Fuck its silent in here.......

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Ooh. Some good stuff here...

http://jilliancyork.com/2011/12/14/the-definitive-collection-of-thomas-friedman-takedowns/

[Brownie]

Someone needs to take Peter King's Starwood Preferred Traveler Enjoying/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week and turn it into a Friedman column. Or take a Friedman column and embed it into a MMQB.


INTERNET, MAKE IT HAPPEN!!

[Slaky]

Someone needs to take Peter King's Starwood Preferred Traveler Enjoying/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week and turn it into a Friedman column. Or take a Friedman column and embed it into a MMQB.


INTERNET, MAKE IT HAPPEN!!

Are you trying to kill people?

[Brownie]

Someone needs to take Peter King's Starwood Preferred Traveler Enjoying/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week and turn it into a Friedman column. Or take a Friedman column and embed it into a MMQB.


INTERNET, MAKE IT HAPPEN!!

Are you trying to kill people?

Yes. But I also believe SKO could do it in 45 minutes.

[Gilgamesh]

Get fucked, Bishop...

In the homily at in St. Mary's Cathedral in Peoria, Jenky took aim at health care policies proposed by the Obama administration, which have been a source of consternation for Catholic bishops since they were announced earlier this year.

Ok, no biggie.  Not like the Pope has never said that universal health care isn't a right (He did) but whatever.

But then you get this garbage.

"Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room," he said. "In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his 'Kulturkampf,' a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

"Clemenceau, nicknamed 'the priest eater,' tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century. Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda -- now seems intent on following a similar path."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-group-blasts-peoria-bishops-comparison-of-obama-policies-to-hitler-stalin-20120418,0,4979178.story

[Bort]

It's kind of rich for the church to bring up nazis.

[R-V]

Get fucked, Bishop...

In the homily at in St. Mary's Cathedral in Peoria, Jenky took aim at health care policies proposed by the Obama administration, which have been a source of consternation for Catholic bishops since they were announced earlier this year.

Ok, no biggie.  Not like the Pope has never said that universal health care isn't a right (He did) but whatever.

But then you get this garbage.

"Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room," he said. "In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his 'Kulturkampf,' a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

"Clemenceau, nicknamed 'the priest eater,' tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century. Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda -- now seems intent on following a similar path."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-group-blasts-peoria-bishops-comparison-of-obama-policies-to-hitler-stalin-20120418,0,4979178.story

I haven't been this ashamed of Peoria since we instituted that ban on store-bought jorts.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

CISPSTINK is terrible.

http://gizmodo.com/5905360/what-is-cispa

CISPA is a proposed national "cyber security law" bouncing around Congress...
The intent of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Michael Rogers (R-MI), is to protect America's internet interests (both governmental and our precious YouTubes) against attacks. It's technically an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, but would have sweeping 21st century consequences. Rogers cites China as a main threat—conventional wisdom does say they're constantly trying to breach American networks, along with Russia and Iran—but this goes way beyond Cold War hack paranoia, and into your laptop.

...that would let websites you use hand over your personal data and read your email...
The scariest part of CISPA is how astonishingly broad and loose it is, like some sort of giant, poorly-built rope bridge. Over a volcano. CISPA would permit any private company (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Pinterest, Google, you name it) to give away any and all data it's collected on you when asked by a government agency. Literally any government agency. This data would then head to the Department of Homeland Security.

...based on very vague terms...
CISPA says companies need to give up your information only in the face of a "cyber threat." So, what is a "cyber threat"? Nobody really knows! The bill defines it as "efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy government or private systems and networks." In other words, trying to do bad stuff on the internet, or even just talking about it. Ideally, this would be narrowed to specific malicious LulzSec stuff like DDoS attacks, but it's not. It can be almost anything!

...with very little oversight...
Would Facebook need to be given a warrant or subpoena before spilling your data to the feds? Nope! Would you ever be informed that you data had been released? Nope! What if you think the government has accessed your personal stuff without cause? Too bad! They're 100% immune, as long as the groups involved acted in "good faith," which legally means pretty much zilch. All previous laws that protected your privacy against government eavesdropping, like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, would be overridden.

...and some powerful backers...
Facebook, Google, and Microsoft all support CISPA. Why? Because they don't want to get hacked, and they think this will keep them safe(r). Are they right in this? Maybe, but they're also ignoring the companies can share anything they want whenever they want however they want with the government aspect of the bill.

And it just passed the House.

It appears that Obama is poised to veto if it passes the Senate, at least insofar as the administration has come out and said "if H.R. 3523 were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

But fuck this shit sideways regardless.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/cybersecurity-bill-faq-disturbing-privacy-dangers-cispa-and-how-you-stop-it
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/cispa-national-security-and-nsa-ability-read-your-emails
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/even-rogers-amendments-cispa-still-surveillance-bill

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Morph and TJ don't agree with Stephen King...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don't ask me why; I don't get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can't seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber ... which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I've gotten the same reaction myself, even though I'm only "baby rich" compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God's sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope's balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, "I'm rich and I don't apologize for it." Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren't blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn't have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it's not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It's un-fucking-American is what it is. I don't want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you're on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to "cut a check and shut up," in Governor Christie's words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That's called stepping up and not whining about it. That's called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn't cost their beloved rich folks any money.

