that the president would send United Nations forces into Lubbock, population 233,740, to stop any uprising.

"He is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N.," Mr. Head said on Fox 34 last week. "O.K., what's going to happen when that happens? I'm thinking worst-case scenario: civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war, maybe. And we're not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations. We're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

And if the president did send in United Nations troops, Mr. Head continued, "I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. O.K. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carriers and say, 'You're not coming in here.' And the sheriff, I've already asked him. I said, 'You gonna back me?' He said, 'Yeah, I'll back you.'

"Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there," Mr. Head said. "I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."

It'll be just like the time Clinton used the Northern Showdown of 1997 (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/branton/esp_sociopol_omega09b.htm) as pretense to declare martial law over the nation's vaginas.

QuoteMr. Head, a Republican who serves as the county's emergency management director and presides over the commissioner's court, made international headlines. He has not apologized, though he said that his statements were taken out of context and that he was using civil unrest only as an example of how he must prepare for worst-case scenarios.

On Monday, Mr. Head sat straight-faced and calm at the hearing as more than two dozen residents sounded off on the tax increase and his statements. In an interview, Sheriff Kelly Rowe said he never had any discussions with Mr. Head involving any Obama-related uprisings or invasions, but he declined to say what he thought of Mr. Head's remarks.

To many in Lubbock, the notion of United Nations armored personnel carriers rolling down the brick-paved Buddy Holly Avenue, past the Greyhound bus station and the Disabled American Veterans thrift store, has been an outrage and an embarrassment.

...

As the hearing on Monday made clear, Mr. Head and his statements have received a small but vocal chorus of support in a place that the Bay Area Center for Voting Research, based in California, once called the second-most conservative city in the country (behind Provo, Utah) among those with more than 100,000 people. A handful of residents said that Mr. Head was right in preparing for the worst.

"I believe that we need a sheriff's militia to protect Lubbock County, and get all the sheriffs in Texas to start a militia to protect Texas," Kim Wade Gatewood, 48, told the commissioners and Mr. Head.

After the hearing, Mr. Gatewood, an agricultural contractor, identified himself as the counsel general of the interim government of the Republic of Texas, which he said was not active at the moment. "If secession happens," he said, "it'll be active in a split second."

So... Will the Provisional Republic of Texas be aligned with the Republic for the united States of America (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg256857#msg256857) in the coming race war?

Nice civics knowledge exhibited by this paranoid cracker dipshit.  the UN does not have their own troops.  Rather, they rely on nations providing their troops to them.
Sure they don't, sheeple.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 29, 2012, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 29, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 10:39:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/us/lubbock-official-tom-head-stirs-city-with-remark.html

QuoteA few days before, the county's top elected official, County Judge Tom Head, made an appearance on a local television station to generate support for the tax increase. He said he was expecting civil unrest if President Obama is re-elected, and that the president would send United Nations forces into Lubbock, population 233,740, to stop any uprising.

"He is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N.," Mr. Head said on Fox 34 last week. "O.K., what's going to happen when that happens? I'm thinking worst-case scenario: civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war, maybe. And we're not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations. We're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

And if the president did send in United Nations troops, Mr. Head continued, "I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. O.K. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carriers and say, 'You're not coming in here.' And the sheriff, I've already asked him. I said, 'You gonna back me?' He said, 'Yeah, I'll back you.'

"Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there," Mr. Head said. "I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."

It'll be just like the time Clinton used the Northern Showdown of 1997 (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/branton/esp_sociopol_omega09b.htm) as pretense to declare martial law over the nation's vaginas.

QuoteMr. Head, a Republican who serves as the county's emergency management director and presides over the commissioner's court, made international headlines. He has not apologized, though he said that his statements were taken out of context and that he was using civil unrest only as an example of how he must prepare for worst-case scenarios.

On Monday, Mr. Head sat straight-faced and calm at the hearing as more than two dozen residents sounded off on the tax increase and his statements. In an interview, Sheriff Kelly Rowe said he never had any discussions with Mr. Head involving any Obama-related uprisings or invasions, but he declined to say what he thought of Mr. Head's remarks.

To many in Lubbock, the notion of United Nations armored personnel carriers rolling down the brick-paved Buddy Holly Avenue, past the Greyhound bus station and the Disabled American Veterans thrift store, has been an outrage and an embarrassment.

...

As the hearing on Monday made clear, Mr. Head and his statements have received a small but vocal chorus of support in a place that the Bay Area Center for Voting Research, based in California, once called the second-most conservative city in the country (behind Provo, Utah) among those with more than 100,000 people. A handful of residents said that Mr. Head was right in preparing for the worst.

"I believe that we need a sheriff's militia to protect Lubbock County, and get all the sheriffs in Texas to start a militia to protect Texas," Kim Wade Gatewood, 48, told the commissioners and Mr. Head.

After the hearing, Mr. Gatewood, an agricultural contractor, identified himself as the counsel general of the interim government of the Republic of Texas, which he said was not active at the moment. "If secession happens," he said, "it'll be active in a split second."

So... Will the Provisional Republic of Texas be aligned with the Republic for the united States of America (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg256857#msg256857) in the coming race war?

Nice civics knowledge exhibited by this paranoid cracker dipshit.  the UN does not have their own troops.  Rather, they rely on nations providing their troops to them.
Sure they don't, sheeple.

Who does Huey think fly the black helicopters.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 29, 2012, 03:03:02 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 29, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 10:39:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/us/lubbock-official-tom-head-stirs-city-with-remark.html

QuoteA few days before, the county's top elected official, County Judge Tom Head, made an appearance on a local television station to generate support for the tax increase. He said he was expecting civil unrest if President Obama is re-elected, and that the president would send United Nations forces into Lubbock, population 233,740, to stop any uprising.

"He is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N.," Mr. Head said on Fox 34 last week. "O.K., what's going to happen when that happens? I'm thinking worst-case scenario: civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war, maybe. And we're not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations. We're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

And if the president did send in United Nations troops, Mr. Head continued, "I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. O.K. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carriers and say, 'You're not coming in here.' And the sheriff, I've already asked him. I said, 'You gonna back me?' He said, 'Yeah, I'll back you.'

"Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there," Mr. Head said. "I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."

It'll be just like the time Clinton used the Northern Showdown of 1997 (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/branton/esp_sociopol_omega09b.htm) as pretense to declare martial law over the nation's vaginas.

QuoteMr. Head, a Republican who serves as the county's emergency management director and presides over the commissioner's court, made international headlines. He has not apologized, though he said that his statements were taken out of context and that he was using civil unrest only as an example of how he must prepare for worst-case scenarios.

On Monday, Mr. Head sat straight-faced and calm at the hearing as more than two dozen residents sounded off on the tax increase and his statements. In an interview, Sheriff Kelly Rowe said he never had any discussions with Mr. Head involving any Obama-related uprisings or invasions, but he declined to say what he thought of Mr. Head's remarks.

To many in Lubbock, the notion of United Nations armored personnel carriers rolling down the brick-paved Buddy Holly Avenue, past the Greyhound bus station and the Disabled American Veterans thrift store, has been an outrage and an embarrassment.

...

As the hearing on Monday made clear, Mr. Head and his statements have received a small but vocal chorus of support in a place that the Bay Area Center for Voting Research, based in California, once called the second-most conservative city in the country (behind Provo, Utah) among those with more than 100,000 people. A handful of residents said that Mr. Head was right in preparing for the worst.

"I believe that we need a sheriff's militia to protect Lubbock County, and get all the sheriffs in Texas to start a militia to protect Texas," Kim Wade Gatewood, 48, told the commissioners and Mr. Head.

After the hearing, Mr. Gatewood, an agricultural contractor, identified himself as the counsel general of the interim government of the Republic of Texas, which he said was not active at the moment. "If secession happens," he said, "it'll be active in a split second."

So... Will the Provisional Republic of Texas be aligned with the Republic for the united States of America (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg256857#msg256857) in the coming race war?

Nice civics knowledge exhibited by this paranoid cracker dipshit.  the UN does not have their own troops.  Rather, they rely on nations providing their troops to them.

If he handed over our sovereignty to the UN, wouldn't it be the Secretary General sending in the troops anyway?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on August 29, 2012, 03:35:27 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 29, 2012, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 29, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 10:39:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/us/lubbock-official-tom-head-stirs-city-with-remark.html

QuoteA few days before, the county's top elected official, County Judge Tom Head, made an appearance on a local television station to generate support for the tax increase. He said he was expecting civil unrest if President Obama is re-elected, and that the president would send United Nations forces into Lubbock, population 233,740, to stop any uprising.

"He is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N.," Mr. Head said on Fox 34 last week. "O.K., what's going to happen when that happens? I'm thinking worst-case scenario: civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war, maybe. And we're not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations. We're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy."

And if the president did send in United Nations troops, Mr. Head continued, "I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. O.K. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carriers and say, 'You're not coming in here.' And the sheriff, I've already asked him. I said, 'You gonna back me?' He said, 'Yeah, I'll back you.'

"Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there," Mr. Head said. "I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me."

It'll be just like the time Clinton used the Northern Showdown of 1997 (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/branton/esp_sociopol_omega09b.htm) as pretense to declare martial law over the nation's vaginas.

QuoteMr. Head, a Republican who serves as the county's emergency management director and presides over the commissioner's court, made international headlines. He has not apologized, though he said that his statements were taken out of context and that he was using civil unrest only as an example of how he must prepare for worst-case scenarios.

On Monday, Mr. Head sat straight-faced and calm at the hearing as more than two dozen residents sounded off on the tax increase and his statements. In an interview, Sheriff Kelly Rowe said he never had any discussions with Mr. Head involving any Obama-related uprisings or invasions, but he declined to say what he thought of Mr. Head's remarks.

To many in Lubbock, the notion of United Nations armored personnel carriers rolling down the brick-paved Buddy Holly Avenue, past the Greyhound bus station and the Disabled American Veterans thrift store, has been an outrage and an embarrassment.

...

As the hearing on Monday made clear, Mr. Head and his statements have received a small but vocal chorus of support in a place that the Bay Area Center for Voting Research, based in California, once called the second-most conservative city in the country (behind Provo, Utah) among those with more than 100,000 people. A handful of residents said that Mr. Head was right in preparing for the worst.

"I believe that we need a sheriff's militia to protect Lubbock County, and get all the sheriffs in Texas to start a militia to protect Texas," Kim Wade Gatewood, 48, told the commissioners and Mr. Head.

After the hearing, Mr. Gatewood, an agricultural contractor, identified himself as the counsel general of the interim government of the Republic of Texas, which he said was not active at the moment. "If secession happens," he said, "it'll be active in a split second."

So... Will the Provisional Republic of Texas be aligned with the Republic for the united States of America (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=7174.msg256857#msg256857) in the coming race war?

Nice civics knowledge exhibited by this paranoid cracker dipshit.  the UN does not have their own troops.  Rather, they rely on nations providing their troops to them.
Sure they don't, sheeple.

Who does Huey think fly the black helicopters.

Who fly the black helicopters?

Who run bartertown?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on August 30, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
Clint Eastwood embodies the stereotype of old age
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 31, 2012, 10:06:27 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 29, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: BH on August 29, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
Romney is Gordon Gekko.  (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829)

QuoteRomney has always kept his distance from the real-life consequences of his profiteering. At one point during Bain's looting of Ampad, a worker named Randy Johnson sent a handwritten letter to Romney, asking him to intervene to save an Ampad factory in Marion, Indiana. In a sterling demonstration of manliness and willingness to face a difficult conversation, Romney, who had just lost his race for the Senate in Massachusetts, wrote Johnson that he was "sorry," but his lawyers had advised him not to get involved. (So much for the candidate who insists that his way is always to "fight to save every job.")

Randy: You're fucked.

Mitt: What?

Randy: You are totally fucked. You're garbage for letting us all go down the drain.

Mitt: I don't think you understand finance.

Damn...I can't believe I missed this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on August 31, 2012, 10:14:41 AM
Quote from: CBStew on August 30, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
Clint Eastwood embodies the stereotype of old age

That was like watching Willie Mays in the '73 Series.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 06, 2012, 07:09:27 PM
Intrepid Reader: Huey

Gabby 2016! (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?highlight=p120721102&date=2011-1-10#p120721102)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on September 06, 2012, 07:38:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 06, 2012, 07:09:27 PM
Intrepid Reader: Huey

Gabby 2016! (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?highlight=p120721102&date=2011-1-10#p120721102)

Did she appear at the Convention or are you just mind-numbingly bored today?

Either way, I laughed...just wondering what prompted you to turdmine this.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 07:57:02 PM
Did John Kerry really just drop a Rocky IV reference in a speech aimed at a national audience?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 06, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 07:57:02 PM
Did John Kerry really just drop a Rocky IV reference in a speech aimed at a national audience?

Yes.   I never got past Rocky II, so I didn't get the point.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on September 06, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 06, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 07:57:02 PM
Did John Kerry really just drop a Rocky IV reference in a speech aimed at a national audience?

Yes.   I never got past Rocky II, so I didn't get the point.

This man could have been our president.

I'm talking, of course, about Rocky.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 08:05:21 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on September 06, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 06, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 07:57:02 PM
Did John Kerry really just drop a Rocky IV reference in a speech aimed at a national audience?

Yes.   I never got past Rocky II, so I didn't get the point.

This man could have been our president.

I'm talking, of course, about Rocky.

My actual thought process, while hearing this and doing the dishes, was, "Rocky Horror? What? That's Transylvania or something. [tick, tick, tick] Oh, maybe that's it."

[Edit.--You're going to tell me that Biden's kids aren't really named Bowhunter and Ashley, aren't you?]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 06, 2012, 09:09:52 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on September 06, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 06, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 07:57:02 PM
Did John Kerry really just drop a Rocky IV reference in a speech aimed at a national audience?

Yes.   I never got past Rocky II, so I didn't get the point.

This man could have been our president.

I'm talking, of course, about Rocky.

You mean Prime Minister, right?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 06, 2012, 09:19:20 PM
Quote from: PANK! on September 06, 2012, 07:38:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 06, 2012, 07:09:27 PM
Intrepid Reader: Huey

Gabby 2016! (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?highlight=p120721102&date=2011-1-10#p120721102)

Did she appear at the Convention or are you just mind-numbingly bored today?

Either way, I laughed...just wondering what prompted you to turdmine this.

She led the DNC in the Pledge of Allegiance tonight.

It was quite moving, but I'm gonna say that I doubt she'll be participating in any Presidential debates anytime soon.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 09:40:41 PM
Not a goddamned word about helium yet from Obamanana.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 06, 2012, 09:48:23 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 09:40:41 PM
Not a goddamned word about helium yet from Obamanana.


Fuck those motherfuckers in Congress.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Canadouche on September 07, 2012, 07:07:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 06, 2012, 09:09:52 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on September 06, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 06, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 07:57:02 PM
Did John Kerry really just drop a Rocky IV reference in a speech aimed at a national audience?

Yes.   I never got past Rocky II, so I didn't get the point.

This man could have been our president.

I'm talking, of course, about Rocky.

You mean Prime Minister, right?

I vote in American elections, not Canadian ones.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 07, 2012, 09:50:39 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 06, 2012, 09:48:23 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 09:40:41 PM
Not a goddamned word about helium yet from Obamanana.


Fuck those motherfuckers in Congress.

What a bunch of clowns.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 10, 2012, 05:53:42 PM
Heh. (http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/30851748178/awa64-secotm-is-it-just-me-or-is-there-a)

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9t2etGAv91r8kiyko1_500.jpg)    (http://i.imgur.com/1Ptwr.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 10, 2012, 06:42:56 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 10, 2012, 05:53:42 PM
Heh. (http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/30851748178/awa64-secotm-is-it-just-me-or-is-there-a)

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9t2etGAv91r8kiyko1_500.jpg)    (http://i.imgur.com/1Ptwr.jpg)

There is no way that that wasn't intentional.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 10, 2012, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 10, 2012, 06:42:56 PM
There is no way that that wasn't intentional.

What does it mean?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 10, 2012, 07:29:03 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 10, 2012, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 10, 2012, 06:42:56 PM
There is no way that that wasn't intentional.

What does it mean?

Intrepid Reader: Joe Biden

Y'all ain't got nothin' to lose but your chains.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 10, 2012, 07:38:21 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 10, 2012, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 10, 2012, 06:42:56 PM
There is no way that that wasn't intentional.

What does it mean?

PhilosoLOL.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 10, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
One might almost wonder if Parada (http://robertoparada.com/gallery1/lionsden.html) put one over on them.

(http://www.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/607328/607328.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 11, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Via... (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/09/10/15-of-ohio-republicans-credit-mitt-romney-with-killing-bin-laden)

"Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/cCjNw.png)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_910.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/fbAGV.png)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 11, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Via... (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/09/10/15-of-ohio-republicans-credit-mitt-romney-with-killing-bin-laden)

"Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/cCjNw.png)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_910.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/fbAGV.png)

I presume you've highlighted this because it is a ridiculous attempt at push polling?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 11, 2012, 02:02:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
I presume you've highlighted this because it is a ridiculous attempt at push polling?

It's also a totally incompetent attempt at formatting tabular data.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 11, 2012, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 11, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Via... (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/09/10/15-of-ohio-republicans-credit-mitt-romney-with-killing-bin-laden)

"Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/cCjNw.png)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_910.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/fbAGV.png)

I presume you've highlighted this because it is a ridiculous attempt at push polling?

No, he highlighted it because Republicans are dumb.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 11, 2012, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 11, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Via... (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/09/10/15-of-ohio-republicans-credit-mitt-romney-with-killing-bin-laden)

"Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/cCjNw.png)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_910.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/fbAGV.png)

I presume you've highlighted this because it is a ridiculous attempt at push polling?

No, he highlighted it because Republicans are dumb.

Sick burn, bro.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on September 11, 2012, 02:59:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 11, 2012, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 11, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Via... (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/09/10/15-of-ohio-republicans-credit-mitt-romney-with-killing-bin-laden)

"Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/cCjNw.png)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_910.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/fbAGV.png)

I presume you've highlighted this because it is a ridiculous attempt at push polling?

No, he highlighted it because Republicans are dumb.

Sick burn, bro.

He would appear to have a point, to be fair.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 11, 2012, 03:05:17 PM
Quote from: Tonker on September 11, 2012, 02:59:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 11, 2012, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 11, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Via... (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/09/10/15-of-ohio-republicans-credit-mitt-romney-with-killing-bin-laden)

"Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/cCjNw.png)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_910.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/fbAGV.png)

I presume you've highlighted this because it is a ridiculous attempt at push polling?

No, he highlighted it because Republicans are dumb.

Sick burn, bro.

He would appear to have a point, to be fair.

It's funny because Republicans are fat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 03:10:56 PM
Quote from: Tonker on September 11, 2012, 02:59:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 02:50:42 PM
Quote from: Eli on September 11, 2012, 02:18:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on September 11, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 11, 2012, 01:15:27 PM
Via... (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/09/10/15-of-ohio-republicans-credit-mitt-romney-with-killing-bin-laden)

"Who do you think deserves more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_OH_9912.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/cCjNw.png)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_910.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/fbAGV.png)

I presume you've highlighted this because it is a ridiculous attempt at push polling?

No, he highlighted it because Republicans are dumb.

Sick burn, bro.

He would appear to have a point, to be fair.

http://twitter.com/PPPPolling
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 12, 2012, 11:30:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2012, 03:29:58 PM
Napolitanstink (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175880#msg175880) is terrible (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176129#msg176129)...

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/prosecutor-ga-murder-case-1507533.html

QuoteLUDOWICI, Ga. — Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday.

Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group composed of active duty and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components and was serious enough to kill two people — former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York — by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret.

"This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

...

Prosecutors said the group called itself F.E.A.R., short for Forever Enduring Always Ready. Pauley said authorities don't know how many members the militia had.

Burnett, 26, said he knew the group's leaders from serving with them at Fort Stewart. He agreed to testify against fellow soldiers Pvt. Isaac Aguigui, identified by prosecutors as the militia's founder and leader, Sgt. Anthony Peden and Pvt. Christopher Salmon.

...

In a videotaped interview with military investigators, Pauley said, Aguigui called himself "the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet." He used the Army to recruit militia members, who wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol, she said. Prosecutors say they have no idea how many members belong to the group.

"All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military," Pauley said. "He targeted soldiers who were in trouble or disillusioned."

The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state's apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia's goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president.

Disillusioned anarchist right-wing baby-killers with plans for an assault on Georgia?

Finally, something we can blame on both TEC and Bort.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/five-more-indicted-in-supposed-terror-plot/nR8Qw/

QuoteFive more men, including four former soldiers, have been charged in connection with what prosecutors call an anarchist militia based at Fort Stewart.

A Liberty County grand jury indicted the men — Adam Dearman, Randall Dearman, Timothy Joiner, Christopher Jenderseck and Anthony Garner — on charges of illegal gang activity and several counts of theft, burglary and auto-break ins. District Attorney Tom Durden said this week the crimes were committed to fund the militia group F.E.A.R., an acronym for Forever Enduring Always Ready.

Last month, four Fort Stewart soldiers and one civilian were indicted in neighboring Long County on charges of murder and gang-related activities. Durden told the judge they were leaders of F.E.A.R., which was bent on assassinating the president, poisoning apple crops and bombing dams in Washington state and blowing up the fountain in Savannah's Forsyth Park.

No judgment in terrorist brainstorming.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on September 13, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
Is poisoning the apple crop akin to lacing Lake Michigan drinking water with LSD? (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2012, 09:20:58 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 12, 2012, 11:30:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2012, 03:29:58 PM
Napolitanstink (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175880#msg175880) is terrible (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176129#msg176129)...

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/prosecutor-ga-murder-case-1507533.html

QuoteLUDOWICI, Ga. — Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday.

Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group composed of active duty and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components and was serious enough to kill two people — former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York — by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret.

"This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

...

Prosecutors said the group called itself F.E.A.R., short for Forever Enduring Always Ready. Pauley said authorities don't know how many members the militia had.

Burnett, 26, said he knew the group's leaders from serving with them at Fort Stewart. He agreed to testify against fellow soldiers Pvt. Isaac Aguigui, identified by prosecutors as the militia's founder and leader, Sgt. Anthony Peden and Pvt. Christopher Salmon.

...

In a videotaped interview with military investigators, Pauley said, Aguigui called himself "the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet." He used the Army to recruit militia members, who wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol, she said. Prosecutors say they have no idea how many members belong to the group.

"All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military," Pauley said. "He targeted soldiers who were in trouble or disillusioned."

The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state's apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia's goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president.

Disillusioned anarchist right-wing baby-killers with plans for an assault on Georgia?

Finally, something we can blame on both TEC and Bort.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/five-more-indicted-in-supposed-terror-plot/nR8Qw/

QuoteFive more men, including four former soldiers, have been charged in connection with what prosecutors call an anarchist militia based at Fort Stewart.

