The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

I like all five. Excellent.

I'm sold.

The problem is that 1, 2, 4 and 5 are anti-current-GOP.  Current dems would be for 1, 2 and half of 5.  No politician who wants to be re-elected is going to be pro-3 or pro-1.

Maybe we need politicians who are willing to serve instead of simply have power.

Reality'd. As evidenced by Obama's lame-ass jokey reaction to the 'legalize pot' question in his internet town hall meeting, I don't think any of the gasbags in power in either party currently support something so sensible. They still want to be TOUGH ON CRIME and KEEP THE CRACKHEADS OUT OF YOUR CUPBOARD.

I think you'd find Dmes who support 1 but for the GOPs who would demonize them for being soft on crime / weak on family values.  Cowards.

[Philberto]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

I like all five. Excellent.

I can dig this; even if just means that the debate shifts to more important things.  If the Republicans get rid of the religious right wing of their party and implement these ideas, we really will raise the discourse on policy in this country.

Number 3 is downright socialist, though.  Not sure if Newt will like it.

I, however, do like it!

As an expansion to what was talked about in the SBox:
#3: I agree with this, but here's the thing I wonder about. Often times you can see people getting the help from the government that don't seem to be helping themselves. Everyone knows they are out there (using the Link card to by snickers and pepsi, for example.. And you could argue the government just needs to stop that and they should). Those are the cases where I would not be all for helping out the lower class. Some may not like that, and I understand, but it's the way I feel. Now, the tough part is: How does the government determine that? I am not dumb enough to believe that they could do it completely fairly and accurately but it is, and always has been, a concern of mine on Welfare (for one).

I'm not sure of what the solution would be to make it better in my view, but it's something that they should try to work on. I do know that there are politicians who have considered drug-testing for Welfare recipients (conflict with #1 kind of) but I think I support that. Even if drugs were legal, they should be considered a commodity that people don't need. However, with that there is also the change in the prices of drugs and demand (as Oleg was talking about in the SBox) so that could be a moot point, but it is a thought.

I'll touch on more later but I have to run now...

[Gil Gunderson]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

I like all five. Excellent.

I can dig this; even if just means that the debate shifts to more important things.  If the Republicans get rid of the religious right wing of their party and implement these ideas, we really will raise the discourse on policy in this country.

Number 3 is downright socialist, though.  Not sure if Newt will like it.

I, however, do like it!

As an expansion to what was talked about in the SBox:
#3: I agree with this, but here's the thing I wonder about. Often times you can see people getting the help from the government that don't seem to be helping themselves. Everyone knows they are out there (using the Link card to by snickers and pepsi, for example.. And you could argue the government just needs to stop that and they should). Those are the cases where I would not be all for helping out the lower class. Some may not like that, and I understand, but it's the way I feel. Now, the tough part is: How does the government determine that? I am not dumb enough to believe that they could do it completely fairly and accurately but it is, and always has been, a concern of mine on Welfare (for one).

I'm not sure of what the solution would be to make it better in my view, but it's something that they should try to work on. I do know that there are politicians who have considered drug-testing for Welfare recipients (conflict with #1 kind of) but I think I support that. Even if drugs were legal, they should be considered a commodity that people don't need. However, with that there is also the change in the prices of drugs and demand (as Oleg was talking about in the SBox) so that could be a moot point, but it is a thought.

I'll touch on more later but I have to run now...

Post lunch SBox discussions are eluding me of late.  I'll have to duck out of trial prep meetings more often.

[MikeC]

Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents

Are the documents they are showing authentic?

[RV]

Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents

Are the documents they are showing authentic?

You should really learn to use the internet sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994[3], Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."

In 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that operations of its suburban editions would be consolidated, with "staff reductions" in the newsrooms, business, and circulation departments.[10] Two managers were laid off immediately along with several other staff members later in 2005.

With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.

All that being said, I think it's been noted that the strong-arm tactics used by Paulson and Bernanke (and probably Geithner) were pretty disturbing.

[morpheus]

Max Borders has to be a fake name, right? Whatever the guy's name is, I like the cut of his jib - particularly the first 4 ideas.

http://www.thenextright.com/max-borders/no-risk-no-reward-part-i

I like all five. Excellent.

I can dig this; even if just means that the debate shifts to more important things.  If the Republicans get rid of the religious right wing of their party and implement these ideas, we really will raise the discourse on policy in this country.

Number 3 is downright socialist, though.  Not sure if Newt will like it.

I, however, do like it!

Number 3 is not socialist...

3. Means-test Everything – If it is to exist, every federal social program should be designed to help the very poor. The middle class only a little. The rich none. Government welfare programs for the rich, such as Medicare, are insane. Let's say so. (That includes a louder call for bringing Medicare back from the precipice.) Shame rich, old people: "You cannot continue to rob the next generation and get away with it. You have more resources and your healthcare costs more. Pay for it. You owe it to 'the children.'" Thus: No welfare for the rich. No corporate welfare.

