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

[CBStew]

I...ummm...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.

The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

[Oleg]

I...ummm...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.

The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

You need to more specific when both Buckley and Vidal are mentioned in the same post.

[Gilgamesh]

I...ummm...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.

The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

You need to more specific when both Buckley and Vidal are mentioned in the same post.

"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered."

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

I...ummm...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.

The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

You need to more specific when both Buckley and Vidal are mentioned in the same post.

"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered."

Good.  Now please recite his fightin' words with Oleg's hero--Noam Chomsky.  

Thrilledit:  Apparently, Vidal was the only one Buckley seriously threatened to punch, referring to that event while interviewing Chomsky as a joke.

[CBStew]

I...ummm...I have no idea what to think about this.

I think Oleg's mind just exploded.  Literally.

I mean, William Buckley was one thing, I get that...Libertarianism and all that shit.  But the Religious Right?  Mind: Literally Blown.

Oh how I wish he was around to bitchsmack the Tea Party.

See?  You and I aren't so different after all.

The right needs him now more than it ever needed him in the '50s. The National Review has been absolute horseshit since he lost his fastball in the 90s anyway.

That's a common canard out there, that Buckley was this moderating voice of conservatism that even liberals could find reasonable. I'm a Buckley disciple, but let's not kid ourselves that he'd whip the "tea party" (an unorganized mess of people who are populists that trend right) into shape any more than Jim Edgar would "whip" the Illinois GOP into shape.

Buckley said some outrageous, controversial things, sometimes simply to be provocative, other times because he was an arch-conservative.

I wouldn't consider him a moderating voice of conservatism at all. Simply an actual, articulate, intelligent conservative who understood and defined the difference between conservatism and the reactionism that is the right in its present condition. Perhaps he wouldn't get the Tea Party in line, but I'd sure like to see him try/watches Buckley threaten to sock Vidal in the face, cries.

Interesting.  I always thought of him as a smug, smarmy, show-off.

You need to more specific when both Buckley and Vidal are mentioned in the same post.

"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered."

That ain't the way I remember it.   Even though I just watched the tape, I remembered  Buckley threatening to scratch  Vidal's eyes out and then Vidal hit him with his purse.

[R-V]

Fun with foreclosures. Fuck Bank of America in the eye with an icicle from Die Hard 2.

In one of the more bizarre foreclosure cases, Bank of America is threatening to throw a West Hartford family out of their home even though the couple never missed a mortgage payment.

The largest bank in the United States earlier this month notified Shock Baitch and his wife Lisa (Friedman) Baitch that foreclosure action will start today – Christmas eve – unless the couple agrees to put their home up for a forced sale.

Why? Because another unit of Bank of America erroneously reported to credit agencies that the family was seeking a loan modification, ruining their credit rating and as the result putting their mortgage into default.

All this is happening even though the bank – after admitting it erred and sent a letter of apology in September – handed this case to a special unit at Bank of America that is charged with dealing with severe customer issues. It promised to notify the credit reporting agencies that the couple were not deadbeats, but were good credit risks.

Post bailout, the giant banks have become too large to manage themselves. It is not just housing sh%$ holes like South Florida where the banks are paperwork disasters, but apparently states such as Connecticut, also.

How else can BoA threaten foreclosure proceeding with on a house that never missed a mortgage payment; indeed, the owners were NEVER late on any mortgage payments! There was never a risk of default, or delinquency. And yet, BoA is automatically generating foreclosure notices (which no one at BOA can figure out how or why).

The obvious answer is the illegal processing of foreclosures. When lawyers, bank executives and there outside contractors are paid to violate the law, the local State Attorney General needs to prosecute these felons. Where Lawyers perjure themselves, swearing they have verified, reviewed and confirmed foreclosure files they never so much have looked at, they need to be disbarred.

Its called the rule of law, and its long past time we actually enforced it.

[PenPho]

Fun with foreclosures. Fuck Bank of America in the eye with an icicle from Die Hard 2.

In one of the more bizarre foreclosure cases, Bank of America is threatening to throw a West Hartford family out of their home even though the couple never missed a mortgage payment.

The largest bank in the United States earlier this month notified Shock Baitch and his wife Lisa (Friedman) Baitch that foreclosure action will start today – Christmas eve – unless the couple agrees to put their home up for a forced sale.

Why? Because another unit of Bank of America erroneously reported to credit agencies that the family was seeking a loan modification, ruining their credit rating and as the result putting their mortgage into default.

All this is happening even though the bank – after admitting it erred and sent a letter of apology in September – handed this case to a special unit at Bank of America that is charged with dealing with severe customer issues. It promised to notify the credit reporting agencies that the couple were not deadbeats, but were good credit risks.

Post bailout, the giant banks have become too large to manage themselves. It is not just housing sh%$ holes like South Florida where the banks are paperwork disasters, but apparently states such as Connecticut, also.