A Liberty County grand jury indicted the men — Adam Dearman, Randall Dearman, Timothy Joiner, Christopher Jenderseck and Anthony Garner — on charges of illegal gang activity and several counts of theft, burglary and auto-break ins. District Attorney Tom Durden said this week the crimes were committed to fund the militia group F.E.A.R., an acronym for Forever Enduring Always Ready.

Last month, four Fort Stewart soldiers and one civilian were indicted in neighboring Long County on charges of murder and gang-related activities. Durden told the judge they were leaders of F.E.A.R., which was bent on assassinating the president, poisoning apple crops and bombing dams in Washington state and blowing up the fountain in Savannah's Forsyth Park.

No judgment in terrorist brainstorming.

Intrepid Reader: Milhouse van Houten: "MAYBE HE'S GOING TO PEE IN THE RIVER!!!!"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2012, 09:28:51 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 13, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
Is poisoning the apple crop akin to lacing Lake Michigan drinking water with LSD? (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.html)

And is plotting to assassinate the President akin to levitating the Pentagon (http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/11636407561/forty-four-years-ago-abbie-hoffman-and-allen-ginsberg)?

Which is to say, I'm guessing that the respective objectives are entirely different. (Particularly considering the low lethality of LSD.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2012, 09:31:28 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 13, 2012, 09:20:58 AM
Intrepid Reader: Milhouse van Houten: "MAYBE HE'S GOING TO PEE IN THE RIVER!!!!"

See... That's probably a bit closer to the Yippies' style.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 13, 2012, 12:31:36 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 12, 2012, 11:30:51 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on August 27, 2012, 03:29:58 PM
Napolitanstink (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg175880#msg175880) is terrible (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176129#msg176129)...

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/prosecutor-ga-murder-case-1507533.html

QuoteLUDOWICI, Ga. — Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday.

Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group composed of active duty and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components and was serious enough to kill two people — former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York — by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret.

"This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

...

Prosecutors said the group called itself F.E.A.R., short for Forever Enduring Always Ready. Pauley said authorities don't know how many members the militia had.

Burnett, 26, said he knew the group's leaders from serving with them at Fort Stewart. He agreed to testify against fellow soldiers Pvt. Isaac Aguigui, identified by prosecutors as the militia's founder and leader, Sgt. Anthony Peden and Pvt. Christopher Salmon.

...

In a videotaped interview with military investigators, Pauley said, Aguigui called himself "the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet." He used the Army to recruit militia members, who wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol, she said. Prosecutors say they have no idea how many members belong to the group.

"All members of the group were on active-duty or were former members of the military," Pauley said. "He targeted soldiers who were in trouble or disillusioned."

The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state's apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia's goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president.

Disillusioned anarchist right-wing baby-killers with plans for an assault on Georgia?

Finally, something we can blame on both TEC and Bort.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/five-more-indicted-in-supposed-terror-plot/nR8Qw/

QuoteFive more men, including four former soldiers, have been charged in connection with what prosecutors call an anarchist militia based at Fort Stewart.

A Liberty County grand jury indicted the men — Adam Dearman, Randall Dearman, Timothy Joiner, Christopher Jenderseck and Anthony Garner — on charges of illegal gang activity and several counts of theft, burglary and auto-break ins. District Attorney Tom Durden said this week the crimes were committed to fund the militia group F.E.A.R., an acronym for Forever Enduring Always Ready.

Last month, four Fort Stewart soldiers and one civilian were indicted in neighboring Long County on charges of murder and gang-related activities. Durden told the judge they were leaders of F.E.A.R., which was bent on assassinating the president, poisoning apple crops and bombing dams in Washington state and blowing up the fountain in Savannah's Forsyth Park.

No judgment in terrorist brainstorming.

Couldn't we at least send them to Atlanta instead of Savannah?  Or extend their plot to all of Georgia?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 13, 2012, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2012, 09:28:51 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 13, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
Is poisoning the apple crop akin to lacing Lake Michigan drinking water with LSD? (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.html)

And is plotting to assassinate the President akin to levitating the Pentagon (http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/11636407561/forty-four-years-ago-abbie-hoffman-and-allen-ginsberg)?

Which is to say, I'm guessing that the respective objectives are entirely different. (Particularly considering the low lethality of LSD.)

Aside from the fact that the human LD50 is unknown, the stuff is quite fragile. It's basically impossible to deliver LSD in chlorinated water.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on September 13, 2012, 01:47:38 PM
Poison apple crops? Really?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 13, 2012, 01:54:58 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 13, 2012, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2012, 09:28:51 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 13, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
Is poisoning the apple crop akin to lacing Lake Michigan drinking water with LSD? (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.html)

And is plotting to assassinate the President akin to levitating the Pentagon (http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/11636407561/forty-four-years-ago-abbie-hoffman-and-allen-ginsberg)?

Which is to say, I'm guessing that the respective objectives are entirely different. (Particularly considering the low lethality of LSD.)

Aside from the fact that the human LD50 is unknown, the stuff is quite fragile. It's basically impossible to deliver LSD in chlorinated water.

A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2012, 01:55:08 PM
Quote from: Brownie on September 13, 2012, 01:47:38 PM
Poison apple crops? Really?

(http://i.imgur.com/s8jmg.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on September 13, 2012, 05:49:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 13, 2012, 01:54:58 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 13, 2012, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 13, 2012, 09:28:51 AM
Quote from: Brownie on September 13, 2012, 08:54:26 AM
Is poisoning the apple crop akin to lacing Lake Michigan drinking water with LSD? (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.html)

And is plotting to assassinate the President akin to levitating the Pentagon (http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/11636407561/forty-four-years-ago-abbie-hoffman-and-allen-ginsberg)?

Which is to say, I'm guessing that the respective objectives are entirely different. (Particularly considering the low lethality of LSD.)

Aside from the fact that the human LD50 is unknown, the stuff is quite fragile. It's basically impossible to deliver LSD in chlorinated water.

A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Mandrake, you ever heard of fluoridation?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 17, 2012, 06:47:16 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 06, 2012, 09:48:23 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 06, 2012, 09:40:41 PM
Not a goddamned word about helium yet from Obamanana.

Fuck those motherfuckers in Congress.

Marketplace attempts the looming helium crisis (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/helium-shortage-causes-prices-balloon) and fails to mention the main problem.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 17, 2012, 07:57:19 PM
How much does it cost to buy stock in a good helium company. I think this question belongs in the Only Site I'll Ever Need thread.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 17, 2012, 08:07:59 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 17, 2012, 07:57:19 PM
How much does it cost to buy stock in a good helium company. I think this question belongs in the Only Site I'll Ever Need thread.

I've got a feeling your pumpkin futures are going to peak right around January...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 18, 2012, 08:54:14 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
(http://justindarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/popcorn.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 18, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.

He's DONE trying to convince her to take personal responsibility for her life.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 09:09:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 18, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.

He's DONE trying to convince her to take personal responsibility for her life.

While I can't say I'm surprised by his comments, I am a little disappointed that he neglected to note the irony in the fact that most (though certainly not all) of those who do not pay income taxes (they still pay payroll taxes, for the most part) and collect government money come from red states.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 18, 2012, 09:09:59 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 18, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.

He's DONE trying to convince her to take personal responsibility for her life.

Leave it to the commies at the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/283265) to tell us that we should take it easy on these layabouts.

QuoteThe argument these conservatives are making has two components. First, it is wrong as a matter of civic morality for some people — let alone large numbers of people — to contribute nothing to the support of the federal government. Second, this situation is politically dangerous because it means that, for a large number of voters, big government is, or appears to be, free. These voters will therefore support the expansion and oppose the retrenchment of government, voting themselves goodies at other people's expense.

The good news is that these fears are overblown. The 47 percent figure does not mean we are near a tipping point. Most of the people included in that figure do make financial contributions to the federal government, and there is no reason to think that nonpayment of income taxes is turning millions of Americans liberal. The bad news is that worrying too much about this number will lead conservatives down an intellectual and political dead end.

According to the Tax Policy Center, provisions of the tax code that exempt subsistence levels of income from income taxes — the standard deduction, personal exemption, and dependent exemption — are the reason for about half of the tax filers who owe no income tax. Another large group of filers pays no income tax because its members are elderly and benefit from such features of the code as the non-taxation of some Social Security benefits. The tax credit for children and the earned-income tax credit, an effort to boost the pay of low-income workers, wipe out income-tax liability for other taxpayers. Those credits are "refundable," meaning that beneficiaries can get money on top of paying no income tax. Other provisions of the code account for the rest of the 47 percent: education credits, the non-taxation of welfare payments, itemized deductions, and so on.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 18, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.

He's DONE trying to convince her to take personal responsibility for her life.

In the Randian Jungle Thunderdome, RV's parasitic gammy would have been eaten for meat decades ago, and her bones burned for fuel.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 18, 2012, 09:26:06 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 18, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.

He's DONE trying to convince her to take personal responsibility for her life.

In the Randian Jungle Thunderdome, RV's parasitic gammy would have been eaten for meat decades ago, and her bones burned for fuel.

WE are the 53%.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 09:27:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:23:15 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 18, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.

He's DONE trying to convince her to take personal responsibility for her life.

In the Randian Jungle Thunderdome, RV's parasitic gammy would have been eaten for meat decades ago, and her bones burned for fuel.

The most preposterous line in his "off the cuff" comments is this: "I have inherited nothing. Everything I earned I earned the old fashioned way."

No, Mitt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
How was Romney able to run a successful financial firm when he's clearly unable/unwilling to fire incompetent people working for him?


These campaigns are meatgrinders. You can't succeed if your advisors aren't on the ball.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on September 18, 2012, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
How was Romney able to run a successful financial firm when he's clearly unable/unwilling to fire incompetent people working for him?


  • Nobody told him attacking Obama was a bad idea
  • Nobody thought attacking people for non-payment of taxes would bring his own taxes back into the narrative
  • Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

These campaigns are meatgrinders. You can't succeed if your advisors aren't on the ball.

Actually I'm guessing they did, given that the video looks to have been taken surreptitiously. Then again, the Romney campaign may just be using this story to set up the play-action pass.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.

He does work for Mother Jones...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on September 18, 2012, 10:50:44 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.

He does work for Mother Jones...

The issue isn't that Romney hates 47% of America, it's that Obama's team ONCE AGAIN moved the LAMEstream media's focus off of himself and all his failures on to Romney, who just wants to save this country, who needs to pull up their bootstraps and get to work. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.

David Corn wasn't at the fundraiser himself, Fork.

He was given the video by someone Jimmy Carter's grandson discovered on YouTube. No (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/james-carter-iv-helped-spread-secret-romney-video.html)... seriously (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13938614-how-the-romney-video-leaked-for-carters-it-was-personal).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 18, 2012, 11:43:57 AM
Quote from: BH on September 18, 2012, 10:50:44 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.

He does work for Mother Jones...

The issue isn't that Romney hates 47% of America, it's that Obama's team ONCE AGAIN moved the LAMEstream media's focus off of himself and all his failures on to Romney, who just wants to save this country, who needs to pull up their bootstraps and get to work. 

It is amazing to me that Romney can enunciate so clearly with his foot in his mouth.  The most remarkable thing about this video is that it tells the electorate that Romney is incapable of speaking without saying the wrong thing. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 11:51:16 AM
George Romney, deadbeat welfare mooch?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPZPaysBTqk&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 18, 2012, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.

David Corn wasn't at the fundraiser himself, Fork.

He was given the video by someone Jimmy Carter's grandson discovered on YouTube. No (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/james-carter-iv-helped-spread-secret-romney-video.html)... seriously (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13938614-how-the-romney-video-leaked-for-carters-it-was-personal).

I know that. But if Corn started running things that were OTR, even if they're second-hand, he'd never have a seat on any National news show or be part of any panels at any universities, whoch means no more book sales or apperance fees.

Besides, we've seen Romney botch it enough on the record to jeopardize your own career that way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 01:10:45 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.

David Corn wasn't at the fundraiser himself, Fork.

He was given the video by someone Jimmy Carter's grandson discovered on YouTube. No (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/james-carter-iv-helped-spread-secret-romney-video.html)... seriously (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13938614-how-the-romney-video-leaked-for-carters-it-was-personal).

I know that. But if Corn started running things that were OTR, even if they're second-hand, he'd never have a seat on any National news show or be part of any panels at any universities, whoch means no more book sales or apperance fees.

Besides, we've seen Romney botch it enough on the record to jeopardize your own career that way.

Honestly, at this point I'm not even sure what you mean by "on the record" in this context.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on September 18, 2012, 01:17:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 01:10:45 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.

David Corn wasn't at the fundraiser himself, Fork.

He was given the video by someone Jimmy Carter's grandson discovered on YouTube. No (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/james-carter-iv-helped-spread-secret-romney-video.html)... seriously (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13938614-how-the-romney-video-leaked-for-carters-it-was-personal).

I know that. But if Corn started running things that were OTR, even if they're second-hand, he'd never have a seat on any National news show or be part of any panels at any universities, whoch means no more book sales or apperance fees.

Besides, we've seen Romney botch it enough on the record to jeopardize your own career that way.

Honestly, at this point I'm not even sure what you mean by "on the record" in this context.

"Hey professional media, you can publish this." - same thing it always means.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 02:20:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 01:17:08 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 01:10:45 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 12:48:17 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 11:34:41 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 10:44:43 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

I doubt the video was leaked by someone who paid $50,000 to attend. (Unless Section 242 sponsored Kermit again.)

Much more likely that it was shot surreptitiously by a member of the waitstaff.

Possibly some sort of darkie.

David Corn ran it. He'd pretty much throw his credibility out the window if he ran OTR remarks like a common Kerm.

David Corn wasn't at the fundraiser himself, Fork.

He was given the video by someone Jimmy Carter's grandson discovered on YouTube. No (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/james-carter-iv-helped-spread-secret-romney-video.html)... seriously (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13938614-how-the-romney-video-leaked-for-carters-it-was-personal).

I know that. But if Corn started running things that were OTR, even if they're second-hand, he'd never have a seat on any National news show or be part of any panels at any universities, whoch means no more book sales or apperance fees.

Besides, we've seen Romney botch it enough on the record to jeopardize your own career that way.

Honestly, at this point I'm not even sure what you mean by "on the record" in this context.

"Hey professional media, you can publish this." - same thing it always means.

Just think of all of the political embarrassment that could be avoided if politicians just had the foresight to declare more things "off the record".

Though, hey, maybe that's exactly what happened to Michael Isikoff's original Lewinsky scoop...

Quote from: Mark WhitakerThe President of the United States stuck a cigar in some chub's gash? That's huge!

Wait... He said the blowjobs were off the record?

Well, shit, Mike. Our hands are tied on this one. Rules are rules.

And he would have gotten away with it, too, if not for you meddling Drudges!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 18, 2012, 03:43:19 PM
You guys just don't understand the unwritten rules of journalism.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 04:14:28 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 18, 2012, 03:43:19 PM
You guys just don't understand the unwritten rules of journalism journolistism.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 06:15:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 09:09:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 18, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.

He's DONE trying to convince her to take personal responsibility for her life.

While I can't say I'm surprised by his comments, I am a little disappointed that he neglected to note the irony in the fact that most (though certainly not all) of those who do not pay income taxes (they still pay payroll taxes, for the most part) and collect government money come from red states.

(http://i.imgur.com/fBYjJ.jpg)

TEC, IAN and RV's gammy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 18, 2012, 07:37:02 PM
Another entry in the Dentist Files (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Dentist-Accused-Of-Making-Patients-Swallow-His-2738468.php), albeit dated.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on September 18, 2012, 08:56:14 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 18, 2012, 06:15:33 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 18, 2012, 09:09:13 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 18, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Quote from: R-V on September 18, 2012, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: Tollbooth Yeti on September 17, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
YOU FREELOADERS http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Apparently my grandma - who didn't pay income tax in her last few years since she lived primarily off of her social security income - was part of the 47% Shiftless Moocher population of Americans. And all this time I thought she was just a sweet little old lady. Thank you for lifting the wool from my eyes, President Romney.

He's DONE trying to convince her to take personal responsibility for her life.

While I can't say I'm surprised by his comments, I am a little disappointed that he neglected to note the irony in the fact that most (though certainly not all) of those who do not pay income taxes (they still pay payroll taxes, for the most part) and collect government money come from red states.

(http://i.imgur.com/fBYjJ.jpg)

TEC, IAN and RV's gammy.

I don't mean to generalize, but Mississippi is no good at everything.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 18, 2012, 09:30:17 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 18, 2012, 08:56:14 PM
I don't mean to generalize, but Mississippi is no good at everything.

Mississippi at least is one of the two states, with West Virginia, that has no horseshit vaccine exemptions for public school attendance, so they've got that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on September 19, 2012, 12:26:09 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 18, 2012, 09:30:17 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 18, 2012, 08:56:14 PM
I don't mean to generalize, but Mississippi is no good at everything.

Mississippi at least is one of the two states, with West Virginia, that has no horseshit vaccine exemptions for public school attendance, so they've got that.


Well they need the horseshit vaccine more than other states because there are no cars or paved roads throughout most of those areas.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on September 19, 2012, 03:43:58 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on September 19, 2012, 12:26:09 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on September 18, 2012, 09:30:17 PM
Quote from: CT III on September 18, 2012, 08:56:14 PM
I don't mean to generalize, but Mississippi is no good at everything.

Mississippi at least is one of the two states, with West Virginia, that has no horseshit vaccine exemptions for public school attendance, so they've got that.


Well they need the horseshit vaccine more than other states because there are no cars or paved roads throughout most of those areas.

Pavement is overrated.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 19, 2012, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 19, 2012, 03:43:58 PM
Pavement is overrated.

CubbieBlueStew, hipster.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on September 19, 2012, 05:30:42 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 19, 2012, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 19, 2012, 03:43:58 PM
Pavement is overrated.

CubbieBlueStew, hipster.

6.9
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on September 19, 2012, 10:14:08 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 17, 2010, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2010, 03:17:22 PM
No, because there are many things that affect health outcomes.  U.S. lifestyles are awful, awful from a health standpoint, which surely has a greater effect on life expectancy than what doctors do.

Can we ban high fructose corn syrup in the bill?

What would Archer Daniels Midland say about that?

HFCS: Chametz, but still innocent (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ijo2012157a.pdf) (PDF).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on September 20, 2012, 10:04:33 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 19, 2012, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: CBStew on September 19, 2012, 03:43:58 PM
Pavement is overrated.

CubbieBlueStew, hipster.

This.  Seam.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 21, 2012, 05:56:54 PM
Ole Joe Biden and Huey evidently share something in common: http://youtu.be/IKfH_E-NsFQ
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2012, 06:38:41 PM
Solve the federal deficit!!!  I just found it, so if it's a repost, I apologize.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on September 24, 2012, 09:38:04 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2012, 06:38:41 PM
Solve the federal deficit!!!  I just found it, so if it's a repost, I apologize.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

That's nearly as good as this one (http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/03/dempster-marqui.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on September 25, 2012, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2012, 06:38:41 PM
Solve the federal deficit!!!  I just found it, so if it's a repost, I apologize.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I'm still trying to decide if I should let the estate tax return to Clinton-era levels. I only have until Jan. 1, 2011 to decide.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on September 25, 2012, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: Eli on September 25, 2012, 08:08:34 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on September 24, 2012, 06:38:41 PM
Solve the federal deficit!!!  I just found it, so if it's a repost, I apologize.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I'm still trying to decide if I should let the estate tax return to Clinton-era levels. I only have until Jan. 1, 2011 to decide.

DAMNIT!!!  I'll go hide in the corner now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on September 27, 2012, 09:46:50 PM
Finally, some verified vote fraud (http://news.yahoo.com/gop-fires-vendor-questionable-registrations-221750586--election.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on September 27, 2012, 10:43:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 27, 2012, 09:46:50 PM
Finally, some verified voter registration fraud (http://news.yahoo.com/gop-fires-vendor-questionable-registrations-221750586--election.html).

Still not actual voter fraud'd
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 01, 2012, 10:11:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on September 27, 2012, 10:43:17 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on September 27, 2012, 09:46:50 PM
Finally, some verified voter registration fraud (http://news.yahoo.com/gop-fires-vendor-questionable-registrations-221750586--election.html).

Still not actual voter fraud'd

The plot thickens? (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-01/republicans-end-swing-state-voter-sign-up-after-firing-company.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on October 02, 2012, 03:11:17 PM
Finally an opinion that matters.  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/creed-romney-scott-stapp-obama_n_1932141.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 02, 2012, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: BH on October 02, 2012, 03:11:17 PM
Finally an opinion that matters.  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/creed-romney-scott-stapp-obama_n_1932141.html)

Quote"My heart and soul would really love someone like Reagan or FDR to come back and give us a New Deal," Stapp continued. "Be bold, be committed, don't care what anyone thinks. And when you tear down that wall, do it."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 02, 2012, 03:38:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 02, 2012, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: BH on October 02, 2012, 03:11:17 PM
Finally an opinion that matters.  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/creed-romney-scott-stapp-obama_n_1932141.html)

Quote"My heart and soul would really love someone like Reagan or FDR to come back and give us a New Deal," Stapp continued. "Be bold, be committed, don't care what anyone thinks. And when you tear down that wall, do it."

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3222/2979625812_52bcbdc828_m.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on October 02, 2012, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 02, 2012, 03:38:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 02, 2012, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: BH on October 02, 2012, 03:11:17 PM
Finally an opinion that matters.  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/creed-romney-scott-stapp-obama_n_1932141.html)

Quote"My heart and soul would really love someone like Reagan or FDR to come back and give us a New Deal," Stapp continued. "Be bold, be committed, don't care what anyone thinks. And when you tear down that wall, do it."

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3222/2979625812_52bcbdc828_m.jpg)

That's beautiful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 02, 2012, 05:16:59 PM
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A4Oap-FCEAAO_55.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 02, 2012, 11:55:09 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on August 07, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
Note to New Yorker: the small caps are even dumber than the fucking dieresis.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_freeland?currentPage=all

QuoteRomney's advantage is compounded by the advent of Super PACs in this Presidential campaign

Robert Bringhurst is a boring old biddy!

Also: "per cent". Guh.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 03, 2012, 05:28:28 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 02, 2012, 11:55:09 PM
Robert Bringhurst is a boring old biddy!

If they could bring themselves to confront his position on the em dash ("Victorian"), it would be a GAME CHANGER.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 03, 2012, 11:19:48 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Cuakers.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 03, 2012, 11:59:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

I'd call it a dud. Mind you, the neighbor was cursing like a sailor for often less than apparent reasons, but Obanana simply pussied out on numerous opportunities to go for the jugular in favor of making the cheeseburger gesture. (The preferred reference would be to the foam-and-shaving-cream toy of the '70s, but this may require Chuck intervention, as it's not coming to me.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Yeah, the last sentence is dumb. Everyone who bothered to watch the debate saw exactly what they wanted to see. Unless someone makes some huge gaffe, it's pointless theater.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:45:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Yeah, the last sentence is dumb. Everyone who bothered to watch the debate saw exactly what they wanted to see. Unless someone makes some huge gaffe, it's pointless theater.

