Desipio Message Board

Quote from: PANK! on November 07, 2012, 12:03:32 PM
Remember when this country used to be free?

Quote from: flannj on November 07, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
Let us come together and celebrate yesterday as one of the greatest days in world history.


The birth of Adolphe Sax, inventor of the Saxophone!

Quote from: Tonker on November 07, 2012, 12:46:24 PM

Quote from: flannj on November 07, 2012, 12:15:16 PM
Let us come together and celebrate yesterday as one of the greatest days in world history.


The birth of Adolphe Sax, inventor of the Saxophone!

Fucking hell, that's going some.  He was born yesterday, and has already invented a widely-used musical instrument.

QuoteSelf-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-to-1 in a nation that has reelected the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson and his mentor Franklin Roosevelt.

QuoteObama is only the second president (Andrew Jackson was the first) to win a second term with a reduced percentage of the popular vote, and the third (after Madison and Woodrow Wilson) to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the electoral vote. A diminished figure after conducting the most relentlessly negative campaign ever run by an incumbent, he has the meager mandate of not being Bain Capital. Foreshadowing continuing institutional conflict, which the constitutional system not only anticipates but encourages, Speaker John Boehner says of the House Republican caucus: "We'll have as much of a mandate as he will."

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 02:28:40 PM
Some mild butthurt here, courtesy of George Will: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-winner-is-the-status-quo/2012/11/07/719280e0-28fc-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html

QuoteSelf-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-to-1 in a nation that has reelected the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson and his mentor Franklin Roosevelt.

QuoteObama is only the second president (Andrew Jackson was the first) to win a second term with a reduced percentage of the popular vote, and the third (after Madison and Woodrow Wilson) to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the electoral vote. A diminished figure after conducting the most relentlessly negative campaign ever run by an incumbent, he has the meager mandate of not being Bain Capital. Foreshadowing continuing institutional conflict, which the constitutional system not only anticipates but encourages, Speaker John Boehner says of the House Republican caucus: "We'll have as much of a mandate as he will."

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 02:28:40 PM
Some mild butthurt here, courtesy of George Will: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-winner-is-the-status-quo/2012/11/07/719280e0-28fc-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html

QuoteSelf-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-to-1 in a nation that has reelected the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson and his mentor Franklin Roosevelt.

QuoteObama is only the second president (Andrew Jackson was the first) to win a second term with a reduced percentage of the popular vote, and the third (after Madison and Woodrow Wilson) to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the electoral vote. A diminished figure after conducting the most relentlessly negative campaign ever run by an incumbent, he has the meager mandate of not being Bain Capital. Foreshadowing continuing institutional conflict, which the constitutional system not only anticipates but encourages, Speaker John Boehner says of the House Republican caucus: "We'll have as much of a mandate as he will."

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 02:28:40 PM
Some mild butthurt here, courtesy of George Will: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-winner-is-the-status-quo/2012/11/07/719280e0-28fc-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html

QuoteSelf-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals 2-to-1 in a nation that has reelected the most liberal president since Lyndon Johnson and his mentor Franklin Roosevelt.

QuoteObama is only the second president (Andrew Jackson was the first) to win a second term with a reduced percentage of the popular vote, and the third (after Madison and Woodrow Wilson) to win a second term with a smaller percentage of the electoral vote. A diminished figure after conducting the most relentlessly negative campaign ever run by an incumbent, he has the meager mandate of not being Bain Capital. Foreshadowing continuing institutional conflict, which the constitutional system not only anticipates but encourages, Speaker John Boehner says of the House Republican caucus: "We'll have as much of a mandate as he will."

QuoteHouse Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.

Quote"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

QuoteThe Ohio Republican spoke a day after the president's clear re-election victory. He said conditions on higher taxes would include a revamped tax code to make it cleaner and fairer, fewer loopholes and lower rates for all.

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 07, 2012, 08:32:32 PM
Waite for Ittt.......

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 04:16:41 PM
The first shot in the fiscal cliff negotiations.

QuoteHouse Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.

Quote"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

Somewhat vague on deets:

QuoteThe Ohio Republican spoke a day after the president's clear re-election victory. He said conditions on higher taxes would include a revamped tax code to make it cleaner and fairer, fewer loopholes and lower rates for all.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49731550

Quote from: morpheus on November 07, 2012, 11:04:27 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 04:16:41 PM
The first shot in the fiscal cliff negotiations.