This is the state affecting as few people as possible, not a socialist concept as I understand it.  Many conservatives have argued for means-testing of government benefits as a way of shrinking those programs.  It's a libertarian concept.

[MikeC]

Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents

Are the documents they are showing authentic?

You should really learn to use the internet sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994[3], Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."

In 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that operations of its suburban editions would be consolidated, with "staff reductions" in the newsrooms, business, and circulation departments.[10] Two managers were laid off immediately along with several other staff members later in 2005.

With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.

All that being said, I think it's been noted that the strong-arm tactics used by Paulson and Bernanke (and probably Geithner) were pretty disturbing.

Nice insult, just asking opinion. If accurate its disturbing to see it in writing the process to forced nationalism.

[morpheus]

Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents

Are the documents they are showing authentic?

You should really learn to use the internet sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994[3], Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."

In 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that operations of its suburban editions would be consolidated, with "staff reductions" in the newsrooms, business, and circulation departments.[10] Two managers were laid off immediately along with several other staff members later in 2005.

With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.

All that being said, I think it's been noted that the strong-arm tactics used by Paulson and Bernanke (and probably Geithner) were pretty disturbing.

Just curious, does the fact that Judicial Watch got funding from Scaife somehow invalidate their work?  And I don't think that Judicial Watch had anything at all to do with THAT WHOLE THING concerning the Vince Foster conspiracy theory nonsense.  As I recall it, JW continued to file suits in a similar vein when Bush was president (Cheney Energy Task Force, maybe?), so it's hardly some lapdog of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  I find it funny that these sorts of arguments are made, that because they accepted funding from [evil person X] all work must be invalid.  If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?

[Quality Start Machine]

  If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?

Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.

[RV]

Whats the reputation of Judicial Watch?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents

Are the documents they are showing authentic?

You should really learn to use the internet sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch

Founded by conservative attorney Larry Klayman in 1994[3], Judicial Watch came to public attention after filing 18 lawsuits against the administration of Democratic U.S. President Bill Clinton and figures in the Clinton administration. The organization received considerable financial support from prominent Clinton critics, including $7.74 million from conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[4] This led Clinton administration officials to accuse Judicial Watch of "abusing the judicial system for partisan ends."

In 2005, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that operations of its suburban editions would be consolidated, with "staff reductions" in the newsrooms, business, and circulation departments.[10] Two managers were laid off immediately along with several other staff members later in 2005.

With Scaife as publisher, the small circulation newspaper was the chief packager of editorials and news columns claiming that then United States President Bill Clinton or his wife, then First Lady Hillary Clinton were responsible for the death of Deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster.

All that being said, I think it's been noted that the strong-arm tactics used by Paulson and Bernanke (and probably Geithner) were pretty disturbing.

Just curious, does the fact that Judicial Watch got funding from Scaife somehow invalidate their work?  And I don't think that Judicial Watch had anything at all to do with THAT WHOLE THING concerning the Vince Foster conspiracy theory nonsense.  As I recall it, JW continued to file suits in a similar vein when Bush was president (Cheney Energy Task Force, maybe?), so it's hardly some lapdog of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  I find it funny that these sorts of arguments are made, that because they accepted funding from [evil person X] all work must be invalid.  If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?

No, the Scaife funding does not invalidate their work. I'm a big fan of transparency, and the documents they've managed to obtain speak for themselves. I was simply answering MikeC's question about the reputation of Judicial Watch. I think the history and funding of any organization has some relevance when you're trying to determine if there's any bias present.

[Oleg]

  If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?

Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.

No, it's not.

[Quality Start Machine]

  If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?

Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.

No, it's not.

They're jagoffs. They just happen to be OUR jagoffs.

[morpheus]

  If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?

Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.

No, it's not.

THIS is why I brought it up.  It's bullshit when funded by Scaife, but it's oh-so-altruistic when funded by Soros.  Shoah.

[Oleg]

  If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?

Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.

No, it's not.

THIS is why I brought it up.  It's bullshit when funded by Scaife, but it's oh-so-altruistic when funded by Soros.  Shoah.

I think it's more about your expectations as an audience.  Look, I have no illusions about what moveon.org or any of the right-wing crap is.  I don't think their studies or conclusions are invalid, I just think you, as an audience, need to understand where they're coming from.

Personally, I'll watch Olbermann, but if you think I don't understand that he has an point of view that he hammers home, than I don't think YOU KNOW ME AT ALL.

I guess it's just up to each of us as cerebral beings to distinguish between the fluff and the real facts.

Scaife has an ax to grind with the Democrats.  Soros has an ax to grind with the conservatives.  Neither has a monopoly on truthiness.

[Chuck to Chuck]

  If that were true, would Soros's various left-wing pet groups all be lapdogs of his?

Yes. MoveOn is bullshit.

No, it's not.

THIS is why I brought it up.  It's bullshit when funded by Scaife, but it's oh-so-altruistic when funded by Soros.  Shoah.

MoveOn is the BCB of politics (despite BCB's whacko lefty ultimate ownership).  Holocaust.  Shoah.  Whatever.