Intrepid Reader: Everyone Bort Retweets

Just like the entire political system, man.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 04, 2012, 08:45:23 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Sullivan is the worst.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 04, 2012, 08:46:17 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:45:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Yeah, the last sentence is dumb. Everyone who bothered to watch the debate saw exactly what they wanted to see. Unless someone makes some huge gaffe, it's pointless theater.

Intrepid Reader: Everyone Bort Retweets

Just like the entire political system, man.

Prove me wrong, history.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on October 04, 2012, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Yeah, the last sentence is dumb. Everyone who bothered to watch the debate saw exactly what they wanted to see. Unless someone makes some huge gaffe, it's pointless theater.

There are a lot of undecideds who will determine who wins the election. Last night Romney helped himself tremendously in the swing states.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 04, 2012, 09:12:10 AM
Quote from: BH on October 04, 2012, 08:46:46 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Yeah, the last sentence is dumb. Everyone who bothered to watch the debate saw exactly what they wanted to see. Unless someone makes some huge gaffe, it's pointless theater.

There are a lot of undecideds who will determine who wins the election. Last night Romney helped himself tremendously in the swing states.

Thanks, Chuck Todd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

morph - Gil is wrong because he's Gil, not because he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2012, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 03, 2012, 11:59:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

I'd call it a dud. Mind you, the neighbor was cursing like a sailor for often less than apparent reasons, but Obanana simply pussied out on numerous opportunities to go for the jugular in favor of making the cheeseburger gesture. (The preferred reference would be to the foam-and-shaving-cream toy of the '70s, but this may require Chuck intervention, as it's not coming to me.)

Crazy Foam?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zSvHGWeX7lM/Tfw83pn7iDI/AAAAAAAACKE/A1-3lTo9mnI/s1600/foam.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

morph - Gil is wrong because he's Gil, not because he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan.

I LOLed. Anyway, I used a Sullivan link because Gil likes to link to Sullivan in the ShoutBox.  Something something you'd know that if you ever went in there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

morph - Gil is wrong because he's Gil, not because he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan.

I LOLed. Anyway, I used a Sullivan link because Gil likes to link to Sullivan in the ShoutBox.  Something something you'd know that if you ever went in there.

It's alive? It looks dead when I go here (http://hirejimessian.com/hje-shoutbox/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

morph - Gil is wrong because he's Gil, not because he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan.

I LOLed. Anyway, I used a Sullivan link because Gil likes to link to Sullivan in the ShoutBox.  Something something you'd know that if you ever went in there.

It's alive? It looks dead when I go here (http://hirejimessian.com/hje-shoutbox/).

Try here (http://www4.shoutmix.com/?forklift).

EDIT: Kerm finally got embarrassed enough of us that he decided he didn't need a ShoutBox marring his site anymore.  Now he can fill his site with ARTICLES.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 04, 2012, 09:33:47 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

morph - Gil is wrong because he's Gil, not because he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan.

I LOLed. Anyway, I used a Sullivan link because Gil likes to link to Sullivan in the ShoutBox.  Something something you'd know that if you ever went in there.

It's alive? It looks dead when I go here (http://hirejimessian.com/hje-shoutbox/).

Try here (http://www4.shoutmix.com/?forklift).

EDIT: Kerm finally got embarrassed enough of us that he decided he didn't need a ShoutBox marring his site anymore.  Now he can fill his site with ARTICLES.

So we started our own shoutbox, with blackjack and hookers!!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 04, 2012, 09:53:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

morph - Gil is wrong because he's Gil, not because he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan.

I LOLed. Anyway, I used a Sullivan link because Gil likes to link to Sullivan in the ShoutBox.  Something something you'd know that if you ever went in there.

It's alive? It looks dead when I go here (http://hirejimessian.com/hje-shoutbox/).

Try here (http://www4.shoutmix.com/?forklift).

EDIT: Kerm finally got embarrassed enough of us that he decided he didn't need a ShoutBox marring his site anymore.  Now he can fill his site with ARTICLES.

(I think he was joking. (http://hje.me/sbox/clog.php?userid=RV))
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 04, 2012, 09:53:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

morph - Gil is wrong because he's Gil, not because he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan.

I LOLed. Anyway, I used a Sullivan link because Gil likes to link to Sullivan in the ShoutBox.  Something something you'd know that if you ever went in there.

It's alive? It looks dead when I go here (http://hirejimessian.com/hje-shoutbox/).

Try here (http://www4.shoutmix.com/?forklift).

EDIT: Kerm finally got embarrassed enough of us that he decided he didn't need a ShoutBox marring his site anymore.  Now he can fill his site with ARTICLES.

(I think he was joking. (http://hje.me/sbox/clog.php?userid=RV))

I think we should just wait and see how this plays out.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 04, 2012, 10:27:03 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 04, 2012, 09:53:16 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:29:43 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 09:23:45 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 04, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

morph - Gil is wrong because he's Gil, not because he disagrees with Andrew Sullivan.

I LOLed. Anyway, I used a Sullivan link because Gil likes to link to Sullivan in the ShoutBox.  Something something you'd know that if you ever went in there.

It's alive? It looks dead when I go here (http://hirejimessian.com/hje-shoutbox/).

Try here (http://www4.shoutmix.com/?forklift).

EDIT: Kerm finally got embarrassed enough of us that he decided he didn't need a ShoutBox marring his site anymore.  Now he can fill his site with ARTICLES.

(I think he was joking. (http://hje.me/sbox/clog.php?userid=RV))

I think we should just wait and see how this plays out.

I was actually not joking. Between there being different URLs for the HJE shoutbox and work blocking stuff sometimes, Shoutbox-wise I'm as flustered as a common Huey when he realizes his 2 for 1 Bacci coupon expired in 1998.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 04, 2012, 10:46:00 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2012, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 03, 2012, 11:59:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

I'd call it a dud. Mind you, the neighbor was cursing like a sailor for often less than apparent reasons, but Obanana simply pussied out on numerous opportunities to go for the jugular in favor of making the cheeseburger gesture. (The preferred reference would be to the foam-and-shaving-cream toy of the '70s, but this may require Chuck intervention, as it's not coming to me.)

Crazy Foam?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zSvHGWeX7lM/Tfw83pn7iDI/AAAAAAAACKE/A1-3lTo9mnI/s1600/foam.jpg)

Nah, I finally remembered.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0NNJ5hsSuF4/TkAmqTtuA7I/AAAAAAAAD-k/O5BCHlroljo/s1600/pie+face+target.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 04, 2012, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:45:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Yeah, the last sentence is dumb. Everyone who bothered to watch the debate saw exactly what they wanted to see. Unless someone makes some huge gaffe, it's pointless theater.

Intrepid Reader: Everyone Bort Retweets

Just like the entire political system, man.

RT RT
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 04, 2012, 11:45:55 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 04, 2012, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:45:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 04, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 04, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

fuck MSNBC.

PS - Does Al Sharpton has AIDS?  Hew'd he lose all that weight?

Shoah. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

Quote10.29 pm. How is Obama's closing statement so fucking sad, confused and lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight.

Now, I don't for a second think that the last sentence is true - there's a long way to go in this election - but that seems awfully different from "it's a draw."

Yeah, the last sentence is dumb. Everyone who bothered to watch the debate saw exactly what they wanted to see. Unless someone makes some huge gaffe, it's pointless theater.

Intrepid Reader: Everyone Bort Retweets

Just like the entire political system, man.

RT RT

Unfollow.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 05, 2012, 09:40:47 AM
Jack Welch: BLS Truther

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 05, 2012, 09:47:38 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 09:40:47 AM
Jack Welch: BLS Truther

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb

What an amazing jobs report. Obama is awesome.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 05, 2012, 09:55:25 AM
Also: I'm chuckling at Morph bashing Obama on Twitter after every Friday jobs report for months, but now that the news is decent the numbers are suddenly all meaningless.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 05, 2012, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 05, 2012, 09:55:25 AM
Also: I'm chuckling at Morph bashing Obama on Twitter after every Friday jobs report for months, but now that the news is decent the numbers are suddenly all meaningless.

Not meaningless.  Just misleading.

What's meaningless is the implication that it's just this number that is misleading.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 05, 2012, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 05, 2012, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 05, 2012, 09:55:25 AM
Also: I'm chuckling at Morph bashing Obama on Twitter after every Friday jobs report for months, but now that the news is decent the numbers are suddenly all meaningless.

Not meaningless.  Just misleading.

What's meaningless is the implication that it's just this number that is misleading.

Full disclosure, I'm not a genius. But roughly half of the turns of phrase you use in this particular thread make no sense to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 10:18:40 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 09:40:47 AM
Jack Welch: BLS Truther

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb

QuoteHe had some friends in Congress too. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) tweeted "I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here." He added on Facebook that the jobs report was "Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book 'Rules for Radicals.'"

This is right out of the Saul Alinsky/Richard J. Daley Chicago-style anti-colonialist playbook. Just like Orwell predicted. Nancy Pelosi.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 05, 2012, 10:20:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 10:18:40 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 09:40:47 AM
Jack Welch: BLS Truther

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/job-truthers-jack-welch-bls.php?ref=fpb

QuoteHe had some friends in Congress too. Rep. Allen West (R-FL) tweeted "I agree with former GE CEO Jack Welch, Chicago style politics is at work here." He added on Facebook that the jobs report was "Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book 'Rules for Radicals.'"

This is right out of the Saul Alinsky/Richard J. Daley Chicago-style anti-colonialist playbook. Just like Orwell predicted. Nancy Pelosi.

If you are going to furtively fudge the jobs numbers, wouldn't you want them to be lower than 7.8%?

And, I don't understand, should we be rooting for worse jobs numbers?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 05, 2012, 10:26:18 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 05, 2012, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 05, 2012, 09:55:25 AM
Also: I'm chuckling at Morph bashing Obama on Twitter after every Friday jobs report for months, but now that the news is decent the numbers are suddenly all meaningless.

Not meaningless.  Just misleading.

What's meaningless is the implication that it's just this number that is misleading.

Every number needs context. The number of people leaving the workplace will continue to be high for at least the next 10-20 years (as Boomers retire - they are turning 65 at roughly the rate of 8K/day, according to AARP (http://www.aarp.org/personal-growth/transitions/boomers_65/)), so the U-6 will always make things look worse than they usually are.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 05, 2012, 10:29:48 AM
I hope Americans continue to be out of work in massive numbers so the guy I sorta like because he's the lesser of two evils gets elected president.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 11:04:03 AM
Via Morph on Facebook...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/05/the-odd-september-unemployment-rate-when-good-surveys-produce-false-results/

QuoteThe September household survey is one to set aside to wait for a more reliable report next month, which will almost certainly reverse the odd results from September.

Fair enough...

QuoteIf it does, then we have both confirmation of the power of statistics and of the weakness in the economy. If the next household survey is like the September survey, however, then we will know the Obama Administration was playing games with the numbers as alleged.

Those are the only two possibilities.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 05, 2012, 11:09:24 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 11:04:03 AM
Via Morph on Facebook...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/05/the-odd-september-unemployment-rate-when-good-surveys-produce-false-results/

QuoteThe September household survey is one to set aside to wait for a more reliable report next month, which will almost certainly reverse the odd results from September.

Fair enough...

QuoteIf it does, then we have both confirmation of the power of statistics and of the weakness in the economy. If the next household survey is like the September survey, however, then we will know the Obama Administration was playing games with the numbers as alleged.

Those are the only two possibilities.

This seems relevant. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/05/september-jobs-report-debunking-the-jobs-report-conspiracy-theories/)
I didn't read it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 05, 2012, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 05, 2012, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

That's not what I said at all, but ok.  Sorry I couldn't turn it into a single, erroneous, misleading sound bite.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 05, 2012, 01:46:24 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 05, 2012, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

That's not what I said at all, but ok.  Sorry I couldn't turn it into a single, erroneous, misleading sound bite.

Butthurt: ACHIEVED
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 05, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PMThe household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now

The chart on page 2 of this (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf) shows a pretty clear upward trend for both the seasonally adjusted household survey and the payroll survey.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 05, 2012, 01:52:36 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 05, 2012, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

That's not what I said at all, but ok.  Sorry I couldn't turn it into a single, erroneous, misleading sound bite.

I'm just lazy and didn't read it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 05, 2012, 01:56:49 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias

I did no such thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 02:00:20 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 05, 2012, 01:52:36 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 05, 2012, 01:39:29 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

That's not what I said at all, but ok.  Sorry I couldn't turn it into a single, erroneous, misleading sound bite.

I'm just lazy and didn't read it.

That's fair.  
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

(http://i.imgur.com/o9JYD.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 05, 2012, 02:08:39 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 05, 2012, 01:46:24 PM
Butthurt: ACHIEVED

In inspirational poster form:

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 02:15:03 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PMThe household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now

The chart on page 2 of this (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf) shows a pretty clear upward trend for both the seasonally adjusted household survey and the payroll survey.


Those charts show employment barely keeping up with population growth.  Here's the employment to population ratio for context.

(http://imgur.com/qN3qa.jpg)

Notice the flatness at an historically low level. Again, an 800k print is not consistent with any of the recent or medium term trends.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 05, 2012, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 02:15:03 PMan historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 02:44:35 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 02:15:03 PMan historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 05, 2012, 03:11:05 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 02:15:03 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 01:38:32 PMThe household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now

The chart on page 2 of this (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf) shows a pretty clear upward trend for both the seasonally adjusted household survey and the payroll survey.


Those charts show employment barely keeping up with population growth.  Here's the employment to population ratio for context.

(http://imgur.com/qN3qa.jpg)

Notice the flatness at an historically low level. Again, an 800k print is not consistent with any of the recent or medium term trends.

Blind rage having dwindled, I'm guessing we probably agree on the following:

- there are still way to many people out of work
- barely enough jobs are being created to keep up with population growth, let alone get the out of work people back to work
- who is President is pretty far down the list of Factors Determining Job Growth
- people who say "LOL PRESIDENT BAD" after shitty jobs reports, and then say "ROFL BLS MAKIN SHIT UP" after not-so-shitty job reports, are asswipes that shouldn't be taken seriously

That's really all I'm saying without getting into answering the question of how to jumpstart job growth.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 05, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 02:44:35 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 02:15:03 PMan historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)

I'm going to conference with CT about this, but I think we're going to need royalties given how often that thing could be used around here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 05, 2012, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 05, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 02:44:35 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 02:15:03 PMan historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)

I'm going to conference with CT about this, but I think we're going to need royalties given how often that thing could be used around here.

Yeah, we're going to need a good lawyer.  If only I knew where to find one of those.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 03:33:35 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 05, 2012, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 05, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 05, 2012, 02:44:35 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 05, 2012, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 05, 2012, 02:15:03 PMan historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)

I'm going to conference with CT about this, but I think we're going to need royalties given how often that thing could be used around here.

Yeah, we're going to need a good lawyer.  If only I knew where to find one of those.

And a halfway decent accountant.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2012, 10:18:32 AM
I like this...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/paul_ryan_obama_birthers.php

QuotePaul Ryan has figured out a way of letting the birthers down gently.

Like many of his fellow congressmen, Ryan has been bombarded for years with letters from conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama was somehow secretly born in Kenya and so is ineligible to be president. The missives began even before Ryan became one of the president's biggest foes on budget issues and more recently as he joined the GOP ticket alongside MItt Romney.

But unlike some in his party who have been embarrassed by their own clunky and awkward responses to the birthers, Ryan has come up with an easy solution to deal with them.

He simply sends them a copy (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/10/paul-ryans-2011-constituent-letter-about-obamas-birth-certificate.php?page=1) of the president's birth certificate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 06, 2012, 10:26:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2012, 10:18:32 AM
I like this...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/paul_ryan_obama_birthers.php

QuotePaul Ryan has figured out a way of letting the birthers down gently.

Like many of his fellow congressmen, Ryan has been bombarded for years with letters from conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama was somehow secretly born in Kenya and so is ineligible to be president. The missives began even before Ryan became one of the president's biggest foes on budget issues and more recently as he joined the GOP ticket alongside MItt Romney.

But unlike some in his party who have been embarrassed by their own clunky and awkward responses to the birthers, Ryan has come up with an easy solution to deal with them.

He simply sends them a copy (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/10/paul-ryans-2011-constituent-letter-about-obamas-birth-certificate.php?page=1) of the president's birth certificate.

Intrepid Reader:  Teabag Nation


Damn.  They've gotten to Paul Ryan now, too.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 06, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 06, 2012, 10:26:54 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 06, 2012, 10:18:32 AM
I like this...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/paul_ryan_obama_birthers.php

QuotePaul Ryan has figured out a way of letting the birthers down gently.

Like many of his fellow congressmen, Ryan has been bombarded for years with letters from conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama was somehow secretly born in Kenya and so is ineligible to be president. The missives began even before Ryan became one of the president's biggest foes on budget issues and more recently as he joined the GOP ticket alongside MItt Romney.

But unlike some in his party who have been embarrassed by their own clunky and awkward responses to the birthers, Ryan has come up with an easy solution to deal with them.

He simply sends them a copy (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/10/paul-ryans-2011-constituent-letter-about-obamas-birth-certificate.php?page=1) of the president's birth certificate.

Intrepid Reader:  Teabag Nation


Damn.  They've gotten to Paul Ryan now, too.

Nice.

Seriously though I can at least respect the man for trying to raise the level of discourse a little.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2012, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

(http://i.imgur.com/usAxx.jpg)

OFF THE RECORD!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 08, 2012, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2012, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

(http://i.imgur.com/usAxx.jpg)

OFF THE RECORD!

This got me to thinking: is this standard practice?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/09/19/romney-fundraiser-rules/1579351/

QuoteAttendees at fundraisers for Democrats and Republicans alike typically are asked not to record events.

So yeah, I guess it is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2012, 09:14:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2012, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2012, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

(http://i.imgur.com/usAxx.jpg)

OFF THE RECORD!

This got me to thinking: is this standard practice?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/09/19/romney-fundraiser-rules/1579351/

QuoteAttendees at fundraisers for Democrats and Republicans alike typically are asked not to record events.

So yeah, I guess it is.

Yeah, but... Clearly they didn't say this that one time, or David Corn would have never been able to put that video on the internet.

Total boner by the Romney campaign.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 08, 2012, 09:22:37 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2012, 09:14:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2012, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2012, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

(http://i.imgur.com/usAxx.jpg)

OFF THE RECORD!

This got me to thinking: is this standard practice?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/09/19/romney-fundraiser-rules/1579351/

QuoteAttendees at fundraisers for Democrats and Republicans alike typically are asked not to record events.

So yeah, I guess it is.

Yeah, but... Clearly they didn't say this that one time, or David Corn would have never been able to put that video on the internet.

Total boner by the Romney campaign.

I blame the Joker.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 08, 2012, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2012, 09:22:37 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2012, 09:14:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2012, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2012, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

(http://i.imgur.com/usAxx.jpg)

OFF THE RECORD!

This got me to thinking: is this standard practice?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/09/19/romney-fundraiser-rules/1579351/

QuoteAttendees at fundraisers for Democrats and Republicans alike typically are asked not to record events.

So yeah, I guess it is.

Yeah, but... Clearly they didn't say this that one time, or David Corn would have never been able to put that video on the internet.

Total boner by the Romney campaign.

I blame the Joker.

(http://jokeindex.com/images/batman/batman06.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 08, 2012, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 08, 2012, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2012, 09:22:37 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2012, 09:14:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2012, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2012, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

(http://i.imgur.com/usAxx.jpg)

OFF THE RECORD!

This got me to thinking: is this standard practice?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/09/19/romney-fundraiser-rules/1579351/

QuoteAttendees at fundraisers for Democrats and Republicans alike typically are asked not to record events.

So yeah, I guess it is.

Yeah, but... Clearly they didn't say this that one time, or David Corn would have never been able to put that video on the internet.

Total boner by the Romney campaign.

I blame the Joker.

(http://i.imgur.com/mKcE5.jpg)

Improved.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 08, 2012, 12:23:59 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2012, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 08, 2012, 11:57:47 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 08, 2012, 09:22:37 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 08, 2012, 09:14:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 08, 2012, 08:32:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2012, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

(http://i.imgur.com/usAxx.jpg)

OFF THE RECORD!

This got me to thinking: is this standard practice?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/09/19/romney-fundraiser-rules/1579351/

QuoteAttendees at fundraisers for Democrats and Republicans alike typically are asked not to record events.

So yeah, I guess it is.

Yeah, but... Clearly they didn't say this that one time, or David Corn would have never been able to put that video on the internet.

Total boner by the Romney campaign.

I blame the Joker.

(http://i.imgur.com/mKcE5.jpg)

Improved.

Theory upheld.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
Hey, everyone... check out this asshole (http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 10, 2012, 08:46:06 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 04, 2012, 09:19:16 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 03, 2012, 11:59:56 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 03, 2012, 11:18:12 PM
im drunk, but I still call it a draw.

I'd call it a dud. Mind you, the neighbor was cursing like a sailor for often less than apparent reasons, but Obanana simply pussied out on numerous opportunities to go for the jugular in favor of making the cheeseburger gesture. (The preferred reference would be to the foam-and-shaving-cream toy of the '70s, but this may require Chuck intervention, as it's not coming to me.)

Crazy Foam?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zSvHGWeX7lM/Tfw83pn7iDI/AAAAAAAACKE/A1-3lTo9mnI/s1600/foam.jpg)

^^ (||)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 10, 2012, 08:56:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
Hey, everyone... check out this asshole (http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected).

Stew - were the Gilded Age plutocrats as insufferably whiny as our current crop of oligarch taintpuddles?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 10, 2012, 09:28:35 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 10, 2012, 08:56:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
Hey, everyone... check out this asshole (http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected).

Stew - were the Gilded Age plutocrats as insufferably whiny as our current crop of oligarch taintpuddles?

One of the things that labor has become accustomed to is an employer's threat that if the union wins a representation election conducted by Gil's NLRB the employer will shut down all or some of its operation and employees will be fired.  The employer knows that the union's only answer is to file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB.  It takes years to adjudicate.  If the NLRB has been appointed by the likes of George Bush (either one) the union will probably inevitably lose.  Even if the union wins the workers whom it organized are replaced, or disillusioned because the union has been exposed as a toothless tiger and the employer wins anyway.  But the employer's threat in an organizing drive is at least directed to the workers who affect the outcome of the representation election.  In this case the workers are being threatened with dire consequences if tens of millions of other people vote in a way that the employer disapproves.  Comparing this guy and his wife to the king and queen of France is not far off.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 10, 2012, 01:08:45 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 07, 2012, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: Fork on September 18, 2012, 09:42:12 AM
Nobody told anyone at the fundraiser that remarks were off the record

(http://i.imgur.com/usAxx.jpg)

OFF THE RECORD!