QuoteHouse Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday to pursue a deal with a victorious President Barack Obama that will include higher taxes "under the right conditions" to help reduce the nation's staggering debt and put its finances in order.

Quote"Mr. President, this is your moment," Boehner told reporters, speaking about the "fiscal cliff" that will hit in January. "We want you to lead."

Somewhat vague on deets:

QuoteThe Ohio Republican spoke a day after the president's clear re-election victory. He said conditions on higher taxes would include a revamped tax code to make it cleaner and fairer, fewer loopholes and lower rates for all.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49731550

Erskine Bowles spoke tonight at the CFA Society of Chicago's Annual Dinner. He pushed the same idea... along with much of the Simpson-Bowles plan, natch.  And, he was very optimistic that a deal would get done, although he wasn't so sure it would be in the 15 days that Congress meets before the new year.  Here's hoping, because going over the fiscal cliff would be... Bad.

Quote...

Well, to each his own. Some may choose to push secession in their state legislatures. Others may choose to leave the U.S. for good (Costa Rica, Switzerland, Italy, Argentina, Hong Kong, Israel). Still others may want to personally separate themselves from the United States here in North America while still living under communist rule' the Glenn Beck, grab your guns, food storage, build bunkers, survivalist route. I heartily endorse all these efforts.

Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who voted Democrat

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job. Co-workers who voted for Obama. Simply don't talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.

Have a neighbor who votes for Obama? You could take a crap on their lawn. Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this. But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.

And start your boycott of your Democrat friends and family today. Like this morning. First thing you can do, very easy, is to un-friend all Democrats from your Facebook account.

Boycott Business who accept Welfare payments

Thirdly, I believe we all need to express disgust with Obama and Democrats in public places. To some extent I already do this. Example:

When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade. I hope other libertarians and conservatives will eventually join me.

What I plan to do this week, is to get yard signs made up, at my own expense, that read, "EBT is for Welfare Moochers." I will put the signs out on public property off of the right-of-way so it's entirely legal, in front of every convenience store or grocery store that has a sign out saying "EBT Accepted Here." I may even do some sign waving in front of these stores, holding up my "EBT is for Welfare Moochers," sign, and waving to passers-by.

If I meet a Democrat in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately. I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Democrats. You all are communist pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way.

Buttons. Boy, you can have a lot of fun with this. I plan to make up a bunch of buttons, and wear them around town, sayings like "Democrats are Communist Pigs," or "Welfare moochers steal from hard-working Americans," "Only Nazis support Seat Belt laws" or "No Smoking Ban: Nanny-Staters go Fuck Yourselves."

There are so many other nasty little things I plan to do against the communists and those who support them. Perhaps I'll keep Jim informed and he can report on my activities here at LR.

For now, off to my first assignment: Telling all my friends and family who voted for Obama to "fuck off, don't ever speak to me again you slimeball mother fuckers." Wish me luck!

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 09:49:27 AM
Butthurt Mountain: Conquered.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2012, 10:07:38 AM
(http://politicalwire.com/assets_c/2012/11/Screen%20Shot%202012-11-07%20at%208.16.28%20PM-thumb-550x335-403.png)

Here's something I've felt for a long time and now that this is all over, I wanted to get this out. The tag line, "Believe In America" is something in itself that would keep me from voting for Mitt.

No, it's not because it's suggesting that the other guy doesn't believe in America ("Forward" instead of "Backward").  It's because it's suggesting that religion and faith are what's needed.

I grew up in Skokie, going to a Hebrew school where it seemed every other week we had a Survivor (and not like the Curb version of Survivor) coming in to talk to us.  The message I took from that: People will hate you because of your religion and they'll try to change you or kill you.

When I see from today's GOP "Believe in America" I see "Believe in Jesus."  Especially when it comes from a guy who literally believes Jesus was here and will have a future presence in Missouri.  That loses me instantly.

If the GOP wants my regular vote, talk to me about economics and defense and foreign policy and entitlements.  Cut the God shit out.  I've got a place to go talk and learn about that, and it's not in Washington.

Quote from: BH on November 08, 2012, 10:14:03 AM
So you didn't vote for Mitt because you didn't like his slogan (after you changed the words to it)?
As good as a reason as any I suppose.

Quote from: BH on November 08, 2012, 09:57:37 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 09:49:27 AM
Butthurt Mountain: Conquered.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

"Eric Dondero said...

