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

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

She just needs to do porn.. And by porn, I mean her daughter, her, IAN, and I need to make a sex tape that gets leaked to the internet. It would be the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs.

I think "the best fucking thing in the history of the interwebs" has to be something people would actually want to see.

You don't want to see IAN and I's balls bouncing off of each other below Sarah's taint? You must be a homosecks.

Yeti still has yet to fully grasp the rule that the Shoutbox doesn't translate well at Desipio.

(Hell, most of the time it doesn't translate in the Shoutbox.)

[Quality Start Machine]

This:

If you don't think a bill should become law, then it is arguably your responsibility to do everything in your power to keep it from becoming law. But if that's really how the Senate is going to work from here on out, we should actually change the Senate rules to require 60 votes for the passage of any bill. Let's end the confusion of the filibuster and the attempts to use budget reconciliation and the illegitimacy of procedural holds and the primacy of cloture votes and all the rest of it. If the Senate is to be a 60-vote body, let's have that debate, spin out the implications, and decide to change the rules of the place to make it a 60-vote body. But let's end the embarrassment of the United States Senate functioning off the implications of a procedural loophole rather than the majority vote that its designers intended.

The filibuster sucks. Would anyone here have a problem with passing a law that abolishes the filibuster in, say, 2020? That way it doesn't just benefit the party currently in power, and we could actually see some legislating instead of becoming California.

Not only would I like to see the filibuster abolished, but I'd like to see the line-item veto restored, as long as it comes with a 51% override.

[MikeC]

This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a

If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.

Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?

And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.

[PenFoe]

This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a

If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.

Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?

And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.

Yes, I'm sure those are the only two options.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a

If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.

Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?

And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.

Yes, I'm sure those are the only two options.

Could it have been... wait for it... a typo?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act

We fully agree with those who find the mistakes in the data frustrating – and we've been working with the Recovery Board to find the mistakes, and fix them.   Just because mistakes are inevitable in any new system – especially one this large, and this new -- doesn't mean they are acceptable.  We are going through the reports with a fine tooth comb, identifying mistakes, and working with filers to correct them.  That said, three big picture points should not be lost.

First, the mistakes are RELATIVELY few, and don't change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data.   Even if as many as 5-10% of the reports or 5-10% of the totals are wrong (and we don't think it is that high), that still means the Recovery Act saved or created between 600,000 and 700,000 direct jobs in its first seven months – more than most experts predicted when it passed.  And most leading experts agree that – whatever the recipient reported total should be – the actual number of jobs saved or created is about double that, because the recipient reports don't include direct payments to individuals, the jobs created by Recovery Act tax cuts, and the jobs created when workers on Recovery Act projects spend their paychecks.

Second, some of the mistakes are frustrating typos and coding errors that don't undermine information at the heart of the data.   Yes, it is "silly" that Recovery.gov shows that a project went to the 15th Congressional District in Arizona – when there is no such district.  But a "click" on the project details gives you the address, and a check on the address shows it is in Arizona's 3rd district.  All this shows is that when people send in 130,000 reports, some will have silly mistakes.  But it doesn't really undermine the ability of the public to track and follow the data – or the fact that real jobs have been created.

Third, transparency is going to be messy – but it is better than the alternative.   It would be great if every report filed was correct the first time, on time, and contained no errors.  But that's not realistic when 130,000 reports are being filed in a 10 day period.  It would be great if the reviewers at the federal agencies, could have found all the mistakes in the 20 days they had to do the job, gotten the reports back to the recipients to be fixed, and reposted  – but again, that isn't realistic.  And so, it's all out there now for the public to see – because the Recovery Act chose speed and transparency as its watchwords – and the result is some data errors for the critics to pick over.  But think about it this way:  What government program has ever even attempted to provide this sort of information, on this scale, this quickly?  In my over thirty years of government service, I can tell you without hesitation:  something like this has never happened before.  In previous administrations, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent without anyone being asked what happened to the money, being asked how it was spent, or being asked how many jobs were created – and some of the loudest critics of Recovery Act data today were shockingly silent.  And if these questions were asked, answers would usually take months or years to produce.

Did MikeC just become the lowest form of life on a message board?

[Oleg]

This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a

If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.

Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?

And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.

Yes, I'm sure those are the only two options.

Could it have been... wait for it... a typo?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act

We fully agree with those who find the mistakes in the data frustrating – and we've been working with the Recovery Board to find the mistakes, and fix them.   Just because mistakes are inevitable in any new system – especially one this large, and this new -- doesn't mean they are acceptable.  We are going through the reports with a fine tooth comb, identifying mistakes, and working with filers to correct them.  That said, three big picture points should not be lost.