Fork was right?!?! (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-broun-spox-comments-decrying-science-as-satanic)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 10, 2012, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 10, 2012, 01:08:45 PM
Fork was right?!?! (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-broun-spox-comments-decrying-science-as-satanic)

I guess someone's in big trouble at The Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/08/broun-camp-stays-quiet-after-evolution-remarks/), among other places.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 10, 2012, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 10, 2012, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 10, 2012, 01:08:45 PM
Fork was right?!?! (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-broun-spox-comments-decrying-science-as-satanic)

I guess someone's in big trouble at The Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/08/broun-camp-stays-quiet-after-evolution-remarks/), among other places.

The Church put the video up on YouTube, which is absolutely the public record. They done fucked up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 10, 2012, 04:35:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 10, 2012, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 10, 2012, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 10, 2012, 01:08:45 PM
Fork was right?!?! (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-broun-spox-comments-decrying-science-as-satanic)

I guess someone's in big trouble at The Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/08/broun-camp-stays-quiet-after-evolution-remarks/), among other places.

The Church put the video up on YouTube, which is absolutely the public record. They done fucked up.

You really don't know what "the public record" means, do you?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 10, 2012, 05:23:46 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 10, 2012, 04:35:18 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 10, 2012, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 10, 2012, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 10, 2012, 01:08:45 PM
Fork was right?!?! (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rep-broun-spox-comments-decrying-science-as-satanic)

I guess someone's in big trouble at The Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/08/broun-camp-stays-quiet-after-evolution-remarks/), among other places.

The Church put the video up on YouTube, which is absolutely the public record. They done fucked up.

You really don't know what "the public record" means, do you?

#ShawFacts
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 11, 2012, 09:35:27 PM
So, this Ryan fellow is actually an alien insectoid assistant human resources manager, eh? Chilling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 11, 2012, 09:39:31 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 11, 2012, 09:35:27 PM
So, this Ryan fellow is actually an alien insectoid lizard assistant human resources manager, eh? Chilling.


Fact check'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 11, 2012, 09:48:28 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 11, 2012, 09:39:31 PM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 11, 2012, 09:35:27 PM
So, this Ryan fellow is actually an alien insectoid lizard assistant human resources manager, eh? Chilling.


Fact check'd.

This is going to be one asshurt installment of Milt.

[Edit.--And why would a reptilian look like Curious George? I mean, not... Phil Ponce too?]

[Edit 2.--Yup, he's already blamed the chairs.]

[Edit 3.--Lipson seems to be in an even sorrier state. Remind me to tell y'all some time about the time he approached my imaginary ex on the street while walking his dog Lola.]

[Edit 4.--Charles is circling the drain. He just tried to prop up the "religious liberty," hey-the-Pope-says-what-private-insuraers-can-do game. No. 3 above rhymes with "D'oh, Pen marriage."]

[Edit 5.--Score. Milt has just expressed consternation about "the dilemma of what to do with" a woman who has been "impregnated" by rape or incest.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 11, 2012, 11:20:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MxQEV.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 11, 2012, 11:36:53 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 11, 2012, 11:20:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MxQEV.jpg)

Veronica Hamel never did do a damn thing for me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 11, 2012, 11:42:29 PM
http://uppityminx.tumblr.com/post/33402887398

(http://i.imgur.com/FA0L6.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/CBzBm.png)

"Come back to me. Don't disappear on me. I need you, Boo."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2012, 10:04:12 AM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbrchgmEHR1qz581wo1_400.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 10:25:47 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 12, 2012, 10:04:12 AM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbrchgmEHR1qz581wo1_400.gif)

Oddly hypnotic.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 12, 2012, 10:29:08 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 11, 2012, 11:20:20 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MxQEV.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/TfGzn.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 12, 2012, 10:29:08 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/TfGzn.jpg)

Harold Ford, Jr. debates Al Sharpton?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 12, 2012, 11:57:42 AM
Ryan-face, Biden-hair kills me
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 12, 2012, 01:12:06 PM
Some (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/) follow up (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html) on Paul Ryan's "6 studies." Shit don't add up.

QuoteRomney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

All this hasn't stopped a fight against the tyranny of arithmetic. The defenses of the Romney tax  plan generally fall into three broad categories. The first assumes the plan will set off magic growth of the monster variety; the second assumes Romney defines "middle-class" differently than he does; and the third assumes Romney would eliminate tax expenditures he has indicated he would not eliminate.

QuoteThere are only meaningful "alternatives" to discuss with Congress if Romney can pick and choose from a pool of tax preferences for the wealthy that far exceeds the $250 billion annual cost of his rate cuts for them. If the pool of available base broadeners is just large enough to finance his tax cuts, then Romney actually is dictating a plan to Congress: if they don't eliminate exactly the set of preferences he proposes, his plan will either have to raise taxes on the middle class or grow the deficit.

TPC finds that Romney's rate cuts, plus elimination of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, would cost the Treasury about $250 billion in revenue from high earners. If he could somehow find, say, $300 billion in base broadeners from the wealthy, $15 billion of which would have to go to a phaseout, that wouldn't leave a lot of "alternatives" on the table. Yet there aren't enough base broadeners for Romney to reach the $300 billion level, let alone exceed it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:15:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 01:12:06 PM
Some (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/) follow up (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html) on Paul Ryan's "6 studies." Shit don't add up.

QuoteRomney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

All this hasn't stopped a fight against the tyranny of arithmetic. The defenses of the Romney tax  plan generally fall into three broad categories. The first assumes the plan will set off magic growth of the monster variety; the second assumes Romney defines "middle-class" differently than he does; and the third assumes Romney would eliminate tax expenditures he has indicated he would not eliminate.

QuoteThere are only meaningful "alternatives" to discuss with Congress if Romney can pick and choose from a pool of tax preferences for the wealthy that far exceeds the $250 billion annual cost of his rate cuts for them. If the pool of available base broadeners is just large enough to finance his tax cuts, then Romney actually is dictating a plan to Congress: if they don't eliminate exactly the set of preferences he proposes, his plan will either have to raise taxes on the middle class or grow the deficit.

TPC finds that Romney's rate cuts, plus elimination of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, would cost the Treasury about $250 billion in revenue from high earners. If he could somehow find, say, $300 billion in base broadeners from the wealthy, $15 billion of which would have to go to a phaseout, that wouldn't leave a lot of "alternatives" on the table. Yet there aren't enough base broadeners for Romney to reach the $300 billion level, let alone exceed it.

The guy who wrote the study for the TPC (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/harvey-rosen-obama-campaign_n_1948615.html) says otherwise.

Sorry for the HuffPo link.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 12, 2012, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:15:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 01:12:06 PM
Some (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/) follow up (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html) on Paul Ryan's "6 studies." Shit don't add up.

QuoteRomney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

All this hasn't stopped a fight against the tyranny of arithmetic. The defenses of the Romney tax  plan generally fall into three broad categories. The first assumes the plan will set off magic growth of the monster variety; the second assumes Romney defines "middle-class" differently than he does; and the third assumes Romney would eliminate tax expenditures he has indicated he would not eliminate.

QuoteThere are only meaningful "alternatives" to discuss with Congress if Romney can pick and choose from a pool of tax preferences for the wealthy that far exceeds the $250 billion annual cost of his rate cuts for them. If the pool of available base broadeners is just large enough to finance his tax cuts, then Romney actually is dictating a plan to Congress: if they don't eliminate exactly the set of preferences he proposes, his plan will either have to raise taxes on the middle class or grow the deficit.

TPC finds that Romney's rate cuts, plus elimination of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, would cost the Treasury about $250 billion in revenue from high earners. If he could somehow find, say, $300 billion in base broadeners from the wealthy, $15 billion of which would have to go to a phaseout, that wouldn't leave a lot of "alternatives" on the table. Yet there aren't enough base broadeners for Romney to reach the $300 billion level, let alone exceed it.

The guy who wrote the study for the TPC (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/harvey-rosen-obama-campaign_n_1948615.html) says otherwise.

Sorry for the HuffPo link.

Rosen didn't write the TPC study. Read the Atlantic link - Rosen wrote the 1st of the 6 papers Ryan cited last night.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:55:35 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:15:55 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 01:12:06 PM
Some (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/the-6-studies-paul-ryan-cited-prove-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-is-impossible/263541/) follow up (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html) on Paul Ryan's "6 studies." Shit don't add up.

QuoteRomney's tax plan is a three-legged stool that doesn't stand. Here's how it works -- or doesn't. Romney wants to 1) cut tax rates across the board by 20 percent, 2) cut tax expenditures to pay for these tax cuts, and 3) maintain progressivity. The problem, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, is there aren't enough tax expenditures for the rich to pay for all the tax cuts for the rich. Romney's plan only works if he cuts out the tax cuts for the rich, raises taxes on the middle class, or explodes the deficit. In other words, Romney can pick two, and only two, of his tax goals -- what Matt Yglesias of Slate calls the "Romney Trilemma".

That sound you hear is the three-legged stool falling down.

All this hasn't stopped a fight against the tyranny of arithmetic. The defenses of the Romney tax  plan generally fall into three broad categories. The first assumes the plan will set off magic growth of the monster variety; the second assumes Romney defines "middle-class" differently than he does; and the third assumes Romney would eliminate tax expenditures he has indicated he would not eliminate.

QuoteThere are only meaningful "alternatives" to discuss with Congress if Romney can pick and choose from a pool of tax preferences for the wealthy that far exceeds the $250 billion annual cost of his rate cuts for them. If the pool of available base broadeners is just large enough to finance his tax cuts, then Romney actually is dictating a plan to Congress: if they don't eliminate exactly the set of preferences he proposes, his plan will either have to raise taxes on the middle class or grow the deficit.

TPC finds that Romney's rate cuts, plus elimination of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum Tax, would cost the Treasury about $250 billion in revenue from high earners. If he could somehow find, say, $300 billion in base broadeners from the wealthy, $15 billion of which would have to go to a phaseout, that wouldn't leave a lot of "alternatives" on the table. Yet there aren't enough base broadeners for Romney to reach the $300 billion level, let alone exceed it.

The guy who wrote the study for the TPC (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/harvey-rosen-obama-campaign_n_1948615.html) says otherwise.

Sorry for the HuffPo link.

Rosen didn't write the TPC study. Read the Atlantic link - Rosen wrote the 1st of the 6 papers Ryan cited last night.

I misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:
Quotethe recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings (http://[http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class) don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

QuoteSadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:55:35 PMI misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:
Quotethe recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings (http://[http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class) don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

QuoteSadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:29:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:55:35 PMI misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:
Quotethe recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings (http://[http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class) don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

QuoteSadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 12, 2012, 02:33:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:29:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:55:35 PMI misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:
Quotethe recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings (http://[http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class) don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

QuoteSadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

Whoa.  Who put the muscle in your afternoon frappuccino?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:39:05 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 12, 2012, 02:33:05 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:29:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:55:35 PMI misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:
Quotethe recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings (http://[http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class) don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

QuoteSadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

Whoa.  Who put the muscle in your afternoon frappuccino?

Don't act like you don't get all hot and bothered when we talk about tax expenditures.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 12, 2012, 03:08:48 PM
So Romney has lamely stolen the "clear eyes" phrase from Friday Night Lights and is using it on the campaign trail, his Facebook page, etc.

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/181ydawtix4ipjpg/original.jpg)

Similar to Tom Morello telling Paul Ryan he sucks and obviously doesn't understand Rage Against the Machine, the creator of Friday Night Lights is now telling Mitt (http://gawker.com/5951337/creator-of-friday-night-lights-sends-mitt-romney-cease-and-desist-letter-over-appropriation-of-shows-iconic-rallying-cry?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow) to cease and desist.

QuoteIn a letter sent to the Romney campaign [pdf], Berg says Romney's incorporation of Coach Taylor's immortal words into his rhetoric "falsely and inappropriately associates Friday Night Lights with the Romney/Ryan campaign."

He continues:

Your politics and campaign are clearly not aligned with the themes we portrayed in our series. The only relevant comparison that I see between your campaign and Friday Night Lights is in the character of Buddy Garrity - who turned his back on American car manufacturers selling imported cars from Japan.

Oh. Snap.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:29:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:55:35 PMI misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:
Quotethe recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings (http://[http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class) don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

QuoteSadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

Look... the TPC study makes all sorts of guesses and assumptions that take them to their conclusion that "shit don't add up."  That $86B gap you mention, in fact, is based on their guesses; others have estimated the gap to be much lower.  Thus, using it as some sort of arguing point is pretty tenuous ground to stand on.

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 12, 2012, 03:40:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

Honest question, and my apologies if it comes off as dickish (I don't intend it to): Does anything in politics motivate or interest you besides the economy?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:49:21 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 12, 2012, 03:40:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

Honest question, and my apologies if it comes off as dickish (I don't intend it to): Does anything in politics motivate or interest you besides the economy?

It's the area that I am most comfortable with, to be sure.  That's probably related to my career and educational background, of course.

In the current environment I think it's probably *the* most important issue, because a weak economy makes it difficult if not impossible to address other issues, and the economy is where I think the Federal government is doing the most damage right now.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 12, 2012, 04:07:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 12, 2012, 03:40:35 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

Honest question, and my apologies if it comes off as dickish (I don't intend it to): Does anything in politics motivate or interest you besides the economy?

Well, the economy and the unstoppable homo virus the godless Commies are infecting our beautiful white babies with.

But the latter mostly goes without saying.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 12, 2012, 04:23:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:29:50 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 01:55:35 PMI misspoke about Rosen's role in this... but Rosen is right, of course.

To quote from Rosen's paper:
Quotethe recent debate has been more occupied with the arcana of tax preferences and how they are allocated across income classes than with the impact of economic growth. To be sure, the extent to which a program of tax reform (and regulatory reform) would actually increase growth is controversial. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored; rather, it should be debated. Economic growth should take center stage in the ongoing national conversation over tax policy.

The Atlantic also quotes from Alex Brill - in a year-old analysis of an outdated version of the plan.  Brilll's more recent writings (http://[http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/the-romney-tax-plan-not-a-tax-hike-on-the-middle-class) don't seem very sympathetic to the TPC version of the world.

I especially like this quote, because it is a great example of what's happening in this thread and in places like the Atlantic.

QuoteSadly, no true debate over the merits or means of tax reform is happening. Democrats have refused to engage in a discussion of ideas and have instead pursued a negative strategy, spending millions saying that Romney's objectives are impossible to achieve and meanwhile offering no alternative.

Bottom line: The shit adds up better than the $1.5T deficits as far as the eye can see under the current regime.

So you think it's plausible these tax cuts would generate enough growth to make up the $86 billion a year gap mentioned in the Bloomberg piece? You think we're on that same right side of the Laffer curve we were on before the Kennedy tax cut? I'm all for debating the growth effects of difference tax cuts but the growth claims need to at least pass the smell test.

I'm not opposed at all to base broadening and reducing tax expenditures. But to claim that you can cut rates 20% across the board AND leave middle/lower class tax expenditures untouched WITHOUT adding to the deficit is not a bold plan. It's a pipe dream.

DPD. Another note about the TPC analysis - they DID include growth assumptions in their paper. Growth assumptions based on work by...current Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. Even with those optimistic assumptions, that shit still doesn't add up. Do I agree with Obama's tax proposals? No. But that's not a good reason to just brush away questions about Romney's math.

Look... the TPC study makes all sorts of guesses and assumptions that take them to their conclusion that "shit don't add up."  That $86B gap you mention, in fact, is based on their guesses; others have estimated the gap to be much lower.  Thus, using it as some sort of arguing point is pretty tenuous ground to stand on.

Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 12, 2012, 04:40:19 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

"Consumption tax".  Is that the same as a sales tax?  If not, how does it differ?  If it is the same or similar, is that an answer for what you call a "highly progressive" tax code?  My office is about a block from a marina, where a yacht sale is going on.  Rounding up a little, the sales tax around here is about 9%.  That means more real dollars go to taxes than for the sale of a can of tennis balls.  Does a "consumption tax" take into account that the item being purchased is a yacht, and not a can of tennis balls?  Is there a way of making rich people (however the government decides how to define who is rich) pay more to buy a can of  tennis balls, since both rich people and not so rich people buy tennis balls?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 12, 2012, 06:37:45 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 12, 2012, 03:08:48 PM
So Romney has lamely stolen the "clear eyes" phrase from Friday Night Lights and is using it on the campaign trail, his Facebook page, etc.

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/181ydawtix4ipjpg/original.jpg)

That apostrophe by itself is damning cause for termination. Aside from its general hideousness, compare it with the other punctuation. I've also got a pound of potatoes that says those lc ells aren't supposed to be riding on the baseline.

Amateurs. The "kerning" also utterly blows for titling copy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 12, 2012, 06:41:39 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2012, 04:40:19 PM
since both rich people and not so rich people buy tennis balls?

Oh, dear.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 04:23:04 PM

Quotea bunch of arguing and arcana

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

What if it doesn't add anything to the deficit?  You seem to have left that possibility out.  And I must take exception with your "lowest in 60 years" "data point" because it's not true, at least not according to the OMB.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that under current law that is projected to go to 24%, which is insanity.

Of course, you're looking at only the tax side instead of the whole package.  Deficits have two sides to them.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 08:39:21 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2012, 04:40:19 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

"Consumption tax".  Is that the same as a sales tax?  If not, how does it differ?  If it is the same or similar, is that an answer for what you call a "highly progressive" tax code?  My office is about a block from a marina, where a yacht sale is going on.  Rounding up a little, the sales tax around here is about 9%.  That means more real dollars go to taxes than for the sale of a can of tennis balls.  Does a "consumption tax" take into account that the item being purchased is a yacht, and not a can of tennis balls?  Is there a way of making rich people (however the government decides how to define who is rich) pay more to buy a can of  tennis balls, since both rich people and not so rich people buy tennis balls?

Yes it's a sales tax. I think "highly progressive" is this:
(http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/tqpit_725_small.png)

The U.S. has the most progressive tax system of any developed country. (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-country-leans-upper-income-households-much-us) That's not just my opinion.

Anyway, there's a ton of information about consumption taxes out there. Start with http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate perhaps.  Or maybe http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/06/04/a-progressive-consumption-tax/ . It can be done.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 12, 2012, 09:36:15 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 08:39:21 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 12, 2012, 04:40:19 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
Do I think the Romney/Ryan plan is perfect?  No - some sort of consumption tax replacing the income tax would be far, far more economically efficient - but I think it's workable politically, unlike a consumption tax replacement.  And, I think the net effect to the economy as a whole would be far, far better than raising tax rates on those who make above $[whatever the Obama Administration says is 'rich'], given the already highly progressive and inefficient nature of our tax code.

"Consumption tax".  Is that the same as a sales tax?  If not, how does it differ?  If it is the same or similar, is that an answer for what you call a "highly progressive" tax code?  My office is about a block from a marina, where a yacht sale is going on.  Rounding up a little, the sales tax around here is about 9%.  That means more real dollars go to taxes than for the sale of a can of tennis balls.  Does a "consumption tax" take into account that the item being purchased is a yacht, and not a can of tennis balls?  Is there a way of making rich people (however the government decides how to define who is rich) pay more to buy a can of  tennis balls, since both rich people and not so rich people buy tennis balls?

I think "highly progressive" is this:

"Highly progressive tax code" and "Highly progressive income tax code" are two entirely different things.  How progressive is it once ALL federal taxes are included?  Payroll, gasoline, etc.  I don't know, but I'd wager far less than by just the income tax (which is highly progressive).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 13, 2012, 01:10:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 08:39:21 PM
Yes it's a sales tax. I think "highly progressive" is this:
(http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/tqpit_725_small.png)

Except that graphic on its own doesn't really speak to progressivity as such.

It's depicting total taxes paid rather than rates, and it offers no context in terms of relative share of income and/or wealth for each group.

(It's also not clear which taxes it refers to.)

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 12, 2012, 09:36:15 PM
"Highly progressive tax code" and "Highly progressive income tax code" are two entirely different things.  How progressive is it once ALL federal taxes are included?  Payroll, gasoline, etc.  I don't know, but I'd wager far less than by just the income tax (which is highly progressive).

The info at Morph's link does include payroll taxes.

But, yeah, federal payroll and excise taxes are indeed regressive:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

(http://i.imgur.com/6zawI.png)

More regressive still are state and local taxes.

Individual states range from extremely regressive (Illinois is in the top ten in regressivity) to a handful that are nearly flat. But no states have entirely progressive tax systems.

And the nationwide average is regressive, primarily due to the extreme regressivity of sales taxes:

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/s6oO9.png)

Putting these other taxes together with our highly progressive federal income tax, we find an overall system that is moderately progressive, more so at the bottom and flattening out as it reaches the top ten percent, and actually making a slight turn towards the regressive at the top one percent:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/QwyUP.png)

I couldn't say how this compares directly to the effective overall tax burdens in other OECD nations. All comparisons I can find limit themselves, like Morph's link above, to federal income and payroll taxes. (I could imagine apples-to-apples comparisons on this count getting tricky.)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 15, 2012, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 04:23:04 PM

Quotea bunch of arguing and arcana

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

What if it doesn't add anything to the deficit?  You seem to have left that possibility out.  And I must take exception with your "lowest in 60 years" "data point" because it's not true, at least not according to the OMB.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that under current law that is projected to go to 24%, which is insanity.

Of course, you're looking at only the tax side instead of the whole package.  Deficits have two sides to them.

The upslope at the end of your graph consists of projections, not actual data. The most recent 3 years of actuals (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205) that I was referring to are:

2009       15.1% of GDP
2010       15.1%
2011       15.4%

The later year projections are to some extent based on guesses and estimates. Based on your earlier comments I didn't think these were relevant because everyone has their own sets of guesses and estimates so what can you do?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 15, 2012, 09:37:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2012, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 04:23:04 PM

Quotea bunch of arguing and arcana

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

What if it doesn't add anything to the deficit?  You seem to have left that possibility out.  And I must take exception with your "lowest in 60 years" "data point" because it's not true, at least not according to the OMB.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that under current law that is projected to go to 24%, which is insanity.

Of course, you're looking at only the tax side instead of the whole package.  Deficits have two sides to them.

The upslope at the end of your graph consists of projections, not actual data. The most recent 3 years of actuals (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205) that I was referring to are:

2009       15.1% of GDP
2010       15.1%
2011       15.4%

The later year projections are to some extent based on guesses and estimates. Based on your earlier comments I didn't think these were relevant because everyone has their own sets of guesses and estimates so what can you do?