How else can BoA threaten foreclosure proceeding with on a house that never missed a mortgage payment; indeed, the owners were NEVER late on any mortgage payments! There was never a risk of default, or delinquency. And yet, BoA is automatically generating foreclosure notices (which no one at BOA can figure out how or why).

The obvious answer is the illegal processing of foreclosures. When lawyers, bank executives and there outside contractors are paid to violate the law, the local State Attorney General needs to prosecute these felons. Where Lawyers perjure themselves, swearing they have verified, reviewed and confirmed foreclosure files they never so much have looked at, they need to be disbarred.

Its called the rule of law, and its long past time we actually enforced it.

And he thought he was in shock before.

[Internet Apex]

Fun with foreclosures. Fuck Bank of America in the eye with an icicle from Die Hard 2.

In one of the more bizarre foreclosure cases, Bank of America is threatening to throw a West Hartford family out of their home even though the couple never missed a mortgage payment.

The largest bank in the United States earlier this month notified Shock Baitch and his wife Lisa (Friedman) Baitch that foreclosure action will start today – Christmas eve – unless the couple agrees to put their home up for a forced sale.

Why? Because another unit of Bank of America erroneously reported to credit agencies that the family was seeking a loan modification, ruining their credit rating and as the result putting their mortgage into default.

All this is happening even though the bank – after admitting it erred and sent a letter of apology in September – handed this case to a special unit at Bank of America that is charged with dealing with severe customer issues. It promised to notify the credit reporting agencies that the couple were not deadbeats, but were good credit risks.

Post bailout, the giant banks have become too large to manage themselves. It is not just housing sh%$ holes like South Florida where the banks are paperwork disasters, but apparently states such as Connecticut, also.

How else can BoA threaten foreclosure proceeding with on a house that never missed a mortgage payment; indeed, the owners were NEVER late on any mortgage payments! There was never a risk of default, or delinquency. And yet, BoA is automatically generating foreclosure notices (which no one at BOA can figure out how or why).

The obvious answer is the illegal processing of foreclosures. When lawyers, bank executives and there outside contractors are paid to violate the law, the local State Attorney General needs to prosecute these felons. Where Lawyers perjure themselves, swearing they have verified, reviewed and confirmed foreclosure files they never so much have looked at, they need to be disbarred.

Its called the rule of law, and its long past time we actually enforced it.

And he thought he was in shock before.

Intrepid Reader: Chuck-to-Chuck

Consider that stolen.

[SKO]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re/us_rel_apocalypse_soon Thank God. I accomplished my goal of not being a virgin when the world ended.

[Gilgamesh]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re/us_rel_apocalypse_soon Thank God. I accomplished my goal of not being a virgin when the world ended.

I'd be happy to expedite these people's departures, if they'd like.

Also, when they're proven wrong (which they are), they should be willing to put their money where their mouths are; it would save precious air (and helium).

[Gilgamesh]

I thought only unionized, Taxolib Homocrat states like Illinois, New York, and California were deep in debt.

Guess I was wrong: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1

[morpheus]

I thought only unionized, Taxolib Homocrat states like Illinois, New York, and California were deep in debt.

Guess I was wrong: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1

No, you weren't wrong.

http://www.brb.state.tx.us/bfo/summaries/10/state2010sum.aspx

There's a difference between the words "debt" and "deficit."  For perspective, California has $78B in GO bonds outstanding.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/ca-debt-triples-under-sch_n_754189.html

That's why Texas retains a AAA rating, while California is, I believe, A-.  While it's never good to run deficits for long periods, because that is of course how debt is built up, there's no "crisis" imminent there like there is in CA, IL, and NY, where there are deficits *and* high levels of outstanding debt.  These states also have shrinking tax bases due to their higher overall tax rates (esp. CA), making it harder to raise revenues.

[Gilgamesh]

I thought only unionized, Taxolib Homocrat states like Illinois, New York, and California were deep in debt.

Guess I was wrong: http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1

No, you weren't wrong.

http://www.brb.state.tx.us/bfo/summaries/10/state2010sum.aspx

There's a difference between the words "debt" and "deficit."  For perspective, California has $78B in GO bonds outstanding.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/ca-debt-triples-under-sch_n_754189.html

That's why Texas retains a AAA rating, while California is, I believe, A-.  While it's never good to run deficits for long periods, because that is of course how debt is built up, there's no "crisis" imminent there like there is in CA, IL, and NY, where there are deficits *and* high levels of outstanding debt.  These states also have shrinking tax bases due to their higher overall tax rates (esp. CA), making it harder to raise revenues.

Stand corrected on the diction.  Also, HuffPo, seriously?

[CBStew]

On the other hand, there is no law in California requiring us to carry a loaded weapon at all times.

[Gilgamesh]

One of the first acts of this new, fiscally-conservative GOP House is to make deficit spending easier: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-05/house-republicans-to-weaken-anti-deficit-rules-to-ease-tax-cut-approvals.html

Way to go, Team Red!