First, the mistakes are RELATIVELY few, and don't change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data.   Even if as many as 5-10% of the reports or 5-10% of the totals are wrong (and we don't think it is that high), that still means the Recovery Act saved or created between 600,000 and 700,000 direct jobs in its first seven months – more than most experts predicted when it passed.  And most leading experts agree that – whatever the recipient reported total should be – the actual number of jobs saved or created is about double that, because the recipient reports don't include direct payments to individuals, the jobs created by Recovery Act tax cuts, and the jobs created when workers on Recovery Act projects spend their paychecks.

Second, some of the mistakes are frustrating typos and coding errors that don't undermine information at the heart of the data.   Yes, it is "silly" that Recovery.gov shows that a project went to the 15th Congressional District in Arizona – when there is no such district.  But a "click" on the project details gives you the address, and a check on the address shows it is in Arizona's 3rd district.  All this shows is that when people send in 130,000 reports, some will have silly mistakes.  But it doesn't really undermine the ability of the public to track and follow the data – or the fact that real jobs have been created.

Third, transparency is going to be messy – but it is better than the alternative.   It would be great if every report filed was correct the first time, on time, and contained no errors.  But that's not realistic when 130,000 reports are being filed in a 10 day period.  It would be great if the reviewers at the federal agencies, could have found all the mistakes in the 20 days they had to do the job, gotten the reports back to the recipients to be fixed, and reposted  – but again, that isn't realistic.  And so, it's all out there now for the public to see – because the Recovery Act chose speed and transparency as its watchwords – and the result is some data errors for the critics to pick over.  But think about it this way:  What government program has ever even attempted to provide this sort of information, on this scale, this quickly?  In my over thirty years of government service, I can tell you without hesitation:  something like this has never happened before.  In previous administrations, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent without anyone being asked what happened to the money, being asked how it was spent, or being asked how many jobs were created – and some of the loudest critics of Recovery Act data today were shockingly silent.  And if these questions were asked, answers would usually take months or years to produce.

Did MikeC just become the lowest form of life on a message board?

We all know that 80% of the stimulus money will go to the 57th state anyway.

[Gil Gunderson]

This is amusing....stimulus money creating jobs in congressional districts that don't even exist!

http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-a

If you watch Fringe, we must be spending it to create jobs in an alternate universe. Either that or this whole stimulus thing is one big scam.

Is the next government update going to include creation of jobs in alternate realities?

And this is the same government who wants to reform Health Care.

Yes, I'm sure those are the only two options.

Could it have been... wait for it... a typo?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/11/17/looking-big-picture-recovery-act

We fully agree with those who find the mistakes in the data frustrating – and we've been working with the Recovery Board to find the mistakes, and fix them.   Just because mistakes are inevitable in any new system – especially one this large, and this new -- doesn't mean they are acceptable.  We are going through the reports with a fine tooth comb, identifying mistakes, and working with filers to correct them.  That said, three big picture points should not be lost.

First, the mistakes are RELATIVELY few, and don't change the fundamental conclusions one can draw from the data.   Even if as many as 5-10% of the reports or 5-10% of the totals are wrong (and we don't think it is that high), that still means the Recovery Act saved or created between 600,000 and 700,000 direct jobs in its first seven months – more than most experts predicted when it passed.  And most leading experts agree that – whatever the recipient reported total should be – the actual number of jobs saved or created is about double that, because the recipient reports don't include direct payments to individuals, the jobs created by Recovery Act tax cuts, and the jobs created when workers on Recovery Act projects spend their paychecks.

Second, some of the mistakes are frustrating typos and coding errors that don't undermine information at the heart of the data.   Yes, it is "silly" that Recovery.gov shows that a project went to the 15th Congressional District in Arizona – when there is no such district.  But a "click" on the project details gives you the address, and a check on the address shows it is in Arizona's 3rd district.  All this shows is that when people send in 130,000 reports, some will have silly mistakes.  But it doesn't really undermine the ability of the public to track and follow the data – or the fact that real jobs have been created.

Third, transparency is going to be messy – but it is better than the alternative.   It would be great if every report filed was correct the first time, on time, and contained no errors.  But that's not realistic when 130,000 reports are being filed in a 10 day period.  It would be great if the reviewers at the federal agencies, could have found all the mistakes in the 20 days they had to do the job, gotten the reports back to the recipients to be fixed, and reposted  – but again, that isn't realistic.  And so, it's all out there now for the public to see – because the Recovery Act chose speed and transparency as its watchwords – and the result is some data errors for the critics to pick over.  But think about it this way:  What government program has ever even attempted to provide this sort of information, on this scale, this quickly?  In my over thirty years of government service, I can tell you without hesitation:  something like this has never happened before.  In previous administrations, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent without anyone being asked what happened to the money, being asked how it was spent, or being asked how many jobs were created – and some of the loudest critics of Recovery Act data today were shockingly silent.  And if these questions were asked, answers would usually take months or years to produce.