You're right, they probably are a bit on the low side.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 15, 2012, 09:55:43 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 15, 2012, 09:37:12 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 15, 2012, 09:30:45 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 12, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 12, 2012, 04:23:04 PM

Quotea bunch of arguing and arcana

Here's my problem. You have an issue with "$1.5 T deficits as far as the eye can see." Romney's got a tax plan  that, depending on which analysis you look at (the one from the bipartisan TPC, or one plucked from the WSJ editorial page), will either add a whole shit ton to the deficit, or maybe just a bit to the deficit. But either way, on it's own as a policy, it's not going to do anything to decrease the deficit. Which tells me that tax cuts take priority over deficit reduction at a time when federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they've been in about 60 years. Which does not compute.

What if it doesn't add anything to the deficit?  You seem to have left that possibility out.  And I must take exception with your "lowest in 60 years" "data point" because it's not true, at least not according to the OMB.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg)

I'm pretty sure that under current law that is projected to go to 24%, which is insanity.

Of course, you're looking at only the tax side instead of the whole package.  Deficits have two sides to them.

The upslope at the end of your graph consists of projections, not actual data. The most recent 3 years of actuals (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205) that I was referring to are:

2009       15.1% of GDP
2010       15.1%
2011       15.4%

The later year projections are to some extent based on guesses and estimates. Based on your earlier comments I didn't think these were relevant because everyone has their own sets of guesses and estimates so what can you do?

You're right, they probably are a bit on the low side.

Heh. Well played.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2012, 10:19:31 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

Quote(http://i.imgur.com/6nl1r.jpg)

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week "ramrodded their way" into the group's Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.

"We're a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations," Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. "It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors."

He added: "The photo-op they did wasn't even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall."

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.

I have no doubt that this is, in essence, just like shit that plenty of other political campaigns do all the time. But it's rare that it's so fucking boldly, cartoonishly, hilariously transparent.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on October 16, 2012, 08:28:51 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2012, 10:19:31 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

Quote(http://i.imgur.com/6nl1r.jpg)

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week "ramrodded their way" into the group's Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.

"We're a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations," Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. "It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors."

He added: "The photo-op they did wasn't even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall."

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.

I have no doubt that this is, in essence, just like shit that plenty of other political campaigns do all the time. But it's rare that it's so fucking boldly, cartoonishly, hilariously transparent.

Why aren't you talking about the economy? You are so out of touch.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 16, 2012, 08:50:17 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2012, 10:19:31 PM

I have no doubt that this is, in essence, just like shit that plenty of other political campaigns do all the time. But it's rare that it's so fucking boldly, cartoonishly, hilariously transparent.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbrc2v61Ph1qablpd.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 09:25:38 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 15, 2012, 10:19:31 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

Quote(http://i.imgur.com/6nl1r.jpg)

The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week "ramrodded their way" into the group's Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall.

Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University.

"We're a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations," Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. "It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors."

He added: "The photo-op they did wasn't even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall."

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.

I have no doubt that this is, in essence, just like shit that plenty of other political campaigns do all the time. But it's rare that it's so fucking boldly, cartoonishly, hilariously transparent.

It's not rare at all. Or were you green-fonting?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 09:30:24 AM
(http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-clinton-yankees-resume-lie-e1274669617141.jpg)

(http://press.take88.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Bush_codpiece_debbc.jpg)

I mean... when has this shit NOT happened?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 09:31:02 AM
Video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2WVJNxOpvY)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 16, 2012, 10:15:36 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 09:31:02 AM
Video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2WVJNxOpvY)

My favourite comment on that video:

"Fap difficulty level: 8/10"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 16, 2012, 10:21:29 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 09:30:24 AM
(http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-clinton-yankees-resume-lie-e1274669617141.jpg)

(http://press.take88.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Bush_codpiece_debbc.jpg)

I mean... when has this shit NOT happened?

Never.

(http://matthewashton.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/dukakis.jpg)

(http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2011/03/10/kerrybeer09.jpg)

(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/121005_obama_chicken_rtrs_605.jpg) (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/10/proprietor-jabs-at-obama-about-lost-business-137660.html)

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 16, 2012, 11:01:12 AM
(http://willrabbe.com/storage/George%20Bush%20Barcode%20Scanner%2092.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1302271590755) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qKZQpJKePd4)

And of course, another inconvenient truth right here (http://lubbockonline.com/stories/072499/nat_0724990090.shtml).

No, never happens. Never, never ever, never.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on October 16, 2012, 12:10:20 PM
It does appear, however, that Ryan's campaign didn't even get permission from the soup kitchen to hold the photo op, which is kind of wierd (I'm pretty sure Dukkais didn't break into and hot wire that tank).  Hard to beleive that the Romney/Ryan staffers couldn't find a cooperative soup kitchen in the entire state of Ohio for a photo op.  Heck, even GEORGE HUTCHINS found one (although it seems to have been erased from the Googles).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 12:17:44 PM
Quote from: thehawk on October 16, 2012, 12:10:20 PM
It does appear, however, that Ryan's campaign didn't even get permission from the soup kitchen to hold the photo op, which is kind of wierd (I'm pretty sure Dukkais didn't break into and hot wire that tank).  Hard to beleive that the Romney/Ryan staffers couldn't find a cooperative soup kitchen in the entire state of Ohio for a photo op.  Heck, even GEORGE HUTCHINS found one (although it seems to have been erased from the Googles).

Those 47%ers should be grateful that Ryan would even bother to consider cleaning dishes twice in their lousy soup kitchen.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 16, 2012, 12:40:27 PM
Quote from: thehawk on October 16, 2012, 12:10:20 PM
It does appear, however, that Ryan's campaign didn't even get permission from the soup kitchen to hold the photo op, which is kind of wierd (I'm pretty sure Dukkais didn't break into and hot wire that tank).  Hard to beleive that the Romney/Ryan staffers couldn't find a cooperative soup kitchen in the entire state of Ohio for a photo op.  Heck, even GEORGE HUTCHINS found one (although it seems to have been erased from the Googles).

They did get permission, they just didn't get it from the head of the charity who is butthurt about it, because he's INDEPENDENT GODDAMMIT!

QuoteAccording to a Romney aide not authorized to speak publicly about the event, the campaign followed its usual protocol for impromptu, on-the-road stops by candidates: A staffer was dispatched to the St. Vincent De Paul Society ahead of Ryan's visit Saturday morning and spoke with a woman in charge on site, who said that it would be fine for the congressman to stop by. The campaign did not contact Antal ahead of the visit.

Antal, as you know, is an INDEPENDENT voter, goddammit! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/brian-antal-paul-ryan-critic-has-voted-in-democratic-primaries/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 16, 2012, 01:32:16 PM
It's always fun to see Politico get kicked in the sack.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/oh-no-we-cant-let-romney-win-hell-let-lobbyists-in-the-white-house/article/2510879?custom_click=rss#.UH2mq2-gaqi
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
How are any of these examples as shamelessly and transparently cynical as walking into the kitchen of a closed soup kitchen, pulling clean pans out of the cabinets, scrubbing them for a few minutes for some cameras and then hopping back on the campaign bus?

I'm not saying no one else has engaged in equally dumb staged photo ops. I'm just saying most at least strive for some sort of patina of naturalness. That's what I found funny.

This one seems like they just said, "fuck it," and just went ahead and boiled the cynical photo op down to it's purest essence.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 16, 2012, 01:44:39 PM

mmm...that's some tasty stickpoke (http://www.romneytaxplan.com/).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
How are any of these examples as shamelessly and transparently cynical as walking into the kitchen of a closed soup kitchen, pulling clean pans out of the cabinets, scrubbing them for a few minutes for some cameras and then hopping back on the campaign bus?

I'm not saying no one else has engaged in equally dumb staged photo ops. I'm just saying most at least strive for some sort of patina of naturalness. That's what I found funny.

This one seems like they just said, "fuck it," and just went ahead and boiled the cynical photo op down to it's purest essence.

I don't know. It seems absolutely routine to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 16, 2012, 02:34:24 PM

I can't believe you guys forgot this:

(http://i47.tinypic.com/wcidqb.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
How are any of these examples as shamelessly and transparently cynical as walking into the kitchen of a closed soup kitchen, pulling clean pans out of the cabinets, scrubbing them for a few minutes for some cameras and then hopping back on the campaign bus?

I'm not saying no one else has engaged in equally dumb staged photo ops. I'm just saying most at least strive for some sort of patina of naturalness. That's what I found funny.

This one seems like they just said, "fuck it," and just went ahead and boiled the cynical photo op down to it's purest essence.

I don't know. It seems absolutely routine to me.

Like jury duty?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 16, 2012, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 16, 2012, 01:44:39 PM

mmm...that's some tasty stickpoke (http://www.romneytaxplan.com/).

That's outstanding.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 16, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
How are any of these examples as shamelessly and transparently cynical as walking into the kitchen of a closed soup kitchen, pulling clean pans out of the cabinets, scrubbing them for a few minutes for some cameras and then hopping back on the campaign bus?

I'm not saying no one else has engaged in equally dumb staged photo ops. I'm just saying most at least strive for some sort of patina of naturalness. That's what I found funny.

This one seems like they just said, "fuck it," and just went ahead and boiled the cynical photo op down to it's purest essence.

I don't know. It seems absolutely routine to me.

Like jury duty?

NOTHING ROUTINE ABOUT  BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE ZONE WHEN BUSINESS IS BOOMING AND THE CHEDDAR'S BEING STACKED SKY-HIGH, MAN.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 04:38:57 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 16, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
How are any of these examples as shamelessly and transparently cynical as walking into the kitchen of a closed soup kitchen, pulling clean pans out of the cabinets, scrubbing them for a few minutes for some cameras and then hopping back on the campaign bus?

I'm not saying no one else has engaged in equally dumb staged photo ops. I'm just saying most at least strive for some sort of patina of naturalness. That's what I found funny.

This one seems like they just said, "fuck it," and just went ahead and boiled the cynical photo op down to it's purest essence.

I don't know. It seems absolutely routine to me.

Like jury duty?

NOTHING ROUTINE ABOUT  BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE ZONE WHEN BUSINESS IS BOOMING AND THE CHEDDAR'S BEING STACKED SKY-HIGH, MAN.

There are homeless people all over this city that need a place to park. Why fuck with my mojo, man?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 04:38:57 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 16, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
How are any of these examples as shamelessly and transparently cynical as walking into the kitchen of a closed soup kitchen, pulling clean pans out of the cabinets, scrubbing them for a few minutes for some cameras and then hopping back on the campaign bus?

I'm not saying no one else has engaged in equally dumb staged photo ops. I'm just saying most at least strive for some sort of patina of naturalness. That's what I found funny.

This one seems like they just said, "fuck it," and just went ahead and boiled the cynical photo op down to it's purest essence.

I don't know. It seems absolutely routine to me.

Like jury duty?

NOTHING ROUTINE ABOUT  BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE ZONE WHEN BUSINESS IS BOOMING AND THE CHEDDAR'S BEING STACKED SKY-HIGH, MAN.

There are homeless people all over this city that need a place to park. Why fuck with my mojo, man?

And yet they never receive summonses.

Talk about your classic catch-22.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 05:08:23 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 04:38:57 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 16, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 03:10:17 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 16, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 16, 2012, 01:32:40 PM
How are any of these examples as shamelessly and transparently cynical as walking into the kitchen of a closed soup kitchen, pulling clean pans out of the cabinets, scrubbing them for a few minutes for some cameras and then hopping back on the campaign bus?

I'm not saying no one else has engaged in equally dumb staged photo ops. I'm just saying most at least strive for some sort of patina of naturalness. That's what I found funny.

This one seems like they just said, "fuck it," and just went ahead and boiled the cynical photo op down to it's purest essence.

I don't know. It seems absolutely routine to me.

Like jury duty?

NOTHING ROUTINE ABOUT  BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE ZONE WHEN BUSINESS IS BOOMING AND THE CHEDDAR'S BEING STACKED SKY-HIGH, MAN.

There are homeless people all over this city that need a place to park. Why fuck with my mojo, man?

And yet they never receive summonses.

Talk about your classic catch-22.

They don't have fax machines so how can they know when to report?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 16, 2012, 09:59:01 PM
Even Milt has conceded that Romney appeared to resemble little more than a puddle of goo in this one. Lipson, on the other hand, has taken him to task for "failing to nail a wooden stake through the heart of" Obama, lest anyone wonder whether he's returning to his swampjack roots. (And, really, "if women are going to be in the workforce"?)

[Edit.--In a moment of hilarity, "the road to Greece" is now taken as Romney's strongest effort. Of course, Greece does not have a fiat currency. This is a dogwhistle for Zimbabwe, but one can't say that to a mulatto in polite company, even though Rhodes just totally got a raw deal. They're now complaining that the chairs were unfair.]

[Edit 2.--I would also like to lay claim to the phrase "it's gonna be a manslide" despite other obscure efforts (http://manslide.com/).]

[Edit 3.--Douses eggs with HP Sauce because ketchup is too expensive.]

[Edit 4.--Lipson thinks some intervention of the moderator, "even though she was correct," was an inappropriate invitation to applause. As opposed to, say, casually mentioning one's open marriage to lone women on the street, I suppose.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 11:20:12 PM
Those socialists over at National Review, calling it a win for Obama, what are they thinking?!?!?  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330682/sorry-folks-it-was-obamas-night-michael-graham

Memo to Mitt, when the audience cheers you getting smacked down, that's a bad sign.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 16, 2012, 11:28:19 PM
Lipson just tried to use "doxology" with a straight face.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 16, 2012, 11:33:50 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 11:20:12 PM
Those socialists over at National Review, calling it a win for Obama, what are they thinking?!?!?

The whole fucking thing was nearly as pathetic as the first one. There is simply no thinking going on that could lead to genuinely extemporaneous responses.

[Edit.--Although somebody does see fit to utter the words "Sarin gas on the CTA" on WGN in consequence. Thanks, Mr. O-Chem.]

[Edit 2.--I think that was Robling. Now he's exercised about voter fraud from Chicagoland nursing homes skewing the presidential election.]

[Edit 3.--"It might be naturally asked, why he should meddle with the affairs of Malta (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1839/apr/30/liberty-of-the-press-in-malta)"?]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 17, 2012, 07:59:33 AM
Paraphrase for the purposes of the internet:

Mitt: We all know the government can't create jobs.
[several minutes later]
Mitt: Why hasn't President Obama created more jobs?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 17, 2012, 08:59:54 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 11:20:12 PM
Those socialists over at National Review, calling it a win for Obama, what are they thinking?!?!?  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330682/sorry-folks-it-was-obamas-night-michael-graham

Memo to Mitt, when the audience THE FIRST LADY (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html) cheers you getting smacked down, that's a bad sign.

Whatever'd.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 17, 2012, 09:10:42 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 17, 2012, 08:59:54 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 11:20:12 PM
Those socialists over at National Review, calling it a win for Obama, what are they thinking?!?!?  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330682/sorry-folks-it-was-obamas-night-michael-graham

Memo to Mitt, when the audience THE FIRST LADY (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html) cheers you getting smacked down, that's a bad sign.

Whatever'd.

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 17, 2012, 09:12:39 AM
Quote from: CT III on October 17, 2012, 09:10:42 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 17, 2012, 08:59:54 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 16, 2012, 11:20:12 PM
Those socialists over at National Review, calling it a win for Obama, what are they thinking?!?!?  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330682/sorry-folks-it-was-obamas-night-michael-graham

Memo to Mitt, when the audience THE FIRST LADY (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html) cheers you getting smacked down, that's a bad sign.

Whatever'd.

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)

I admit it, I LOL whenever I see that pic, even when it's directed at me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 17, 2012, 10:00:38 AM
Tonk for Prez.

Anyone who can get me more Westvleteren XII gets my vote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 17, 2012, 10:50:19 AM


http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/ (http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 17, 2012, 10:50:19 AM
http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/ (http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/)

No.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 17, 2012, 11:23:23 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 17, 2012, 10:50:19 AM
http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/ (http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/)

No.

Absolutely not.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 17, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 17, 2012, 11:23:23 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 17, 2012, 10:50:19 AM
http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/ (http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/)

No.

Absolutely not.

No, Chork.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:40:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 17, 2012, 10:00:38 AM
Tonk for Prez.

Anyone who can get me more Westvleteren XII gets my vote.

I'd like to point out at this juncture that I never promised the electorate more Westvleteren.  Nonetheless, I think my record on Westvleteren speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

WHO WANTS TO BUY MY VOTE?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 17, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Yeti on October 17, 2012, 01:07:32 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

Yea, you're right about Sheehan. She was that crazy camping out in Crawford, TX, which by the right's handwringing about Obama's vacationing, I can only assume Bush was never there.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 17, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.

I blame the kids on his lawn with their TVs and their hair.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 01:31:38 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 17, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.

I blame the kids on his lawn with their TVs and their hair.

I thought that the "PenFoe is old" meme died when I moved, no?

Maybe when CT goes to London?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 17, 2012, 01:32:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 17, 2012, 11:37:19 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 17, 2012, 11:23:23 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: Fork on October 17, 2012, 10:50:19 AM
http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/ (http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/)

No.

Absolutely not.

No, Chork.

Fucking Nazis.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 01:31:38 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 17, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.

I blame the kids on his lawn with their TVs and their hair.

I thought that the "PenFoe is old" meme died when I moved, no?

Maybe when CT goes to London?

You moved?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 17, 2012, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 01:31:38 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 17, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.

I blame the kids on his lawn with their TVs and their hair.

I thought that the "PenFoe is old" meme died when I moved, no?

Maybe when CT goes to London?

You moved?

Jeez, Pen, the least you could have done was make at least one passing reference to this on Facebook.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 03:22:51 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 17, 2012, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 01:31:38 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 17, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.

I blame the kids on his lawn with their TVs and their hair.

I thought that the "PenFoe is old" meme died when I moved, no?

Maybe when CT goes to London?

You moved?

Jeez, Pen, the least you could have done was make at least one passing reference to this on Facebook.

The joke that keeps on giving, amirite?

(http://content8.flixster.com/question/56/51/66/5651666_std.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 17, 2012, 03:30:42 PM
(http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/josh.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on October 17, 2012, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 17, 2012, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 01:31:38 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 17, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.

I blame the kids on his lawn with their TVs and their hair.

I thought that the "PenFoe is old" meme died when I moved, no?

Maybe when CT goes to London?

You moved?

Jeez, Pen, the least you could have done was make at least one passing reference to this on Facebook.

DEFRIEND!~!~!~~
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 05:20:08 PM
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on October 17, 2012, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 17, 2012, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 01:31:38 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 17, 2012, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 17, 2012, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:44:06 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 17, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 17, 2012, 11:44:12 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 17, 2012, 11:41:53 AM
DPD.  Actually, in all seriousness, I think somebody who could get their hands on a sufficiently large quantity of Westvleteren XII probably could get themselves elected President.

As an undecided voter in one of the more important swing states, I would totally vote for this person.

Liar!

Also, I got my mail-in ballot yesterday and while I don't have a photo of it, one of my choices for President was Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan (who sounds vaguely familiar as an anti-war protestor, something about losing her son if I'm thinking of the right person)

Is this for real? 

I don't remember what party.

I'm sure I could look it up in 1/10 of the time it took me to post this, but I prefer the illusion that it's some kind joke just for me.

DPD for WTF, AMERICA??

(http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A4ujqlQCcAAsYYT.jpg-large1-640x360.jpeg)

I bet Old Man PenFoe punches the wrong button and triggers a recount.

I blame the kids on his lawn with their TVs and their hair.

I thought that the "PenFoe is old" meme died when I moved, no?

Maybe when CT goes to London?

You moved?

Jeez, Pen, the least you could have done was make at least one passing reference to this on Facebook.

DEFRIEND!~!~!~~

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2012, 10:27:35 AM
This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/822732/thumbs/r-OBAMA-DAILY-SHOW-large570.jpg?6)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 19, 2012, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2012, 10:27:35 AM
This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/822732/thumbs/r-OBAMA-DAILY-SHOW-large570.jpg?6)

Are we sure that's not already Future BC, back from the future?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 19, 2012, 07:04:20 PM
Caveats:

a) It's the liberal paper in the relatively liberal capital of one of the most conservative states in the country, and the competitor to the LDS-owned Deseret News.

b) They endorsed Obama in 2008. Then again, before that they'd endorsed Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

Still...

The Salt Lake Tribune: (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/endorsement-romney-obama-president.html.csp)

QuoteObama has earned another term
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 19, 2012, 10:01:23 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 19, 2012, 07:04:20 PM
Caveats:

a) It's the liberal paper in the relatively liberal capital of one of the most conservative states in the country, and the competitor to the LDS-owned Deseret News.

b) They endorsed Obama in 2008. Then again, before that they'd endorsed Bush in both 2000 and 2004.

Still...

The Salt Lake Tribune: (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/55019844-82/endorsement-romney-obama-president.html.csp)

QuoteObama has earned another term

Keep in mind that Utah is Ground Zero of Big Suppla and PPACA represents a potential bull's-eye.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 22, 2012, 10:07:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 19, 2012, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2012, 10:27:35 AM
This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/822732/thumbs/r-OBAMA-DAILY-SHOW-large570.jpg?6)

Are we sure that's not already Future BC, back from the future?

(http://i.imgur.com/ZirhL.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 22, 2012, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 22, 2012, 10:07:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 19, 2012, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2012, 10:27:35 AM
This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/822732/thumbs/r-OBAMA-DAILY-SHOW-large570.jpg?6)

Are we sure that's not already Future BC, back from the future?

(http://i.imgur.com/ZirhL.jpg)

I suggest the heuristic of counting the light bulbs in scaling. And putting the arm where it belongs. For crying out loud, why isn't there a wireframe model at this point?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 22, 2012, 06:59:24 PM
The Congressional Research Service...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

QuoteAdvocates of lower tax rates argue that reduced rates would increase economic growth, increase saving and investment, and boost productivity (increase the economic pie). Proponents of higher tax rates argue that higher tax revenues are necessary for debt reduction, that tax rates on the rich are too low (i.e., they violate the Buffett rule), and that higher tax rates on the rich would moderate increasing income inequality (change how the economic pie is distributed). This report attempts to clarify whether or not there is an association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and economic growth. Data is analyzed to illustrate the association between the tax rates of the highest income taxpayers and measures of economic growth. For an overview of the broader issues of these relationships see CRS Report R42111, Tax Rates and Economic Growth, by Jane G. Gravelle and Donald J. Marples.

Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. There is not conclusive evidence, however, to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. The evidence does not suggest necessarily a relationship between tax policy with regard to the top tax rates and the size of the economic pie, but there may be a relationship to how the economic pie is sliced.

...

The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.

The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 22, 2012, 07:29:53 PM
As a side note, I found this interesting...