    No, I don't intend to "get out of my funk." Gonna post some comments here and there today, then I'm taking my leave for a very long time.

    That said, on Romney I think you're dead wrong. He was the ideal candidate for Republicans. We couldn't have done any better. Good looking, hot lookin' wife. Well spoken. Fiscal not social conservative. Northeast ties, also from the Mid-west. It's almost like he came out of central casting.

    No, the problem is America. Like Chuck, Ran and Jim seem to imply, Americans are moochers by nature, they are not libertarians. They want free stuff.

    Too many are now on the government dole. And Democrats appeal to that. The Republican Party with its limited government and self-reliance ideology has zero appeal to these people.
    November 7, 2012 9:08 AM "

QuoteEric Dondero said...
I say we've got two to three years left before they start rounding up dissenters and sending us off to Nazi-style concentration camps. I've got a little more time, cause I live in Texas.

Arizona is a good place to be for now. But New York, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, PA beware. You're vastly on the road to complete authoritarianism and statism. Grab your guns, protect what few things you have left. You're living in Nazi Germany circa 1933-34.

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: BH on November 08, 2012, 09:57:37 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 09:49:27 AM
Butthurt Mountain: Conquered.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

"Eric Dondero said...

    No, I don't intend to "get out of my funk." Gonna post some comments here and there today, then I'm taking my leave for a very long time.

    That said, on Romney I think you're dead wrong. He was the ideal candidate for Republicans. We couldn't have done any better. Good looking, hot lookin' wife. Well spoken. Fiscal not social conservative. Northeast ties, also from the Mid-west. It's almost like he came out of central casting.

    No, the problem is America. Like Chuck, Ran and Jim seem to imply, Americans are moochers by nature, they are not libertarians. They want free stuff.

    Too many are now on the government dole. And Democrats appeal to that. The Republican Party with its limited government and self-reliance ideology has zero appeal to these people.
    November 7, 2012 9:08 AM "

QuoteEric Dondero said...
I say we've got two to three years left before they start rounding up dissenters and sending us off to Nazi-style concentration camps. I've got a little more time, cause I live in Texas.

Arizona is a good place to be for now. But New York, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, PA beware. You're vastly on the road to complete authoritarianism and statism. Grab your guns, protect what few things you have left. You're living in Nazi Germany circa 1933-34.

This isn't real, right?

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: BH on November 08, 2012, 09:57:37 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 09:49:27 AM
Butthurt Mountain: Conquered.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

"Eric Dondero said...

    No, I don't intend to "get out of my funk." Gonna post some comments here and there today, then I'm taking my leave for a very long time.

    That said, on Romney I think you're dead wrong. He was the ideal candidate for Republicans. We couldn't have done any better. Good looking, hot lookin' wife. Well spoken. Fiscal not social conservative. Northeast ties, also from the Mid-west. It's almost like he came out of central casting.

    No, the problem is America. Like Chuck, Ran and Jim seem to imply, Americans are moochers by nature, they are not libertarians. They want free stuff.

    Too many are now on the government dole. And Democrats appeal to that. The Republican Party with its limited government and self-reliance ideology has zero appeal to these people.
    November 7, 2012 9:08 AM "

QuoteEric Dondero said...
I say we've got two to three years left before they start rounding up dissenters and sending us off to Nazi-style concentration camps. I've got a little more time, cause I live in Texas.

Arizona is a good place to be for now. But New York, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, PA beware. You're vastly on the road to complete authoritarianism and statism. Grab your guns, protect what few things you have left. You're living in Nazi Germany circa 1933-34.

This isn't real, right?

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:31:18 AM

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: BH on November 08, 2012, 09:57:37 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 09:49:27 AM
Butthurt Mountain: Conquered.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

"Eric Dondero said...

    No, I don't intend to "get out of my funk." Gonna post some comments here and there today, then I'm taking my leave for a very long time.

    That said, on Romney I think you're dead wrong. He was the ideal candidate for Republicans. We couldn't have done any better. Good looking, hot lookin' wife. Well spoken. Fiscal not social conservative. Northeast ties, also from the Mid-west. It's almost like he came out of central casting.

    No, the problem is America. Like Chuck, Ran and Jim seem to imply, Americans are moochers by nature, they are not libertarians. They want free stuff.