Did MikeC just become the lowest form of life on a message board?

Just?

[Gil Gunderson]

Here's a whole bowl of idiot, served hot:

He established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue's gallery showing how other national leaders - the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them - have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).

Some of the president's critics are giving him a hard time, and it's true that this president seems never to have studied much American history. Not bowing to foreign potentates was what 1776 was all about. His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye. Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR, who famously served the lowly hot dog, with ballpark mustard, to the king and queen of England? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

What. The.  Fuck?

[Eli]

His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye. Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR, who famously served the lowly hot dog, with ballpark mustard, to the king and queen of England? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.

From a previous Wesley Pruden column:

Mr. Obama's revelation of his "inner Muslim" in Cairo reveals much about who he is. He is our first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang. The genetic imprint writ large in his 43 predecessors is missing from the Obama DNA. He no doubt meant no offense in returning that bust of Churchill ("Who he?") or imagining that a DVD of American movies was appropriate in an exchange of state gifts with Gordon Brown. Nor did he likely understand why it was an offense against history (and good manners) to agree to the exclusion of the Queen from Saturday's commemoration of the Anglo-American liberation of France.

Which way is it, asshat?

[World B Free]

Here's a whole bowl of idiot, served hot:

He established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue's gallery showing how other national leaders - the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them - have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).

Some of the president's critics are giving him a hard time, and it's true that this president seems never to have studied much American history. Not bowing to foreign potentates was what 1776 was all about. His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye. Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR, who famously served the lowly hot dog, with ballpark mustard, to the king and queen of England? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

What. The.  Fuck?

That guy is a dick and anyone that thinks like him also a dick.

[CBStew]

Everyone knows that one doesn't bow to foreign leaders.  Protocol dictates that you throw up in their laps.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Everyone knows that one doesn't bow to foreign leaders.  Protocol dictates that you throw up in their laps.

Ah... Bushu suru.

[MikeC]

Well while the Whitehouse is at it they can now discredit the "440 phantom" congressional districts they invented.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/nov/17/recoverygov-shows-money-flowing-to-nonexistent-di/

Here is a pretty simple one that Obama and his clowns should be able to get correct on the first try.

For example, Recovery.gov shows 12 districts, using up more than $2.7 billion, in Washington, D.C, which only has one congressional district.

This isn't just a few reporting errors. According to our government the House of Representatives has doubled in size according to the filings.

Here is some more things the White House can try and debunk....

http://watchdog.org/2009/11/17/6-4-billion-stimulus-goes-to-phantom-districts/

Many other recipients carried the banner for congressional districts that have been defunct for decades. South Carolina's 7th took the cake, garnering more than $27 million in stimulus funds, despite being eliminated in 1930. And Virginia's 12th District may have been written off at the start of the Civil War, but it must carry some sentimental value in Old Dominion–it received more than $2 million, according to recovery.gov.

That goes along with data just being plain made up out of thin air.

http://watchdog.org/2009/10/30/media-raise-suspicions-about-white-house-job-numbers/

So lets just get this straight, we can't trust the government in how they calculate a saved job because their numbers are fuzzy at best. And now we can't trust the government to tell us accurately where the money is that created or saved these jobs because their own website is so riddled with inaccurate information.

We already know that there is a shitload of fraud going on with stimulus dollars and a shitload of false reporting. Like the school district in North Chicago claiming it save 400+ jobs but they only employ 290.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2988-San-Diego-Economy-Examiner~y2009m11d13-Media-is-discovering-the-count-of-jobs-saved-by-stimulus-is-fraudulent

But its just a bunch of simple errors that are easily explained away by the Obama administration. Good work is being done by claiming to save jobs that were never in danger to begin with and creating more jobs than actually exist. And then finding out on top of that that money is flooding into 440 new congressional districts that don't exist as well.

Seems to be a lot of data being reported, that ends up not existing with this whole stimulus stinker.

And on my way out here is a nice big list of phony data to read through and be amazed at the level of fraud and bogus claims....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/maps/Bogus-jobs-created-or-saved-by-the-Stimulus.html

Just more simple reporting errors, not a big deal.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

We already know that there is a shitload of fraud going on with stimulus dollars and a shitload of false reporting.

At the risk of further abusing an already overworn internet rhetoric cliche...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[ChuckD]

The errors in congressional district reporting is more due to problems at the user end. Each recipient of ARRA funding was responsible for reporting the data back to the government. Offhand, I couldn't tell you what my congressional district is; as someone who pays attention to politics, I imagine many other people are in the same boat of ignorance regarding their district number. I'd be more interested in seeing the dataset looks like when aggregated by zip codes, a geographic identifier with which a lot more people are familiar. Additionally, it shouldn't be difficult to geolocate the addresses of recipients and repopulate the congressional district with the correct data.