QuoteTax policy affects after-tax income. Since the U.S. individual income tax is a progressive tax system, after-tax incomes tend to be more equally distributed than before-tax income.38 Changes in tax policy would change the distribution of after-tax income. Research has demonstrated that tax policy has a less equalizing effect now than it did in the mid-1990s and in 1979.39

The results suggest that pre-tax incomes tend to be more equally distributed and labor's share of income larger when the top tax rates are higher. Two related explanations have been offered that are consistent with these results. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue that some public policies benefit the few high-income families rather than middle- and low-income families.40 In a related explanation, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Stefanie Stantcheva argue that high top tax rates were part of the institutional structure that restrained top income by reducing gains from bargaining or rent extraction by CEOs and managers.41 For example, a CEO has less incentive to bargain hard over additional compensation when he keeps 9 cents of every additional dollar (a 91% top tax rate) than when he keeps 65 cents of every additional dollar (a 35% top tax rate). A recent study by Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley Heim provides additional support for this mechanism—60% of taxpayers in the top 0.1% are in occupations that provide some bargaining power over compensation (executives, managers, supervisors, and financial professions).42



38 CBO, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, October 2011.
39 CBO, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, October 2011; and CRS Report R42131, Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy, by Thomas L. Hungerford.
40 Hacker and Pierson argue that "public officials have rewritten the rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have benefited the few at the expense of the many." Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010).
41 Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Stefanie Stantcheva, Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 17616, November 2011.
42 Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley T. Heim, Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence from U.S. Tax Return Data, Williams College, working paper, November 2010.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 22, 2012, 09:41:16 PM
Well, that was a shitacular.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 08:41:45 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 22, 2012, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: morpheus on October 22, 2012, 10:07:26 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 19, 2012, 10:30:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 19, 2012, 10:27:35 AM
This has to be tailor-made for Morph to work his BC magic, no?

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/822732/thumbs/r-OBAMA-DAILY-SHOW-large570.jpg?6)

Are we sure that's not already Future BC, back from the future?

(http://i.imgur.com/ZirhL.jpg)

I suggest the heuristic of counting the light bulbs in scaling. And putting the arm where it belongs. For crying out loud, why isn't there a wireframe model at this point?


He's standing in front of the lights.  And, he's much bigger (wider) than the guy in the original.  If you're going to criticize, at least make it legitimate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 23, 2012, 08:46:53 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 08:41:45 AM
If you're going to criticize, at least make it legitimate.

Thus, this entire thread, nay, our country's entire political problem, is wrapped up.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 08:47:59 AM
When I start putting in extra limbs or googly eyes, come talk to me.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 23, 2012, 10:39:30 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 08:47:59 AM
When I start putting in extra limbs or googly eyes, come talk to me.

(http://i46.tinypic.com/9amf6c.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/22/map3.o.png/a_560x375.png)

Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/22/map3.o.png/a_560x375.png)

Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

(http://i.imgur.com/tD8XP.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/22/map3.o.png/a_560x375.png)

Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

(http://i.imgur.com/tD8XP.jpg)

I didn't miss that either.

(http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Learn/DigitalCable/~/Media/ImageLibrary/Explore/ProductPages/DC/DVR_DL_Square.ashx)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 23, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/22/map3.o.png/a_560x375.png)

Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

(http://i.imgur.com/tD8XP.jpg)

I didn't miss that either.

(http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Learn/DigitalCable/~/Media/ImageLibrary/Explore/ProductPages/DC/DVR_DL_Square.ashx)

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: SKO on October 23, 2012, 11:51:04 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 23, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/22/map3.o.png/a_560x375.png)

Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

(http://i.imgur.com/tD8XP.jpg)

I didn't miss that either.

(http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Learn/DigitalCable/~/Media/ImageLibrary/Explore/ProductPages/DC/DVR_DL_Square.ashx)

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

Based on twitter, Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live, because he is the worst person in the world.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on October 23, 2012, 11:57:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2012, 11:51:04 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 23, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/22/map3.o.png/a_560x375.png)

Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

(http://i.imgur.com/tD8XP.jpg)

I didn't miss that either.

(http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Learn/DigitalCable/~/Media/ImageLibrary/Explore/ProductPages/DC/DVR_DL_Square.ashx)

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

Based on twitter, Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live, because he is the worst person in the world.

Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live AND DVR'd the debate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 23, 2012, 11:59:59 AM
Quote from: flannj on October 23, 2012, 11:57:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2012, 11:51:04 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 23, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/22/map3.o.png/a_560x375.png)

Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

(http://i.imgur.com/tD8XP.jpg)

I didn't miss that either.

(http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Learn/DigitalCable/~/Media/ImageLibrary/Explore/ProductPages/DC/DVR_DL_Square.ashx)

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

Based on twitter, Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live, because he is the worst person in the world.

Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live AND DVR'd the debate.

Gil is going to keep the debate on his DVR until his deluxe debate Blu-Ray box set with exclusive commentary by Andrew Sullivan arrives.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 23, 2012, 11:59:59 AM
Quote from: flannj on October 23, 2012, 11:57:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on October 23, 2012, 11:51:04 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 23, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 11:31:05 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 23, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.

(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/22/map3.o.png/a_560x375.png)

Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

(http://i.imgur.com/tD8XP.jpg)

I didn't miss that either.

(http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Learn/DigitalCable/~/Media/ImageLibrary/Explore/ProductPages/DC/DVR_DL_Square.ashx)

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

Based on twitter, Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live, because he is the worst person in the world.

Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live AND DVR'd the debate.

Gil is going to keep the debate on his DVR until his deluxe debate Blu-Ray box set with exclusive commentary by Andrew Sullivan arrives.

That made me actually spit out my Coke now.  Damn you all!!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 10:50:28 PM
Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

QuoteFrom 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

QuoteDT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).

(http://i.imgur.com/Appzl.png)

To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 10:50:28 PM
Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

QuoteFrom 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

QuoteDT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).

(http://i.imgur.com/Appzl.png)

To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/hft-takes-over-intrade-romney-flash-smashes)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 24, 2012, 12:05:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 10:50:28 PM
Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

QuoteFrom 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

QuoteDT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).

(http://i.imgur.com/Appzl.png)

To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/hft-takes-over-intrade-romney-flash-smashes)

What does Orly Taitz have to say?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 08:24:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 10:50:28 PM
Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

QuoteFrom 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

QuoteDT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).

(http://i.imgur.com/Appzl.png)

To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/hft-takes-over-intrade-romney-flash-smashes)

Sure.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on October 24, 2012, 08:41:07 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 24, 2012, 12:05:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 10:50:28 PM
Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

QuoteFrom 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

QuoteDT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).

(http://i.imgur.com/Appzl.png)

To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/hft-takes-over-intrade-romney-flash-smashes)

What does Orly Taitz have to say?


(http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Orly1.jpg?5f37dd)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 24, 2012, 09:13:50 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 08:24:40 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 10:50:28 PM

A Justin Wolfers Tweet (http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496)

Romney's Intrade contract stuff (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/)


Zerohedge had a different take. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/hft-takes-over-intrade-romney-flash-smashes)

Sure.

I believe you mispronounced "shoah."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 24, 2012, 09:14:17 AM
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on October 24, 2012, 08:41:07 AM
Quote from: Wheezer on October 24, 2012, 12:05:29 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 23, 2012, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 23, 2012, 10:50:28 PM
Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

QuoteFrom 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

QuoteDT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).

(http://i.imgur.com/Appzl.png)

To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take. (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-23/hft-takes-over-intrade-romney-flash-smashes)

What does Orly Taitz have to say?


(http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Orly1.jpg?5f37dd)

Perfect
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Very big anticipatory bump for Trump's very big game-changing announcement that the media is going to cover in a very big fashion and that could possibly change the course of this race in a very, very big way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 24, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Very big anticipatory bump for Trump's very big game-changing announcement that the media is going to cover in a very big fashion and that could possibly change the course of this race in a very, very big way.

Huey - I'm still curious as to the pre-2011 event(s) that cemented Trump's status in your head as a sensible moderate.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 24, 2012, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 24, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Very big anticipatory bump for Trump's very big game-changing announcement that the media is going to cover in a very big fashion and that could possibly change the course of this race in a very, very big way.

Huey - I'm still curious as to the pre-2011 event(s) that cemented Trump's status in your head as a sensible moderate.

Seams like a good place to put this

(http://i.imgur.com/VetZ9.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on October 24, 2012, 11:38:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on October 24, 2012, 11:19:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 24, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Very big anticipatory bump for Trump's very big game-changing announcement that the media is going to cover in a very big fashion and that could possibly change the course of this race in a very, very big way.

Huey - I'm still curious as to the pre-2011 event(s) that cemented Trump's status in your head as a sensible moderate.

Seams like a good place to put this

(http://i.imgur.com/VetZ9.jpg)

PROVE THAT YOU WENT TO COLLEGE YOU LIAR!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 24, 2012, 12:17:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 24, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Very big anticipatory bump for Trump's very big game-changing announcement that the media is going to cover in a very big fashion and that could possibly change the course of this race in a very, very big way.

Huey - I'm still curious as to the pre-2011 event(s) that cemented Trump's status in your head as a sensible moderate.

More like lack of events.  He always struck me as your typical, Republican corporate shitheel who didn't give a rat's ass one way or the other about social issues.  Being a celebrity in his own right sort of fed into that.

Boy was I wrong, amirite?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 24, 2012, 12:38:37 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 24, 2012, 12:17:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 24, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Very big anticipatory bump for Trump's very big game-changing announcement that the media is going to cover in a very big fashion and that could possibly change the course of this race in a very, very big way.

Huey - I'm still curious as to the pre-2011 event(s) that cemented Trump's status in your head as a sensible moderate.

More like lack of events.  He always struck me as your typical, Republican corporate shitheel who didn't give a rat's ass one way or the other about social issues.  Being a celebrity in his own right sort of fed into that.

Boy was I wrong, amirite?

You know, I can see how someone who was famous for being a super-rich egomaniac cumstain who names everything after himself, treats his employees like chattal, and has based his entire spiritual existence on the notion that everything should be covered in 24k gold would immediate strike the "moderate" chord in your whiskey-porridge-addled brainstem.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 24, 2012, 02:22:43 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 24, 2012, 12:38:37 PM
Quote from: PANK! on October 24, 2012, 12:17:26 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 24, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 24, 2012, 10:27:43 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 29, 2011, 06:05:35 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 28, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

QuoteLater, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Very big anticipatory bump for Trump's very big game-changing announcement that the media is going to cover in a very big fashion and that could possibly change the course of this race in a very, very big way.

Huey - I'm still curious as to the pre-2011 event(s) that cemented Trump's status in your head as a sensible moderate.

More like lack of events.  He always struck me as your typical, Republican corporate shitheel who didn't give a rat's ass one way or the other about social issues.  Being a celebrity in his own right sort of fed into that.

Boy was I wrong, amirite?

You know, I can see how someone who was famous for being a super-rich egomaniac cumstain who names everything after himself, treats his employees like chattal, and has based his entire spiritual existence on the notion that everything should be covered in 24k gold would immediate strike the "moderate" chord in your whiskey-porridge-addled brainstem.

Who put the muscle in your breast milk?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 24, 2012, 09:12:01 PM
Clearly another example of voter fraud. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/politics/dying-man-votes/index.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 24, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
Voter fraud is like God. There's no such thing.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 24, 2012, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 24, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
Voter fraud is like God. There's no such thing.

Deny the existence or even the possibility thereof at your peril.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 24, 2012, 09:52:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 24, 2012, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 24, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
Voter fraud is like God. There's no such thing.

Deny the existence or even the possibility thereof at your peril.

If he's wrong, Jesus will forgive him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 25, 2012, 07:52:53 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on October 24, 2012, 09:52:32 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 24, 2012, 09:50:35 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 24, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
Voter fraud is like God. There's no such thing.

Deny the existence or even the possibility thereof at your peril.

If he's wrong, Jesus will forgive him.

Of course you back the Jewish guy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 25, 2012, 09:01:11 AM
Robert Gibbs : al Qaeda kids (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/) :: Chuck : Palestinian kids (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg196743#msg196743)

QuoteADAMSON: ...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.

GIBBS: I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 06, 2009, 11:39:08 AMMaybe their parents shouldn't have voted for Hamas.  Maybe their parents shouldn't have allowed the corruption that was Arafat.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2012, 11:21:58 AM
Obama finally admits that he's from Kenya. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1C453KwDzY)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 25, 2012, 02:49:04 PM
Don't you be comin' into Texas and watching our elections, Europhags! (http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/264121-texas-sparks-international-row-with-election-observers)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 25, 2012, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He can't use a fucking absentee ballot? Screw that guy.

Grumble grumble grumble....
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:53:07 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 25, 2012, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He can't use a fucking absentee ballot? Screw that guy.

Grumble grumble grumble....

He should never travel anywhere when REAL AMERICANS HAVE PLACES TO BE.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2012, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 25, 2012, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He can't use a fucking absentee ballot? Screw that guy.

Grumble grumble grumble....

We get it. Now that you live in the suburbs, you're essentially the same exact person as Section 242.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 25, 2012, 06:13:41 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2012, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: Bort on October 25, 2012, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He can't use a fucking absentee ballot? Screw that guy.

Grumble grumble grumble....

We get it. Now that you live in the suburbs, you're essentially the same exact person as Section 242.

AND ANOTHER THING THAT PISSES ME OFF ABOUT PAT HUGHES...
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 25, 2012, 10:12:29 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

Democrats campaign like this. Republicans campaign like that.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 10:22:16 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

He should have checked everyone's schedule first.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 10:28:55 PM
Or we can just do it this way:

"The president I don't like and didn't vote for did (anything at all). Fuck him!"

And be done with it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 25, 2012, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 10:28:55 PM
Or we can just do it this way:

"The president I don't like and didn't vote for did (anything at all). Fuck him!"

And be done with it.

Hey I did vote for him, so if I want to complain, I apparently have the right.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 02:06:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 25, 2012, 11:10:38 PM
Hey I did vote for him

Sellout. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpskixt-VqY)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 26, 2012, 07:44:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 02:06:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 25, 2012, 11:10:38 PM
Hey I did vote for him

Sellout. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpskixt-VqY)

"I didn't sell out, I bought in."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 26, 2012, 08:25:59 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

Empty pots and pans would have made it OK.

Seriously, this was the first time in history a sitting President did Early Voting. A photo op actually raises awareness of early voting. I hope Romney does it too, with the same amount of press. We still have half the country not bothering to go vote.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 08:34:57 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 26, 2012, 07:44:41 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 02:06:53 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 25, 2012, 11:10:38 PM
Hey I did vote for him

Sellout. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpskixt-VqY)

"I didn't sell out, I bought in."

Temping for the clampdown.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 26, 2012, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

Not every president can be from Crawford, Texas.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 26, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Yeah, I mean they might be zingers but that's nutjob talk.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?

"The Beast from the Sea"?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Chuck to Chuck on October 26, 2012, 09:23:11 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?

White Sox fan.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 26, 2012, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?

"The Beast from the Sea"?

I laughed.

In TJ's defense, I think emotions run a little high this close to the election, particular for the challenger's people.  I feel like I was in his shoes 8 years ago; with blinding hatred toward the incumbent and nothing good to say about my middling, milquetoast candidate, I was left with just hurling invectives toward the former while holding my nose as I voted for the latter.  I think that's what's going on here.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 26, 2012, 10:00:06 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?

"The Beast from the Sea"?

I laughed.

In TJ's defense, I think emotions run a little high this close to the election, particular for the challenger's people.  I feel like I was in his shoes 8 years ago; with blinding hatred toward the incumbent and nothing good to say about my middling, milquetoast candidate, I was left with just hurling invectives toward the former while holding my nose as I voted for the latter.  I think that's what's going on here.

Morph said the other day he 'prefers' Romney. I don't see how anyone can like Romney. But I absolutely understand preferring him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?

"The Beast from the Sea"?

I laughed.

In TJ's defense, I think emotions run a little high this close to the election, particular for the challenger's people.  I feel like I was in his shoes 8 years ago; with blinding hatred toward the incumbent and nothing good to say about my middling, milquetoast candidate, I was left with just hurling invectives toward the former while holding my nose as I voted for the latter.  I think that's what's going on here.

Also: this used to be a free country.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 26, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?

"The Beast from the Sea"?

I laughed.

In TJ's defense, I think emotions run a little high this close to the election, particular for the challenger's people.  I feel like I was in his shoes 8 years ago; with blinding hatred toward the incumbent and nothing good to say about my middling, milquetoast candidate, I was left with just hurling invectives toward the former while holding my nose as I voted for the latter.  I think that's what's going on here.

Also: this used to be a free country.

[Bort]No it didn't.[/Bort]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 26, 2012, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 26, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?

"The Beast from the Sea"?

I laughed.

In TJ's defense, I think emotions run a little high this close to the election, particular for the challenger's people.  I feel like I was in his shoes 8 years ago; with blinding hatred toward the incumbent and nothing good to say about my middling, milquetoast candidate, I was left with just hurling invectives toward the former while holding my nose as I voted for the latter.  I think that's what's going on here.

Also: this used to be a free country.

[Bort]No it didn't.[/Bort]

Apparently you weren't around these parts in the 1400s. It was a free for all.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on October 26, 2012, 10:33:24 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2012, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 26, 2012, 10:10:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 09:18:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: R-V on October 26, 2012, 08:38:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on October 26, 2012, 08:15:55 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 25, 2012, 09:35:48 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 04:42:17 PM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

He could have voted anywhere in the city Monday through Saturday up and through Nov. 6. He could have voted in Norwood Park or at Hiawatha Park (Addison and Cumberland) while Air Force One refueled. Or he could have voted absentee like his wife did.

Yes, I'm sure a few people trying to catch flights before the rain hit and turned ORD into more of a clusterfuck so that they could get home from wherever the fuck they were so that they could see their family are unimportant serfs, and need to bow to the One. Fuck their commitments, our King needs to get a photo-op on the South Side, so everyone get out of the way.

What the hell, TJ.

Yeah, phrases like 'bow to the One' and 'our King' it kind of makes me not want to take seriously anything you have to say about politics.

Well what else would you call our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim, sleeper cell Socialist overlord?

"The Beast from the Sea"?

I laughed.

In TJ's defense, I think emotions run a little high this close to the election, particular for the challenger's people.  I feel like I was in his shoes 8 years ago; with blinding hatred toward the incumbent and nothing good to say about my middling, milquetoast candidate, I was left with just hurling invectives toward the former while holding my nose as I voted for the latter.  I think that's what's going on here.

Also: this used to be a free country.

[Bort]No it didn't.[/Bort]

Apparently you weren't around these parts in the 1400s. It was a free for all.

THI
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 26, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 25, 2012, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 10:28:55 PM
Or we can just do it this way:

"The president I don't like and didn't vote for did (anything at all). Fuck him!"

And be done with it.

Hey I did vote for him, so if I want to complain, I apparently have the right.

Quote from: 2 fucking days ago in the SBox
Pen:     Jon, are you at least voting 3rd party?
Bort:     Fuck no, Pen. If you vote, you can't complain. (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?highlight=p147328888&date=2012-10-24#p147328888)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on October 26, 2012, 10:40:09 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 26, 2012, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Bort on October 25, 2012, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 25, 2012, 10:28:55 PM
Or we can just do it this way:

"The president I don't like and didn't vote for did (anything at all). Fuck him!"

And be done with it.

Hey I did vote for him, so if I want to complain, I apparently have the right.

Quote from: 2 fucking days ago in the SBox
Pen:     Jon, are you at least voting 3rd party?
Bort:     Fuck no, Pen. If you vote, you can't complain.

Pen clearly missed my green font. I apologize.

EDIT: he also missed my oblique Carlin reference.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that better? Citizenry's complaints about their worthless lives are to be disregarded, but the inconveniences caused by the President's need to drop in on a Thursday afternoon at rush hour so he can cast the all-important votes for Bobby Rush, Barbara Flynn Currie and electrical aggregation a few days early should trump all!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 26, 2012, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that better? Citizenry's complaints about their worthless lives are to be disregarded, but the inconveniences caused by the President's need to drop in on a Thursday afternoon at rush hour so he can cast the all-important votes for Bobby Rush, Barbara Flynn Currie and electrical aggregation a few days early should trump all!

How about, it's 2012, why don't you post a video of yourself filling out your mail-in ballot to YouTube where you'll reach a broader audience than the 6 o'clock news anyway? (assuming your method of distribution isn't our YouTube thread.)

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 26, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that better? Citizenry's complaints about their worthless lives are to be disregarded, but the inconveniences caused by the President's need to drop in on a Thursday afternoon at rush hour so he can cast the all-important votes for Bobby Rush, Barbara Flynn Currie and electrical aggregation a few days early should trump all!

When is it ok for the president to visit his hometown? Or is it not ok when he's a democrat?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 26, 2012, 11:00:39 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that better? Citizenry's complaints about their worthless lives are to be disregarded, but the inconveniences caused by the President's need to drop in on a Thursday afternoon at rush hour so he can cast the all-important votes for Bobby Rush, Barbara Flynn Currie and electrical aggregation a few days early should trump all!

When is it ok for the president to visit his hometown? Or is it not ok when he's a democrat?

I didn't hear about any trips to Nairobi.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 26, 2012, 11:00:56 AM
Barack Obama should just stay in the White House and never go outside.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on October 26, 2012, 11:04:34 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that better? Citizenry's complaints about their worthless lives are to be disregarded, but the inconveniences caused by the President's need to drop in on a Thursday afternoon at rush hour so he can cast the all-important votes for Bobby Rush, Barbara Flynn Currie and electrical aggregation a few days early should trump all!

I'm not even bothered by the complaining, people can piss and moan all they want. I'm bothered by the woeful unfunniness of zingers like The One and The King. Leave that bush league hackery to puds like John Kass - you're better and funnier than that, TJ.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that better? Citizenry's complaints about their worthless lives are to be disregarded, but the inconveniences caused by the President's need to drop in on a Thursday afternoon at rush hour so he can cast the all-important votes for Bobby Rush, Barbara Flynn Currie and electrical aggregation a few days early should trump all!

When is it ok for the president to visit his hometown? Or is it not ok when he's a democrat?

It's perfectly OK to visit his hometown, and honestly, I wish he'd be here more often. I'm just wondering why the wouldn't find a time and a location more convenient for everybody, as after all, isn't early voting (or absentee voting as Pen pointed out) all about convenience? He could have hopped off his plane on the tarmac, and voted at a Northwest side early voting location. He could have voted on Saturday morning. When is he planning on coming into town on Election Day? He has until 7 pm on Election Day, although his polling place is, weirdly, a Mormon Church.