    Too many are now on the government dole. And Democrats appeal to that. The Republican Party with its limited government and self-reliance ideology has zero appeal to these people.
    November 7, 2012 9:08 AM "

QuoteEric Dondero said...
I say we've got two to three years left before they start rounding up dissenters and sending us off to Nazi-style concentration camps. I've got a little more time, cause I live in Texas.

Arizona is a good place to be for now. But New York, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, PA beware. You're vastly on the road to complete authoritarianism and statism. Grab your guns, protect what few things you have left. You're living in Nazi Germany circa 1933-34.

This isn't real, right?

Yep, instead of continuing to try and work for what they believe in their answer is to pout and "grab guns". That's fucking awesome.

Obama's great plan to seize guns after an arduous first 4 years and then a challenging re-election campaign is finally in place. SNEAK ATTACK GIMME YO GUNS.

I'm also looking forward to all the free stuff I'm supposed to be getting.

Quote from: CT III on November 08, 2012, 10:33:49 AM

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:31:18 AM

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: BH on November 08, 2012, 09:57:37 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 09:49:27 AM
Butthurt Mountain: Conquered.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

"Eric Dondero said...

    No, I don't intend to "get out of my funk." Gonna post some comments here and there today, then I'm taking my leave for a very long time.

    That said, on Romney I think you're dead wrong. He was the ideal candidate for Republicans. We couldn't have done any better. Good looking, hot lookin' wife. Well spoken. Fiscal not social conservative. Northeast ties, also from the Mid-west. It's almost like he came out of central casting.

    No, the problem is America. Like Chuck, Ran and Jim seem to imply, Americans are moochers by nature, they are not libertarians. They want free stuff.

    Too many are now on the government dole. And Democrats appeal to that. The Republican Party with its limited government and self-reliance ideology has zero appeal to these people.
    November 7, 2012 9:08 AM "

QuoteEric Dondero said...
I say we've got two to three years left before they start rounding up dissenters and sending us off to Nazi-style concentration camps. I've got a little more time, cause I live in Texas.

Arizona is a good place to be for now. But New York, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, PA beware. You're vastly on the road to complete authoritarianism and statism. Grab your guns, protect what few things you have left. You're living in Nazi Germany circa 1933-34.

This isn't real, right?

Yep, instead of continuing to try and work for what they believe in their answer is to pout and "grab guns". That's fucking awesome.

Obama's great plan to seize guns after an arduous first 4 years and then a challenging re-election campaign is finally in place. SNEAK ATTACK GIMME YO GUNS.

I'm also looking forward to all the free stuff I'm supposed to be getting.

Well, there's also the "threat" of leaving the country, which has been made by assholes on both sides since the 2000 election (and probably before).  Thank goodness most of these people don't follow through on it, I'd hate to lose their contributions to society.

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:36:29 AM

If you hate conservatism, there are many less conservative countries you can move to assuming you plan ahead and go through all the necessary paperwork and hope the country would even accept you. Fine. Good luck (those countries don't want you anyway).

If you think America is too socialist/liberal where the hell are you going to go? What country? I'm curious.

Quote from: CT III on November 08, 2012, 10:42:26 AM

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:36:29 AM

If you hate conservatism, there are many less conservative countries you can move to assuming you plan ahead and go through all the necessary paperwork and hope the country would even accept you. Fine. Good luck (those countries don't want you anyway).

If you think America is too socialist/liberal where the hell are you going to go? What country? I'm curious.

I'm not sure, now that Somalia has a central government again...

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:36:29 AM
If you think America is too socialist/liberal where the hell are you going to go? What country? I'm curious.

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:36:29 AM
If you think America is too socialist/liberal where the hell are you going to go? What country? I'm curious.

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

Quote from: CT III on November 08, 2012, 11:12:02 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

Ah, if you look, you can find the butthurt:

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md5l8kLnpR1rkd8gso1_500.png)

Quote from: PenPho on November 08, 2012, 11:47:48 AM

Quote from: CT III on November 08, 2012, 11:12:02 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

Ah, if you look, you can find the butthurt:

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md5l8kLnpR1rkd8gso1_500.png)

You can also find the wrong.

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/diigo/thumbnail_550/5638569_142866582_8500272.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0R7FMW7AXRVCYMAPTPR2&Expires=1352397214&Signature=8gZpll1ZQvPevpR7qtaEvHkk5ik%3D)

*Unless that was the point

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 11:01:36 AM

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:36:29 AM
If you think America is too socialist/liberal where the hell are you going to go? What country? I'm curious.