Go back to Mainetana, Commie.

[R-V]

Morph and TJ don't agree with Stephen King...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

The U.S. senators and representatives who refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich—they squall like scalded babies (usually on Fox News) every time the subject comes up—are not, by and large, superrich themselves, although many are millionaires and all have had the equivalent of Obamacare for years. They simply idolize the rich. Don't ask me why; I don't get it either, since most rich people are as boring as old, dead dog shit. The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners and Eric Cantors just can't seem to help themselves. These guys and their right-wing supporters regard deep pockets like Christy Walton and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber ... which is to say, with wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins. I've gotten the same reaction myself, even though I'm only "baby rich" compared with some of these guys, who float serenely over the lives of the struggling middle class like blimps made of thousand-dollar bills.

In America, the rich are hallowed. Even Warren Buffett, who has largely been drummed out of the club for his radical ideas about putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to patriotism, made the front pages when he announced that he had stage-1 prostate cancer. Stage 1, for God's sake! A hundred clinics can fix him up, and he can put the bill on his American Express black card! But the press made it sound like the pope's balls had just dropped off and shattered! Because it was cancer? No! Because it was Warren Buffett, he of Berkshire-Hathaway!

I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, "I'm rich and I don't apologize for it." Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren't blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn't have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it's not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It's un-fucking-American is what it is. I don't want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you're on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to "cut a check and shut up," in Governor Christie's words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That's called stepping up and not whining about it. That's called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn't cost their beloved rich folks any money.

Go back to Mainetana, Commie.

Why doesn't he just send a check to the Treasury they accept donations derp.

[morpheus]

[Brownie]

"Fair share." Stephen King is supposed to be a descriptive writer yet all he can do is use a pedestrian phrase like "fair share" to exclaim how much he should pay in taxes. But, his creative personal attacks (seriously, Stephen, are these the best you can do?) really add something to this debate I've seen nowhere else.

When you can determine what share is "fair" and why it is so, you are free to get back to me. Gil and RV described a system they felt was fair. I disagreed with their rates, but that's something we can at least work with.

Stephen King offers none of that, but he does offer a very poor understanding of economics and finance.

I am just hopeful we can all pay our "fair share" and most important, get rid of all the "loopholes" and everything then will be grand.

But, don't worry! The President is on it, complaining about tax loopholes, while proposing several new tax loopholes during the State of the Union!

And fuck yeah, R-V, he absolutely should pay the IRS what he thinks he should be taxed.

Finally, the number of Americans with 0 federal income tax is around 50%. How many of them are rich?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

"Fair share." Stephen King is supposed to be a descriptive writer yet all he can do is use a pedestrian phrase like "fair share" to exclaim how much he should pay in taxes. But, his creative personal attacks (seriously, Stephen, are these the best you can do?) really add something to this debate I've seen nowhere else.

When you can determine what share is "fair" and why it is so, you are free to get back to me. Gil and RV described a system they felt was fair. I disagreed with their rates, but that's something we can at least work with.

He's talking in principles, not policy specifics. Just like tea party types and 1%ers talk in principles when they cry out William Wallace-like for their FREEDOM.

It's rhetoric. A counterweight.

It's rhetoric that says that "patriotism" means caring about your country. And that caring about your country means caring about its people and providing for "the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts".

It's rhetoric opposed to Grover Norquist and his Congressional signatories, who consider any tax raise ever, regardless of those policy specifics you're demanding, to be anathema. Who stand athwart the common welfare yelling, "I got mine."

Finally, the number of Americans with 0 federal income tax is around 50%.

Or, rather, was around 50%. At the height of recession unemployment and stimulus tax cuts.

How many of them are rich?

Before or after they pay out 15-20% of their already subsistence-level incomes in other taxes federal, state and local?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Finally, the number of Americans with 0 federal income tax is around 50%. How many of them are rich?

What's the percent of federal income tax filers who are above 0% and don't pay payroll taxes?

I'll bet 100% of them are rich.

[morpheus]

I'm just glad that we're spending so much time on such an important facet of the economy - WHO'S PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE? - while ignoring relatively unimportant things like the fiscal cliff coming at the end of 2012, or even better, the quadrillions in entitlement spending that couldn't be covered even if we assumed that people don't respond to incentives and jacked the tax rate up to 100% for the top half of the income distribution.

By all means, let's continue to discuss whether someone isn't paying someone else's idea of a FAIR SHARE of income tax, despite the existing progressivity and horrible inefficiency of the current effective income tax structure and the stupidly high corporate tax in the U.S.