A friend of mine posted on Facebook earlier this week that Paul Ryan's motorcade SHUT DOWN I-75/85 through downtown Atlanta during rush hour. D-U-M-B. Shame on both guys' advance teams for not thinking more clearly about the great unwashed.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: PenPho on October 26, 2012, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that better? Citizenry's complaints about their worthless lives are to be disregarded, but the inconveniences caused by the President's need to drop in on a Thursday afternoon at rush hour so he can cast the all-important votes for Bobby Rush, Barbara Flynn Currie and electrical aggregation a few days early should trump all!

How about, it's 2012, why don't you post a video of yourself filling out your mail-in ballot to YouTube where you'll reach a broader audience than the 6 o'clock news anyway? (assuming your method of distribution isn't our YouTube thread.)

Because his campaign is pushing early voting in a big way as a part of their GOTV strategy. Not absentee voting. Early voting.

So, they have a photo op of him doing so himself: the first President in history to vote early in person. As lame as that may be as far as Presidential milestones go, it's still an attempt to find a newscycle hook to advance their campaign strategy.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on October 26, 2012, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 11:10:44 AM
...although his polling place is, weirdly, a Mormon Church.

OK. That's kind of funny.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 26, 2012, 12:12:51 PM
Can this be real?

http://grist.org/list/gop-candidate-my-opponent-believes-in-global-warming-and-has-been-to-other-countries-he-is-basically-a-monster/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on October 26, 2012, 12:18:33 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 26, 2012, 12:12:51 PM
Can this be real?

http://grist.org/list/gop-candidate-my-opponent-believes-in-global-warming-and-has-been-to-other-countries-he-is-basically-a-monster/

Holy crap. 

I mean, I'm terrified of Corn Dogs, but that's bizarre. 
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on October 26, 2012, 12:22:51 PM
Quote from: PenPho on October 26, 2012, 12:18:33 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 26, 2012, 12:12:51 PM
Can this be real?

http://grist.org/list/gop-candidate-my-opponent-believes-in-global-warming-and-has-been-to-other-countries-he-is-basically-a-monster/

Holy crap. 

I mean, I'm terrified of Corn Dogs, but that's bizarre. 

I can't believe that guy left Arizona.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 01:02:16 PM
Quote from: CBStew on October 26, 2012, 12:12:51 PM
Can this be real?

http://grist.org/list/gop-candidate-my-opponent-believes-in-global-warming-and-has-been-to-other-countries-he-is-basically-a-monster/

Well, I think the ad is trying to promote the idea that she has been in South Dakota, living like other South Dakotans while he has been everywhere but South Dakota promoting cap-and-trade which can't be popular in the booming energy industry in the Dakotas (and binge drinking). If the ad were 2 minutes shorter, it might even be effective.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 26, 2012, 09:15:24 PM
I can't believe in all this discussion of motorcades shutting down expressways, nobody (and I'm looking mainly at Huey) brought up that fucking horrible Gary Meier/WGN Radio commercial.

I hate you, Gary Meier.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on October 26, 2012, 09:51:12 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 26, 2012, 09:15:24 PM
I can't believe in all this discussion of motorcades shutting down expressways, nobody (and I'm looking mainly at Huey) brought up that fucking horrible Gary Meier/WGN Radio commercial.

I hate you, Gary Meier.

It's Garry, with 2 "R"'s, and I've always hated him.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on October 27, 2012, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: PANK! on October 26, 2012, 09:51:12 PM
Quote from: CT III on October 26, 2012, 09:15:24 PM
I can't believe in all this discussion of motorcades shutting down expressways, nobody (and I'm looking mainly at Huey) brought up that fucking horrible Gary Meier/WGN Radio commercial.

I hate you, Gary Meier.

It's Garry, with 2 "R"'s, and I've always hated him.

GARY MEIER DOES NOT DESERVE CORRECT SPELLING!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 30, 2012, 02:27:01 PM
This can't possibly be true (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/heckuva_job_brown_jabs_at_sandy_management/), can it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on October 30, 2012, 02:38:50 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 30, 2012, 02:27:01 PM
This can't possibly be true (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/heckuva_job_brown_jabs_at_sandy_management/), can it?

The rule of everything is you have to say Benghazi at least three million times in every news article.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 30, 2012, 04:23:18 PM
Quote from: Slaky on October 30, 2012, 02:38:50 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 30, 2012, 02:27:01 PM
This can't possibly be true (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/heckuva_job_brown_jabs_at_sandy_management/), can it?

The rule of everything is you have to say Benghazi at least three million times in every news article.

What does any of that have to do with Arabian Horses?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on October 30, 2012, 06:45:55 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 11:10:44 AM
He has until 7 pm on Election Day, although his polling place is, weirdly, a Mormon Church.

Really, 52nd & University? I didn't know that, and I spent a lot of time in the apartment building immediately to the west of the place, even before they acquired the land. I don't know that that's technically an LDS temple. Seems to be more of a missionary training area and nominal outreach center, kind of like what the Dehonians purported to do at 53rd and Blackstone, although the latter don't appear to do a fucking thing, whereas the Mormons at least keep a steady white-shirt-and-black-tie bicycle presence in the neighborhood.

[Edit.--Obama's polling place actually seems to be the lobby of the Drexel Square Apartments, which is even weirder, as it's farther away.]
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on October 31, 2012, 11:57:05 AM
Joe Biden has something to give you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WNPbTyAJvC8)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on October 31, 2012, 03:20:50 PM
Oh, Christ on a bike (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/31/mitt-romney-voices-stronger-support-for-fema/6i7wW1bPskqRY73mAptYzM/story.html).
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on October 31, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Fork on October 31, 2012, 03:20:50 PM
Oh, Christ on a bike (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/10/31/mitt-romney-voices-stronger-support-for-fema/6i7wW1bPskqRY73mAptYzM/story.html).

In the words of the immortal Joe Welsh,

"...you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 01, 2012, 08:35:59 AM
I think several of you already saw this, but last night Joe Mande's Twitter feed took on an entertaining, BestFansStLouis-style vibe by re-tweeting Republicans who are mad at Chris Christie for saying, like, one nice thing about Obama. A sample:

(http://i47.tinypic.com/23th8xc.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on November 01, 2012, 09:21:04 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one?

Let's talk about New Girl again.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 01, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one that I like?

Fixed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/cutting.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Budget-Introduction.cfm
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 01, 2012, 09:52:55 AM
Another day, another GOP congressional candidate steps in it on the abortion/rape question. (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/Candidate-says-rape-thing-not-cause-for-abortion-3997812.php)

PS - The NRSC is quietly giving money back to Akin in Missouri; it was only time.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 01, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one that I like?

Fixed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/cutting.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Budget-Introduction.cfm

Almost fixed.  Should read "I like, or even one member of Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote) would vote for (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/)."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 01, 2012, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 01, 2012, 09:52:55 AM
Another day, another GOP congressional candidate steps in it on the abortion/rape question. (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/Candidate-says-rape-thing-not-cause-for-abortion-3997812.php)

PS - The NRSC is quietly giving money back to Akin in Missouri; it was only time.

The GOP needs to be eradicated. It's past time. Reasonable party members should confer and start a new thing while we firebarn the vast majority.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on November 01, 2012, 02:22:55 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 11:10:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on October 26, 2012, 10:57:37 AM
Quote from: Brownie on October 26, 2012, 10:42:06 AM
I'm enjoying the people bitching about traffic and the airport and the like because Obama flew in to vote.

Yes, your shitty flight is more important than the president voting. Get over your worthless life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that better? Citizenry's complaints about their worthless lives are to be disregarded, but the inconveniences caused by the President's need to drop in on a Thursday afternoon at rush hour so he can cast the all-important votes for Bobby Rush, Barbara Flynn Currie and electrical aggregation a few days early should trump all!

When is it ok for the president to visit his hometown? Or is it not ok when he's a democrat?

It's perfectly OK to visit his hometown, and honestly, I wish he'd be here more often. I'm just wondering why the wouldn't find a time and a location more convenient for everybody, as after all, isn't early voting (or absentee voting as Pen pointed out) all about convenience? He could have hopped off his plane on the tarmac, and voted at a Northwest side early voting location. He could have voted on Saturday morning. When is he planning on coming into town on Election Day? He has until 7 pm on Election Day, although his polling place is, weirdly, a Mormon Church.

A friend of mine posted on Facebook earlier this week that Paul Ryan's motorcade SHUT DOWN I-75/85 through downtown Atlanta during rush hour. D-U-M-B. Shame on both guys' advance teams for not thinking more clearly about the great unwashed.

No motorcades, supporting the USPS (like a TRUE 'Merican) and using modern technology and mass communication FTW.

(http://oi49.tinypic.com/2irw20g.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 01, 2012, 08:53:30 PM
Our favorite painter's newest work:

(http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server5200/uz5xir8n/products/304/images/682/jmRunawaySlave_4_1_copy_2__89651.1351580459.1280.1280.jpg)

QuoteThis painting is a tribute to Rev. C L. Bryant, a man who holds the "torch of liberty" and unlocks the chains that bind millions of Black Americans today.

QuoteSo, is Black America free at last? Is it possible that a man can be enslaved in other ways besides chains and shackles? Do shouts for affirmative action and government intervention really help the black community?‰

My position is that the Democratic Party has brought the demise of Black America.  Currently, 95% of all blacks vote Democrat, and yet what do they have to show for it?  25% of blacks suffer from poverty conditions. 16% of blacks are unemployed and 30% of all abortions are black babies. Also, a majority of our inmates are Black Americans.

http://www.jonmcnaughton.com/runaway-slave/
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on November 02, 2012, 08:26:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 01, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one that I like?

Fixed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/cutting.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Budget-Introduction.cfm

Almost fixed.  Should read "I like, or even one member of Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote) would vote for (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/)."

One of two things just happened.  Either you didn't read past the headlines or you're being incredibly disingenuous.  Either way, holy shit, dude.

Quote
White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.

"This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

Quote
The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama's budget because it did not include policy report language.

Democrats made the same point on the floor Wednesday in explaining their votes.

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 10:18:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 02, 2012, 08:26:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 01, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one that I like?

Fixed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/cutting.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Budget-Introduction.cfm

Almost fixed.  Should read "I like, or even one member of Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote) would vote for (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/)."

One of two things just happened.  Either you didn't read past the headlines or you're being incredibly disingenuous.  Either way, holy shit, dude.

Quote
White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.

"This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

Quote
The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama's budget because it did not include policy report language.

Democrats made the same point on the floor Wednesday in explaining their votes.



Plus, if Morph had actually read the article, he would of pointed this out.

Quote
"This is the only bipartisan budget that the House of Representatives will be able to consider in this budget cycle," Cooper said. "This is the first time that a Bowles-Simpson budget has been allowed on the floor of the House or the Senate. This is an historic night, and I hope that members will appreciate this opportunity."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on November 02, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 10:18:18 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 02, 2012, 08:26:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 01, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one that I like?

Fixed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/cutting.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Budget-Introduction.cfm

Almost fixed.  Should read "I like, or even one member of Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote) would vote for (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/)."

One of two things just happened.  Either you didn't read past the headlines or you're being incredibly disingenuous.  Either way, holy shit, dude.

Quote
White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.

"This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

Quote
The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama's budget because it did not include policy report language.

Democrats made the same point on the floor Wednesday in explaining their votes.



Plus, if Morph had actually read the article, he would of pointed this out.

Quote
"This is the only bipartisan budget that the House of Representatives will be able to consider in this budget cycle," Cooper said. "This is the first time that a Bowles-Simpson budget has been allowed on the floor of the House or the Senate. This is an historic night, and I hope that members will appreciate this opportunity."

We really are, literally, trying to make Pank's head explode, aren't we?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 02, 2012, 08:26:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 01, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one that I like?

Fixed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/cutting.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Budget-Introduction.cfm

Almost fixed.  Should read "I like, or even one member of Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote) would vote for (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/)."

One of two things just happened.  Either you didn't read past the headlines or you're being incredibly disingenuous.  Either way, holy shit, dude.

Quote
White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.

"This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

Quote
The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama's budget because it did not include policy report language.

Democrats made the same point on the floor Wednesday in explaining their votes.


No, I simply read that as the White House providing political cover for voting against the budget.  Pretty sure that's what it was, since that's what was reported by The Hill. Are you telling me that if the "explanations" were included but the numbers didn't change, then suddenly they'd all fall in line and vote for it?  Because I doubt that very much.  The math of the Obama budget is pretty simple, and it involves ever-increasing debts and deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), even under the CBO's scoring system. This is not a plan to address the fiscal problems in this country, which is what I believe RV was calling it when he brought it up.  It's a punt.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 02, 2012, 10:54:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
No, I simply read that as the White House providing political cover for voting against the budget.  Pretty sure that's what it was, since that's what was reported by The Hill. Are you telling me that if the "explanations" were included but the numbers didn't change, then suddenly they'd all fall in line and vote for it?  Because I doubt that very much.  The math of the Obama budget is pretty simple, and it involves ever-increasing debts and deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), even under the CBO's scoring system. This is not a plan to address the fiscal problems in this country, which is what I believe RV was calling it when he brought it up.  It's a punt.

But again, I think people are wary of Romney because he hasn't offered up any sort of plan other than, "I'm good at running businesses and I would run the country like a business." And since running a nation is not really comparable to running a business, that doesn't count.

I understand that you disagree with Obama's plan, and that's fine. But the alternative is Romney's big, empty non-specific set of platitudes, and I fail to see how that's any better.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 02, 2012, 11:09:14 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 02, 2012, 08:26:10 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 01, 2012, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 01, 2012, 09:14:30 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 31, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
INTERACTIVE!!!  Now you can attempt to make Mitt Romney's tax plan add up.  Bear in mind, there are some tax increases on this chart, so beware of bearded men named Grover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/31/interactive-make-mitt-romneys-tax-plan-add-up/

Perhaps they can come up with a similar app for Obama's plan?  That is, when he gets around to making one that I like?

Fixed.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/cutting.pdf

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/2013-Budget-Introduction.cfm

Almost fixed.  Should read "I like, or even one member of Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote) would vote for (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote/)."

One of two things just happened.  Either you didn't read past the headlines or you're being incredibly disingenuous.  Either way, holy shit, dude.

Quote
White House officials said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama's top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney's amendment was not, in fact, Obama's entire budget proposal.

"This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President's budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what's in the President's budget," he said. "And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do."

Quote
The White House sought to provide cover for Democrats to vote against the Obama budget resolution before the vote, arguing the resolution offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) was different from Obama's budget because it did not include policy report language.

Democrats made the same point on the floor Wednesday in explaining their votes.


No, I simply read that as the White House providing political cover for voting against the budget.  Pretty sure that's what it was, since that's what was reported by The Hill. Are you telling me that if the "explanations" were included but the numbers didn't change, then suddenly they'd all fall in line and vote for it?  Because I doubt that very much.  The math of the Obama budget is pretty simple, and it involves ever-increasing debts and deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), even under the CBO's scoring system. This is not a plan to address the fiscal problems in this country, which is what I believe RV was calling it when he brought it up.  It's a punt.

I wasn't even commenting on the merits of Obama's plan. You said he didn't have one for taxes, which is wrong. I was just pointing out that his budget includes details on both his taxing and spending plans.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 02, 2012, 11:10:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2012, 10:54:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
No, I simply read that as the White House providing political cover for voting against the budget.  Pretty sure that's what it was, since that's what was reported by The Hill. Are you telling me that if the "explanations" were included but the numbers didn't change, then suddenly they'd all fall in line and vote for it?  Because I doubt that very much.  The math of the Obama budget is pretty simple, and it involves ever-increasing debts and deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), even under the CBO's scoring system. This is not a plan to address the fiscal problems in this country, which is what I believe RV was calling it when he brought it up.  It's a punt.

But again, I think people are wary of Romney because he hasn't offered up any sort of plan other than, "I'm good at running businesses and I would run the country like a business." And since running a nation is not really comparable to running a business, that doesn't count.

I understand that you disagree with Obama's plan, and that's fine. But the alternative is Romney's big, empty non-specific set of platitudes, and I fail to see how that's any better.

I'm still not convinced that anyone even likes Romney. He's just not Obama.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 02, 2012, 11:10:40 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2012, 10:54:33 AM

But again, I think people are wary of Romney because he hasn't offered up any sort of plan other than, "I'm good at running businesses and I would run the country like a business." And since running a nation is not really comparable to running a business, that doesn't count.


Besides, where have we heard about running the country like a business before?

(http://i45.tinypic.com/1pjg9x.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 11:15:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 02, 2012, 11:10:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2012, 10:54:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
No, I simply read that as the White House providing political cover for voting against the budget.  Pretty sure that's what it was, since that's what was reported by The Hill. Are you telling me that if the "explanations" were included but the numbers didn't change, then suddenly they'd all fall in line and vote for it?  Because I doubt that very much.  The math of the Obama budget is pretty simple, and it involves ever-increasing debts and deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), even under the CBO's scoring system. This is not a plan to address the fiscal problems in this country, which is what I believe RV was calling it when he brought it up.  It's a punt.

But again, I think people are wary of Romney because he hasn't offered up any sort of plan other than, "I'm good at running businesses and I would run the country like a business." And since running a nation is not really comparable to running a business, that doesn't count.

I understand that you disagree with Obama's plan, and that's fine. But the alternative is Romney's big, empty non-specific set of platitudes, and I fail to see how that's any better.

I'm still not convinced that anyone even likes Romney. He's just not Obama.

This feels familiar.

(http://sgra.org/research/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bushkerry.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 02, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 11:15:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 02, 2012, 11:10:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2012, 10:54:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
No, I simply read that as the White House providing political cover for voting against the budget.  Pretty sure that's what it was, since that's what was reported by The Hill. Are you telling me that if the "explanations" were included but the numbers didn't change, then suddenly they'd all fall in line and vote for it?  Because I doubt that very much.  The math of the Obama budget is pretty simple, and it involves ever-increasing debts and deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), even under the CBO's scoring system. This is not a plan to address the fiscal problems in this country, which is what I believe RV was calling it when he brought it up.  It's a punt.

But again, I think people are wary of Romney because he hasn't offered up any sort of plan other than, "I'm good at running businesses and I would run the country like a business." And since running a nation is not really comparable to running a business, that doesn't count.

I understand that you disagree with Obama's plan, and that's fine. But the alternative is Romney's big, empty non-specific set of platitudes, and I fail to see how that's any better.

I'm still not convinced that anyone even likes Romney. He's just not Obama.

This feels familiar.

(http://sgra.org/research/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bushkerry.jpg)

Extremely.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on November 02, 2012, 11:23:35 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 02, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 11:15:10 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 02, 2012, 11:10:18 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2012, 10:54:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
No, I simply read that as the White House providing political cover for voting against the budget.  Pretty sure that's what it was, since that's what was reported by The Hill. Are you telling me that if the "explanations" were included but the numbers didn't change, then suddenly they'd all fall in line and vote for it?  Because I doubt that very much.  The math of the Obama budget is pretty simple, and it involves ever-increasing debts and deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), even under the CBO's scoring system. This is not a plan to address the fiscal problems in this country, which is what I believe RV was calling it when he brought it up.  It's a punt.

But again, I think people are wary of Romney because he hasn't offered up any sort of plan other than, "I'm good at running businesses and I would run the country like a business." And since running a nation is not really comparable to running a business, that doesn't count.

I understand that you disagree with Obama's plan, and that's fine. But the alternative is Romney's big, empty non-specific set of platitudes, and I fail to see how that's any better.

I'm still not convinced that anyone even likes Romney. He's just not Obama.

This feels familiar.

(http://sgra.org/research/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bushkerry.jpg)

Extremely.

You guys just don't understand tax laws and the economy like Morph does.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 11:43:48 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

Fantasy Elections?

This is exceedingly more interesting to me than the actual elections. 

So, hell yeah I'm in.


I know, I know. I'll PM.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on November 02, 2012, 11:46:45 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2012, 10:54:33 AM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 10:46:25 AM
No, I simply read that as the White House providing political cover for voting against the budget.  Pretty sure that's what it was, since that's what was reported by The Hill. Are you telling me that if the "explanations" were included but the numbers didn't change, then suddenly they'd all fall in line and vote for it?  Because I doubt that very much.  The math of the Obama budget is pretty simple, and it involves ever-increasing debts and deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf), even under the CBO's scoring system. This is not a plan to address the fiscal problems in this country, which is what I believe RV was calling it when he brought it up.  It's a punt.

But again, I think people are wary of Romney because he hasn't offered up any sort of plan other than, "I'm good at running businesses and I would run the country like a business." And since running a nation is not really comparable to running a business, that doesn't count.

I understand that you disagree with Obama's plan, and that's fine. But the alternative is Romney's big, empty non-specific set of platitudes, and I fail to see how that's any better.

This this this this this this this this this this.  THIS, FER CHRISSAKES!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 02, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

This is the Gillest post in the history of Gildom.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 12:56:52 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 02, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

This is the Gillest post in the history of Gildom.

It could be Giller if there were comments at the bottom of the Word doc for Gilling.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 01:17:33 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 12:56:52 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 02, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

This is the Gillest post in the history of Gildom.

It could be Giller if there were comments at the bottom of the Word doc for Gilling.

Now I will add a comment section to the bottom of the Word doc when I get home.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 02, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
There's sum ting wong with Betty Sutton's policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/ohio-republican-mailer-china_n_2065861.html?1351878761
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 01:30:52 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 02, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
There's sum ting wong with Betty Sutton's policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/ohio-republican-mailer-china_n_2065861.html?1351878761

She's a riberal?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 01:31:02 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 02, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
There's sum ting wong with Betty Sutton's policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/ohio-republican-mailer-china_n_2065861.html?1351878761

"Betty Sutton's views are too slanted for Ohio."
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 02, 2012, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 01:31:02 PM
Quote from: R-V on November 02, 2012, 01:18:04 PM
There's sum ting wong with Betty Sutton's policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/ohio-republican-mailer-china_n_2065861.html?1351878761

"Betty Sutton's views are too slanted for Ohio."

They're heading down a dangerous slope.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 05:24:14 PM
Dick Morris, known food aficianado, two days ago:
QuoteOnce everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.

An article entitled Here comes the landslide (http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/264935-here-comes-the-landslide)


Dick Morris, known bloviator, today:
QuoteWith that caution in mind, a danger signal comes from the latest Rasmussen Poll reflecting a two point gain for Obama. Whereas before the storm, Rasmussen showed Romney two ahead, he now has the race tied at 48-48. That is troublesome.  And, in Pennsylvania, Romney led on Wednesday night by two points but on Thursday night's polling, he was tied. We have also seem slippage for Romney in Michigan.  More troubling, Rasmussen shows a two point gain for Obama in job approval rising from 48% to 50% in the current poll.

I think airport windsocks have better consistency. (http://www.dickmorris.com/in-the-last-few-hours-sudden-danger-signs-in-polling/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CT III on November 03, 2012, 09:12:56 AM
Relocated to the correct thread.  Fucking Congress.