This, a million times.

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 12:42:45 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 11:01:36 AM

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:36:29 AM
If you think America is too socialist/liberal where the hell are you going to go? What country? I'm curious.

This, a million times.

Run down the checklist...

conservative government
no abortions, even in cases of rape or incest
no gay marriage
all officials must pass a religious litmus test
all childres pledge allegiance in school every day

I've got it!


(http://d2z7bzwflv7old.cloudfront.net/cdn/bWFwcy9lbi9pci9pci1hcmVhLmdpZg%3D%3D/bWF4Vz00MDA%3D_x_htp.jpg)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 08, 2012, 12:43:30 PM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 12:42:45 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 11:01:36 AM

Quote from: Slaky on November 08, 2012, 10:36:29 AM
If you think America is too socialist/liberal where the hell are you going to go? What country? I'm curious.

This, a million times.

Run down the checklist...

conservative government
no abortions, even in cases of rape or incest
no gay marriage
all officials must pass a religious litmus test
all childres pledge allegiance in school every day

I've got it!


(http://d2z7bzwflv7old.cloudfront.net/cdn/bWFwcy9lbi9pci9pci1hcmVhLmdpZg%3D%3D/bWF4Vz00MDA%3D_x_htp.jpg)

All childres?

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2012, 10:07:38 AM
(http://politicalwire.com/assets_c/2012/11/Screen%20Shot%202012-11-07%20at%208.16.28%20PM-thumb-550x335-403.png)

Here's something I've felt for a long time and now that this is all over, I wanted to get this out. The tag line, "Believe In America" is something in itself that would keep me from voting for Mitt.

No, it's not because it's suggesting that the other guy doesn't believe in America ("Forward" instead of "Backward").  It's because it's suggesting that religion and faith are what's needed.

I grew up in Skokie, going to a Hebrew school where it seemed every other week we had a Survivor (and not like the Curb version of Survivor) coming in to talk to us.  The message I took from that: People will hate you because of your religion and they'll try to change you or kill you.

When I see from today's GOP "Believe in America" I see "Believe in Jesus."  Especially when it comes from a guy who literally believes Jesus was here and will have a future presence in Missouri.  That loses me instantly.

If the GOP wants my regular vote, talk to me about economics and defense and foreign policy and entitlements.  Cut the God shit out.  I've got a place to go talk and learn about that, and it's not in Washington.

Quote from: Brownie on November 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
I get the appeal of Obama. I understand the problems people have with Mitt. But I will spend some time contemplating the problem you have with "Believe in America."

Quote from: Brownie on November 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
I get the appeal of Obama. I understand the problems people have with Mitt. But I will spend some time contemplating the problem you have with "Believe in America."

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2012, 02:15:57 PM

Quote from: Brownie on November 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
I get the appeal of Obama. I understand the problems people have with Mitt. But I will spend some time contemplating the problem you have with "Believe in America."

His Mormonism isn't disqualifying. More, the many in the GOP's overt, and Romney's subtle, injection of religion into the government is.  It makes me tune out pretty much the rest of what such a candidate is trying to say.  Since whoever wins is going to take my money, at least don't preach to me.

Also, I wouldn't/didn't say the slogan was offensive.  Just that the messaging behind it was a religious appeal.  I find that disqualifying.

I would have as much a problem with a Jewish candidate (or Catholic, or Muslim, or Druid, or...) who ran on the same type of slogan, regardless of party.

You want to preach to me?  Invite me to your house of worship.  Don't do it from an elected position.

Quote from: PenPho on November 08, 2012, 02:30:13 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2012, 02:15:57 PM

Quote from: Brownie on November 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
I get the appeal of Obama. I understand the problems people have with Mitt. But I will spend some time contemplating the problem you have with "Believe in America."

His Mormonism isn't disqualifying. More, the many in the GOP's overt, and Romney's subtle, injection of religion into the government is.  It makes me tune out pretty much the rest of what such a candidate is trying to say.  Since whoever wins is going to take my money, at least don't preach to me.

Also, I wouldn't/didn't say the slogan was offensive.  Just that the messaging behind it was a religious appeal.  I find that disqualifying.

I would have as much a problem with a Jewish candidate (or Catholic, or Muslim, or Druid, or...) who ran on the same type of slogan, regardless of party.

You want to preach to me?  Invite me to your house of worship.  Don't do it from an elected position.

This stance I totally get.

What I don't get is how (or why) you project it onto "Believe in America."

There are a thousand things that politicians (more often the GOP) do that lead with religion quite overtly that you could point to without looking for the naked lady in the glass of ice cubes.

Quote from: PenPho on November 08, 2012, 02:30:13 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2012, 02:15:57 PM

Quote from: Brownie on November 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
I get the appeal of Obama. I understand the problems people have with Mitt. But I will spend some time contemplating the problem you have with "Believe in America."

His Mormonism isn't disqualifying. More, the many in the GOP's overt, and Romney's subtle, injection of religion into the government is.  It makes me tune out pretty much the rest of what such a candidate is trying to say.  Since whoever wins is going to take my money, at least don't preach to me.

Also, I wouldn't/didn't say the slogan was offensive.  Just that the messaging behind it was a religious appeal.  I find that disqualifying.

I would have as much a problem with a Jewish candidate (or Catholic, or Muslim, or Druid, or...) who ran on the same type of slogan, regardless of party.

You want to preach to me?  Invite me to your house of worship.  Don't do it from an elected position.

This stance I totally get.

What I don't get is how (or why) you project it onto "Believe in America."

There are a thousand things that politicians (more often the GOP) do that lead with religion quite overtly that you could point to without looking for the naked lady in the glass of ice cubes.

Quote from: BH on November 08, 2012, 02:31:35 PM

Quote from: PenPho on November 08, 2012, 02:30:13 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2012, 02:15:57 PM

Quote from: Brownie on November 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
I get the appeal of Obama. I understand the problems people have with Mitt. But I will spend some time contemplating the problem you have with "Believe in America."

His Mormonism isn't disqualifying. More, the many in the GOP's overt, and Romney's subtle, injection of religion into the government is.  It makes me tune out pretty much the rest of what such a candidate is trying to say.  Since whoever wins is going to take my money, at least don't preach to me.

Also, I wouldn't/didn't say the slogan was offensive.  Just that the messaging behind it was a religious appeal.  I find that disqualifying.

I would have as much a problem with a Jewish candidate (or Catholic, or Muslim, or Druid, or...) who ran on the same type of slogan, regardless of party.

You want to preach to me?  Invite me to your house of worship.  Don't do it from an elected position.

This stance I totally get.

What I don't get is how (or why) you project it onto "Believe in America."

There are a thousand things that politicians (more often the GOP) do that lead with religion quite overtly that you could point to without looking for the naked lady in the glass of ice cubes.

Romney's slogan was "Believe in Jesus"

Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on November 08, 2012, 02:40:28 PM
I can see where Chuck's coming from. When Obama came out with "Forward" I read it as "Forward into a Mosque because Obama's a Muslin and is going to make you be one, too."

So I decided to vote for Romney.

QuoteBill Donohue comments on the election results:

In 2007, Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do if elected president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Because of opposition from many quarters, including the Catholic League, the bill never got to his desk. But it may now come back, and if it does it could mean that Catholic hospitals would be required to perform abortions lest they lose federal funding.

The fate of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that would force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs is sure to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Enough of the serious stuff—it's time to have some fun, especially on this rather dreary day. We can't wait until FOCA and the HHS mandate are thrust upon us, so we need to act now. Accordingly, we need to hire and train people with specific credentials. Here is my job description:

• Community organizers needed immediately


• No prior experience—in any job—is needed


• Chicago residents preferred, especially those from Hyde Park


• Membership in churches that promote racial divisions is a plus


• A passion for helping the poor must include opposition to school vouchers and support for more food stamps


• Long-time associations with urban terrorists preferred


• An apologetic stance on America's heritage is a must

Send all resumes to Bill Donohue. References are optional though preference will be given to those who list attorneys who have defended suspected terrorists, or who have at least heard of Eric Holder.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 02:53:42 PM
http://www.catholicleague.org/community-organizers-needed/

QuoteBill Donohue comments on the election results:

In 2007, Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do if elected president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Because of opposition from many quarters, including the Catholic League, the bill never got to his desk. But it may now come back, and if it does it could mean that Catholic hospitals would be required to perform abortions lest they lose federal funding.