(http://i49.tinypic.com/2m2wcg1.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 05, 2012, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 02, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

This is the Gillest post in the history of Gildom.

Oh I think I could out-do that one.  How about this?

The polls in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire open and close in about 2 hours.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 05, 2012, 09:40:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 05, 2012, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 02, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

This is the Gillest post in the history of Gildom.

Oh I think I could out-do that one.  How about this?

The polls in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire open and close in about 2 hours.

You didn't add a gratuitous West Wing reference, so I'm sticking with the former.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

(http://www.chicitysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Cutler-middle-finger.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 05, 2012, 11:33:12 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 05, 2012, 09:40:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 05, 2012, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 02, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

This is the Gillest post in the history of Gildom.

Oh I think I could out-do that one.  How about this?

The polls in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire open and close in about 2 hours.

You didn't add a gratuitous West Wing reference, so I'm sticking with the former.

TIE!!! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/dixville-notch-election-results-2012_n_2080804.html)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Bort on November 05, 2012, 11:38:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 05, 2012, 11:33:12 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 05, 2012, 09:40:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 05, 2012, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 02, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

This is the Gillest post in the history of Gildom.

Oh I think I could out-do that one.  How about this?

The polls in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire open and close in about 2 hours.

You didn't add a gratuitous West Wing reference, so I'm sticking with the former.

TIE!!! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/dixville-notch-election-results-2012_n_2080804.html)

WHERE'S YOUR MESSIAH NOW, NATE SILVER?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 07:13:35 AM
Quote from: Bort on November 05, 2012, 11:38:30 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 05, 2012, 11:33:12 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 05, 2012, 09:40:44 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 05, 2012, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 02, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 02, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Any takers for an election night betting game, sans money?

Basically there are five tiers: (1) 13 POTUS Swing States; (2) 13 Senate Races; (3) 10 House Races; (4) 3 Gubernatorial Races; and (5) 5 ballot measures.

You pick the winner and the margin of victory.  Each correct guess in tier 1 yields 5 points, tier 2 four points, etc., etc.  The person with the highest point total is the winner.  Ties are broken by the person with the highest number of correctly picked winners with the MoV.

Yes, I know this is exceedingly boring and nerdy.  But if you plan on watching the election returns, it's just another added way to watch and participate, rather than throwing things at televisions when the returns don't go your way (or your candidate's party hasn't stolen enough votes from electronic machines or committed enough in-person voter fraud).

PM me if you want the Word document I prepared.

This is the Gillest post in the history of Gildom.

Oh I think I could out-do that one.  How about this?

The polls in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire open and close in about 2 hours.

You didn't add a gratuitous West Wing reference, so I'm sticking with the former.

TIE!!! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/dixville-notch-election-results-2012_n_2080804.html)

WHERE'S YOUR MESSIAH NOW, NATE SILVER?

Meanwhile, in Hart's Location, NH, Obama wins 23 to 9.  Johnson nets 2. (http://twitchy.com/2012/11/06/first-in-the-nation-its-a-tie-in-dixville-notch-n-h/)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

(http://www.chicitysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Cutler-middle-finger.jpg)

Jay is from Southern Indiana. Nobody from that part of the world has a lick of God damn sense.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 06, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

Well, Jay is a really rich white dude (from small-town Indiana, as Apex said). Not a big surprise.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 06, 2012, 08:33:16 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

Well, Jay is a really rich white dude (from small-town Indiana, as Apex said). Not a big surprise.

Though the article contains expressed approval of Romney, the picture seems more apt, as most of the people voting for Romney are only doing so because he's not Obama.  'Merica!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Slaky on November 06, 2012, 09:02:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

Well, Jay is a really rich white dude (from small-town Indiana, as Apex said). Not a big surprise.

Pretty funny when people are surprised that rich athletes (mostly from the south) are Republican. It's also funny that anyone would give a shit.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 06, 2012, 09:03:21 AM
Look, if we're going to take a random photo of somebody who is voting for Mitt Romney and deciding that the photo is their commentary to the rest of the electorate, can we at least use Jenna Jameson?

I mean, back when she was hot?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2012, 09:03:21 AM
Look, if we're going to take a random photo of somebody who is voting for Mitt Romney and deciding that the photo is their commentary to the rest of the electorate, can we at least use Jenna Jameson?

I mean, back when she was hot?

When was that?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 09:43:44 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2012, 09:03:21 AM
Look, if we're going to take a random photo of somebody who is voting for Mitt Romney and deciding that the photo is their commentary to the rest of the electorate, can we at least use Jenna Jameson?

I mean, back when she was hot?

When was that?

When she was having secks with Kobe Tai.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Tonker on November 06, 2012, 10:09:32 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2012, 09:03:21 AM
Look, if we're going to take a random photo of somebody who is voting for Mitt Romney and deciding that the photo is their commentary to the rest of the electorate, can we at least use Jenna Jameson?

I mean, back when she was hot?

When was that?

Oh, please.  Jenna Jameson was hot as dick when she first started out.  If you can find pictures of her pre-boob-job, I defy you not to drop trou and bash one out on the spot.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 06, 2012, 10:14:14 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 09:43:44 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2012, 09:03:21 AM
Look, if we're going to take a random photo of somebody who is voting for Mitt Romney and deciding that the photo is their commentary to the rest of the electorate, can we at least use Jenna Jameson?

I mean, back when she was hot?

When was that?

When she was having secks with Kobe Tai.

A GIS search confirms Apex's contention.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on November 06, 2012, 10:41:19 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 06, 2012, 10:09:32 AM

If you can find pictures of her pre-boob-job

This is key.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 03:48:23 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 06, 2012, 09:02:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

Well, Jay is a really rich white dude (from small-town Indiana, as Apex said). Not a big surprise.

Pretty funny when people are surprised that rich athletes (mostly from the south) are Republican. It's also funny that anyone would give a shit.

Wait, are you saying Jay Cutler's from the South?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 06, 2012, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 03:48:23 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 06, 2012, 09:02:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

Well, Jay is a really rich white dude (from small-town Indiana, as Apex said). Not a big surprise.

Pretty funny when people are surprised that rich athletes (mostly from the south) are Republican. It's also funny that anyone would give a shit.

Wait, are you saying Jay Cutler's from the South?

If he's from round about Buttpuddle, then yeah.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 04:07:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2012, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 03:48:23 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 06, 2012, 09:02:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

Well, Jay is a really rich white dude (from small-town Indiana, as Apex said). Not a big surprise.

Pretty funny when people are surprised that rich athletes (mostly from the south) are Republican. It's also funny that anyone would give a shit.

Wait, are you saying Jay Cutler's from the South?

If he's from round about Buttpuddle, then yeah.

(http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/mason-dixon-map-650.jpg)

No. Just because you can see Russia from your house in Evanston doesn't make you any more Northern than me and Jay, twinkle toes. 

Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 06, 2012, 04:34:03 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 04:07:37 PM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2012, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on November 06, 2012, 03:48:23 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 06, 2012, 09:02:47 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 06, 2012, 08:16:39 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 05, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
SPORTZ!!!

Jake Utler has something for all you Obama fans: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chicago-bears-jay-cutler-backs-mitt-romney-20121105,0,2297745.story)

Well, Jay is a really rich white dude (from small-town Indiana, as Apex said). Not a big surprise.

Pretty funny when people are surprised that rich athletes (mostly from the south) are Republican. It's also funny that anyone would give a shit.

Wait, are you saying Jay Cutler's from the South?

If he's from round about Buttpuddle, then yeah.

(http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/mason-dixon-map-650.jpg)

No. Just because you can see Russia from your house in Evanston doesn't make you any more Northern than me and Jay, twinkle toes. 

Jake claims to live in Tennessee, but from what I can tell he spends most of his time at da club in Chicago with G-reg and walking douchepuppies on the Left Coast.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 05:54:56 PM
In case you're wondering what people in Columbus, OH have had to endure on their televisions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TwXh7VZ3ViE
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: flannj on November 06, 2012, 06:55:09 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 05:54:56 PM
In case you're wondering what people in Columbus, OH have had to endure on their televisions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TwXh7VZ3ViE

My son is a senior at Miami University and he told us today that he doesn't remember the last time he saw a "regular" commercial.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 06, 2012, 06:56:59 PM
Quote from: flannj on November 06, 2012, 06:55:09 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 05:54:56 PM
In case you're wondering what people in Columbus, OH have had to endure on their televisions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TwXh7VZ3ViE

My son is a senior at Miami University and he told us today that he doesn't remember the last time he saw a "regular" commercial.

What We Lost, And What We Never Had.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: morpheus on November 06, 2012, 09:49:31 PM
Quote from: Tonker on November 06, 2012, 10:09:32 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:21 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 06, 2012, 09:03:21 AM
Look, if we're going to take a random photo of somebody who is voting for Mitt Romney and deciding that the photo is their commentary to the rest of the electorate, can we at least use Jenna Jameson?

I mean, back when she was hot?

When was that?

Oh, please.  Jenna Jameson was hot as dick when she first started out.  If you can find pictures of her pre-boob-job, I defy you not to drop trou and bash one out on the spot.

http://jizmogob.blogspot.com/2008/03/jenna-jameson-pre-implants.html?zx=79455c10e140866a (very NSFW)... Complete with video.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 06, 2012, 09:51:20 PM
Christ, we're never going to be rid of Bobby Rush.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Owl0Z.gif)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: R-V on November 06, 2012, 10:26:57 PM
I think my TV's broken - the scroll at the bottom of NBC 5 said Jim Oberweis is winning an election?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Wheezer on November 06, 2012, 10:37:12 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 06, 2012, 10:22:40 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Owl0Z.gif)

(http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/manson21.jpg)
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 12:30:24 AM
I feel good about the fact that a Democrat will be making the judicial appointments to the Federal bench for the next four years.   But the election isn't over.  The out of state republicans put something called "paycheck protection" on the ballot here in California.  What it really is is a ban on unions using payroll deduction to fund political activities.  If it wins, which I doubt, we will be in court before the week is out to challenge it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
Some of the best news of the night...

QuoteRep. Allen West (R-Fla.) isn't coming back to Congress.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 07, 2012, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
Some of the best news of the night...

QuoteRep. Allen West (R-Fla.) isn't coming back to Congress.

But Michelle Bachmann is.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 08:21:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 07, 2012, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
Some of the best news of the night...

QuoteRep. Allen West (R-Fla.) isn't coming back to Congress.

But Michelle Bachmann is.

But on the bright side, Puerto Rico voted to join the union as the 51st state.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Quality Start Machine on November 07, 2012, 08:32:16 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 08:21:52 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 07, 2012, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
Some of the best news of the night...

QuoteRep. Allen West (R-Fla.) isn't coming back to Congress.

But Michelle Bachmann is.

But on the bright side, Puerto Rico voted to join the union as the 51st state.

You sure the Bronx didn't just annex it?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: BH on November 07, 2012, 08:53:13 AM
Key takeaways  (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/five-ways-mainstream-media-tipped-scales-in-favor-obama/)on why Obama won. The top 3 - Mainstream media bias. Media biased fact checking. Biased debate moderators. Hilarious.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 12:30:24 AM
I feel good about the fact that a Democrat will be making the judicial appointments to the Federal bench for the next four years.   But the election isn't over.  The out of state republicans put something called "paycheck protection" on the ballot here in California.  What it really is is a ban on unions using payroll deduction to fund political activities.  If it wins, which I doubt, we will be in court before the week is out to challenge it.

Proposition 32 lost, in spite of millions coming in from out of state to support it.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 09:11:28 AM
My thanks to the hard working heroes of the Presidential election, Bill Clinton, Bruce Springsteen and Chris Christie.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:14:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 07, 2012, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
Some of the best news of the night...

QuoteRep. Allen West (R-Fla.) isn't coming back to Congress.

But Michelle Bachmann is.

And Steve King.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 12:30:24 AM
I feel good about the fact that a Democrat will be making the judicial appointments to the Federal bench for the next four years.   But the election isn't over.  The out of state republicans put something called "paycheck protection" on the ballot here in California.  What it really is is a ban on unions using payroll deduction to fund political activities.  If it wins, which I doubt, we will be in court before the week is out to challenge it.

Proposition 32 lost, in spite of millions coming in from out of state to support it.

and Prop 30 won, which I am shocked by.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 07, 2012, 09:20:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 12:30:24 AM
I feel good about the fact that a Democrat will be making the judicial appointments to the Federal bench for the next four years.   But the election isn't over.  The out of state republicans put something called "paycheck protection" on the ballot here in California.  What it really is is a ban on unions using payroll deduction to fund political activities.  If it wins, which I doubt, we will be in court before the week is out to challenge it.

Proposition 32 lost, in spite of millions coming in from out of state to support it.

and Prop 30 won, which I am shocked by.

I was disappointed by Prop 37 failing. Monsanto is awful, awful.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 09:24:46 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:14:56 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 07, 2012, 07:57:17 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
Some of the best news of the night...

QuoteRep. Allen West (R-Fla.) isn't coming back to Congress.

But Michelle Bachmann is.

And Steve King.

Joe Walsh is gone, though.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Also...

Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.

Fuck its silent in here.......
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Brownie on November 07, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Also...

Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.

Fuck its silent in here.......

Yeah, what a terrible Senator he was. He and Bob Dold! WHAT A TEA PARTY EXTREMIST! It's wonderful that a very moderate, unifying person like Jan Schakowsky can remain in Congress.

I was trying to be optimistic about Romney, but I was prepared for that result. What's disappointing -- but probably shouldn't be surprising -- is the carte blanche Illinoisans have given Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and Pat Quinn. Now, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between the ruling party in Springfield and Obama, and I'll be pessimistic about Illinois' economy and fiscal health as well as the next four years nationally. I hope I'm wrong.

But here's what I want to know, all of you in Illinois who are apparently happy with the makeup of the Statehouse: what will they do to address our unfunded liabilities? How much should I expect to pay more in property taxes and income taxes in Illinois? What services in Illinois would you cut? Or is the strategy just to wait for the shit to hit the fan while Obama is still in office and go to Washington, hat in hand ans ask for the bailout NYC never got?

On the positive side, voter turnout was down from 2008, but it wasn't down that much. Participatory democracy is a good thing, because if I'm wrong, goodness prevailed yesterday. I voted for exactly 1 winning candidate. And if I'm right, those who did vote for all the badness that prevailed will be back, after hopefully learning a couple of things.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Richard Chuggar on November 07, 2012, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 07, 2012, 09:20:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 12:30:24 AM
I feel good about the fact that a Democrat will be making the judicial appointments to the Federal bench for the next four years.   But the election isn't over.  The out of state republicans put something called "paycheck protection" on the ballot here in California.  What it really is is a ban on unions using payroll deduction to fund political activities.  If it wins, which I doubt, we will be in court before the week is out to challenge it.

Proposition 32 lost, in spite of millions coming in from out of state to support it.

and Prop 30 won, which I am shocked by.

I was disappointed by Prop 37 failing. Monsanto is awful, awful.

Damn moochin' war widows
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Oleg on November 07, 2012, 09:55:59 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 07, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Also...

Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.

Fuck its silent in here.......

Yeah, what a terrible Senator he was. He and Bob Dold! WHAT A TEA PARTY EXTREMIST! It's wonderful that a very moderate, unifying person like Jan Schakowsky can remain in Congress.

I was trying to be optimistic about Romney, but I was prepared for that result. What's disappointing -- but probably shouldn't be surprising -- is the carte blanche Illinoisans have given Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and Pat Quinn. Now, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between the ruling party in Springfield and Obama, and I'll be pessimistic about Illinois' economy and fiscal health as well as the next four years nationally. I hope I'm wrong.

But here's what I want to know, all of you in Illinois who are apparently happy with the makeup of the Statehouse: what will they do to address our unfunded liabilities? How much should I expect to pay more in property taxes and income taxes in Illinois? What services in Illinois would you cut? Or is the strategy just to wait for the shit to hit the fan while Obama is still in office and go to Washington, hat in hand ans ask for the bailout NYC never got?

On the positive side, voter turnout was down from 2008, but it wasn't down that much. Participatory democracy is a good thing, because if I'm wrong, goodness prevailed yesterday. I voted for exactly 1 winning candidate. And if I'm right, those who did vote for all the badness that prevailed will be back, after hopefully learning a couple of things.

I also voted for only one winning candidate.  Well, two if you count the VP.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Internet Apex on November 07, 2012, 09:56:46 AM
Quote from: Oleg on November 07, 2012, 09:55:59 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 07, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Also...

Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.

Fuck its silent in here.......

Yeah, what a terrible Senator he was. He and Bob Dold! WHAT A TEA PARTY EXTREMIST! It's wonderful that a very moderate, unifying person like Jan Schakowsky can remain in Congress.

I was trying to be optimistic about Romney, but I was prepared for that result. What's disappointing -- but probably shouldn't be surprising -- is the carte blanche Illinoisans have given Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and Pat Quinn. Now, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between the ruling party in Springfield and Obama, and I'll be pessimistic about Illinois' economy and fiscal health as well as the next four years nationally. I hope I'm wrong.

But here's what I want to know, all of you in Illinois who are apparently happy with the makeup of the Statehouse: what will they do to address our unfunded liabilities? How much should I expect to pay more in property taxes and income taxes in Illinois? What services in Illinois would you cut? Or is the strategy just to wait for the shit to hit the fan while Obama is still in office and go to Washington, hat in hand ans ask for the bailout NYC never got?

On the positive side, voter turnout was down from 2008, but it wasn't down that much. Participatory democracy is a good thing, because if I'm wrong, goodness prevailed yesterday. I voted for exactly 1 winning candidate. And if I'm right, those who did vote for all the badness that prevailed will be back, after hopefully learning a couple of things.

I also voted for only one winning candidate.  Well, two if you count the VP.

Me too!

*high fives Oleg*

I don't know why I didn't use the marker to cross out Biden's name.

*slaps forehead*
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 10:14:06 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 07, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Also...

Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.

Fuck its silent in here.......

Yeah, what a terrible Senator he was. He and Bob Dold! WHAT A TEA PARTY EXTREMIST! It's wonderful that a very moderate, unifying person like Jan Schakowsky can remain in Congress.

I was trying to be optimistic about Romney, but I was prepared for that result. What's disappointing -- but probably shouldn't be surprising -- is the carte blanche Illinoisans have given Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and Pat Quinn. Now, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between the ruling party in Springfield and Obama, and I'll be pessimistic about Illinois' economy and fiscal health as well as the next four years nationally. I hope I'm wrong.

But here's what I want to know, all of you in Illinois who are apparently happy with the makeup of the Statehouse: what will they do to address our unfunded liabilities? How much should I expect to pay more in property taxes and income taxes in Illinois? What services in Illinois would you cut? Or is the strategy just to wait for the shit to hit the fan while Obama is still in office and go to Washington, hat in hand ans ask for the bailout NYC never got?

On the positive side, voter turnout was down from 2008, but it wasn't down that much. Participatory democracy is a good thing, because if I'm wrong, goodness prevailed yesterday. I voted for exactly 1 winning candidate. And if I'm right, those who did vote for all the badness that prevailed will be back, after hopefully learning a couple of things.

To be accurate, NYC did eventually get that bailout from Ford in '75.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: PenPho on November 07, 2012, 10:14:55 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 07, 2012, 09:20:38 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 12:30:24 AM
I feel good about the fact that a Democrat will be making the judicial appointments to the Federal bench for the next four years.   But the election isn't over.  The out of state republicans put something called "paycheck protection" on the ballot here in California.  What it really is is a ban on unions using payroll deduction to fund political activities.  If it wins, which I doubt, we will be in court before the week is out to challenge it.

Proposition 32 lost, in spite of millions coming in from out of state to support it.

and Prop 30 won, which I am shocked by.

I was disappointed by Prop 37 failing. Monsanto is awful, awful.

THIS, regardless of what Wheezer says.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: World's #1 Astros Fan on November 07, 2012, 10:17:18 AM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 10:14:06 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 07, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Also...

Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.

Fuck its silent in here.......

Yeah, what a terrible Senator he was. He and Bob Dold! WHAT A TEA PARTY EXTREMIST! It's wonderful that a very moderate, unifying person like Jan Schakowsky can remain in Congress.

I was trying to be optimistic about Romney, but I was prepared for that result. What's disappointing -- but probably shouldn't be surprising -- is the carte blanche Illinoisans have given Michael Madigan and John Cullerton and Pat Quinn. Now, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between the ruling party in Springfield and Obama, and I'll be pessimistic about Illinois' economy and fiscal health as well as the next four years nationally. I hope I'm wrong.

But here's what I want to know, all of you in Illinois who are apparently happy with the makeup of the Statehouse: what will they do to address our unfunded liabilities? How much should I expect to pay more in property taxes and income taxes in Illinois? What services in Illinois would you cut? Or is the strategy just to wait for the shit to hit the fan while Obama is still in office and go to Washington, hat in hand ans ask for the bailout NYC never got?

On the positive side, voter turnout was down from 2008, but it wasn't down that much. Participatory democracy is a good thing, because if I'm wrong, goodness prevailed yesterday. I voted for exactly 1 winning candidate. And if I'm right, those who did vote for all the badness that prevailed will be back, after hopefully learning a couple of things.

To be accurate, NYC did eventually get that bailout from Ford in '75.

Operation Bootstrap?
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: thehawk on November 07, 2012, 10:34:16 AM
Quote from: Brownie on November 07, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Also...

Quote from: MikeC on January 19, 2010, 09:24:43 PM
Say....what about that Scott Brown fellow? Went from not a chance in hell to winning it.

Fuck its silent in here.......

Yeah, what a terrible Senator he was. He and Bob Dold! WHAT A TEA PARTY EXTREMIST! It's wonderful that a very moderate, unifying person like Jan Schakowsky can remain in Congress.

[...]


Dold and Brown are collateral damage of an increasingly stratified system.  Probably worth noting, however, that the Tea Party did a far more effective job of eliminating moderate Republican congressmen and senators in the primaries than the Democrats (Lugar comes to mind this morning).

I'm really struck that after what seems to be 2 years and about $6 billion dollars, through a campaign where every person I knew probably thought 'maybe a banana republic wouldn't be that bad a choice for government' we are pretty much exactly where we were in the White House and Congress.  Meawhile all the hard choices that have been put off (pensions in Illinois, the Cliff in Washington) waiting for the 'mandate of the people to decide' are staring the same people in the face. Fitting I guess.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: Eli on November 07, 2012, 10:38:25 AM
The Dow is crashing. Welcome to Obama's America.
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: CBStew on November 07, 2012, 11:43:43 AM
Quote from: Eli on November 07, 2012, 10:38:25 AM
The Dow is crashing. Welcome to Obama's America.

Buy!
Title: Re: Fuck its silent in here.......
Post by: J. Walter Weatherman on November 07, 2012, 11:47:08 AM
/thread (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8284)