The fate of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that would force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs is sure to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Enough of the serious stuff—it's time to have some fun, especially on this rather dreary day. We can't wait until FOCA and the HHS mandate are thrust upon us, so we need to act now. Accordingly, we need to hire and train people with specific credentials. Here is my job description:

• Community organizers needed immediately


• No prior experience—in any job—is needed


• Chicago residents preferred, especially those from Hyde Park


• Membership in churches that promote racial divisions is a plus


• A passion for helping the poor must include opposition to school vouchers and support for more food stamps


• Long-time associations with urban terrorists preferred


• An apologetic stance on America's heritage is a must

Send all resumes to Bill Donohue. References are optional though preference will be given to those who list attorneys who have defended suspected terrorists, or who have at least heard of Eric Holder.

That's some big old Irish butthurt right there.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 02:53:42 PM
http://www.catholicleague.org/community-organizers-needed/

QuoteBill Donohue comments on the election results:

In 2007, Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do if elected president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Because of opposition from many quarters, including the Catholic League, the bill never got to his desk. But it may now come back, and if it does it could mean that Catholic hospitals would be required to perform abortions lest they lose federal funding.

The fate of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that would force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs is sure to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Enough of the serious stuff—it's time to have some fun, especially on this rather dreary day. We can't wait until FOCA and the HHS mandate are thrust upon us, so we need to act now. Accordingly, we need to hire and train people with specific credentials. Here is my job description:

• Community organizers needed immediately


• No prior experience—in any job—is needed


• Chicago residents preferred, especially those from Hyde Park


• Membership in churches that promote racial divisions is a plus


• A passion for helping the poor must include opposition to school vouchers and support for more food stamps


• Long-time associations with urban terrorists preferred


• An apologetic stance on America's heritage is a must

Send all resumes to Bill Donohue. References are optional though preference will be given to those who list attorneys who have defended suspected terrorists, or who have at least heard of Eric Holder.

That's some big old Irish butthurt right there.

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 03:08:35 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 02:53:42 PM
http://www.catholicleague.org/community-organizers-needed/

QuoteBill Donohue comments on the election results:

In 2007, Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do if elected president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Because of opposition from many quarters, including the Catholic League, the bill never got to his desk. But it may now come back, and if it does it could mean that Catholic hospitals would be required to perform abortions lest they lose federal funding.

The fate of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that would force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs is sure to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Enough of the serious stuff—it's time to have some fun, especially on this rather dreary day. We can't wait until FOCA and the HHS mandate are thrust upon us, so we need to act now. Accordingly, we need to hire and train people with specific credentials. Here is my job description:

• Community organizers needed immediately


• No prior experience—in any job—is needed


• Chicago residents preferred, especially those from Hyde Park


• Membership in churches that promote racial divisions is a plus


• A passion for helping the poor must include opposition to school vouchers and support for more food stamps


• Long-time associations with urban terrorists preferred


• An apologetic stance on America's heritage is a must

Send all resumes to Bill Donohue. References are optional though preference will be given to those who list attorneys who have defended suspected terrorists, or who have at least heard of Eric Holder.

That's some big old Irish butthurt right there.

There's a butthurt Donohue in every crowd.

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 09:49:27 AM
Butthurt Mountain: Conquered.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

...

This isn't real, right?

QuoteYou find out that the quarterback for your favorite football team, which you have been rooting for since childhood, is a Democrat. Do you start rooting for a different team?

I don't listen to music by Democrats any more. I try to do some research on the political leanings of those I listen too. Oingo Boingo called themselves "libertarians" in the early 1980s. I listen to them. Neal Peart of Rush called himself an Ayn Randist couple times. I love Rush. I like pro-British patriot Frank Turner out of the UK. The Guardian did a big interview with him over the summer, and he said he was a "libertarian." And of course, there's always Ted Nugent, and KISS, both hardline right-libertarians. Marshall Tucker Band, Kid Rock. Did you know lead guitarist for Stealy [sic] Dan is also a rightist. The Lt. Dan Band. Madison Rising is great. Metallica and Motorhead have expressed right leanings in interviews.

Honestly, doesn't always work. I miss sometimes. But if Springsteen or some other leftist America-hater comes on my Sirius/XM channel and I can get to the dial fast enough, I will switch it.

Elton John is a toughie. You know he leans left. But he made friends with Rush Limbaugh of all people last year. So, I give him a pass. Oh, and the Beatles had that classic "tax man." John Lennon's personal aide in his last few weeks of life, was interviewed last year, and said that he turned into a Reaganite in the last few months before he was killed. Isn't that ironic?

I'm not a sports fan. So, all I can do is answer this question from a musical tastes perspective. Hope that helps. 

Here's something else you can sink your teeth into. Related. I honestly do this, and have been doing this for years. You know that silly fist bump thing?  When my co-workers or friends try that with me I extend my full hand for a traditional handshake. I tell them sorry, but I don't do that "Obama thing."  Most of them chuckle, but some have gotten offended, look at me strangely. But they know where I stand right off the bat. And it helps me to weed out the good guys, freedom lovers, from the bad guy Democrat fascists.

...

You require a risky and complicated brain surgery, one that is performed by only two neurosurgeons in the country. One is a Republican and the other is a Democrat, but the Republican is generally unknown, and the Democrat was just heralded by Time Magazine as the nation's best neurosurgeon. Everything else — the cost, location, etc. — is the same. Which doctor do you choose?

Simple: Avoid them both. Go to Mexico for your medical treatment. Avoid all the red tape and bureaucracy.

...

A close Democratic family member is hanging off the side of a cliff. A Republican who is also an admitted child molester is also nearby hanging off the side of the same cliff. They both have but seconds until they plummet to their deaths, and you only have time to save one. Whom do you save?

Man, you're good.

I guess I ask the Democrat again to yell out "Obama sucks," and Ill be there in a jiffy to lend him a hand (pun intended.) The Republican child molester? I tell him to join that asshole Sandusky, Ed Savitz and that former Philly DA Ed Rendell who covered up for Savitz and a whole shitload of other Democrat child molesters in southeast Pennsylvania all those years, in hell.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 05:43:22 PM


I'm beginning to have my doubts...

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/eric-dondero-boycott-democrat-libertarian.html

QuoteYou find out that the quarterback for your favorite football team, which you have been rooting for since childhood, is a Democrat. Do you start rooting for a different team?


Elton John is a toughie. You know he leans left. But he made friends with Rush Limbaugh of all people last year. So, I give him a pass. Oh, and the Beatles had that classic "tax man." John Lennon's personal aide in his last few weeks of life, was interviewed last year, and said that he turned into a Reaganite in the last few months before he was killed. Isn't that ironic?

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 01:55:39 PM

Quote from: Brownie on November 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
I get the appeal of Obama. I understand the problems people have with Mitt. But I will spend some time contemplating the problem you have with "Believe in America."

More or less time than you spend contemplating his views on Soriano?

This is Internet Chucktown. Probably shouldn't let it keep you up at night.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 05:43:22 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2012, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 09:49:27 AM
Butthurt Mountain: Conquered.

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2012/11/the-end-of-liberty-in-america-only.html

...

This isn't real, right?

I'm beginning to have my doubts...

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/eric-dondero-boycott-democrat-libertarian.html

QuoteYou find out that the quarterback for your favorite football team, which you have been rooting for since childhood, is a Democrat. Do you start rooting for a different team?

I don't listen to music by Democrats any more. I try to do some research on the political leanings of those I listen too. Oingo Boingo called themselves "libertarians" in the early 1980s. I listen to them. Neal Peart of Rush called himself an Ayn Randist couple times. I love Rush. I like pro-British patriot Frank Turner out of the UK. The Guardian did a big interview with him over the summer, and he said he was a "libertarian." And of course, there's always Ted Nugent, and KISS, both hardline right-libertarians. Marshall Tucker Band, Kid Rock. Did you know lead guitarist for Stealy [sic] Dan is also a rightist. The Lt. Dan Band. Madison Rising is great. Metallica and Motorhead have expressed right leanings in interviews.

Honestly, doesn't always work. I miss sometimes. But if Springsteen or some other leftist America-hater comes on my Sirius/XM channel and I can get to the dial fast enough, I will switch it.

Elton John is a toughie. You know he leans left. But he made friends with Rush Limbaugh of all people last year. So, I give him a pass. Oh, and the Beatles had that classic "tax man." John Lennon's personal aide in his last few weeks of life, was interviewed last year, and said that he turned into a Reaganite in the last few months before he was killed. Isn't that ironic?

I'm not a sports fan. So, all I can do is answer this question from a musical tastes perspective. Hope that helps. 

Here's something else you can sink your teeth into. Related. I honestly do this, and have been doing this for years. You know that silly fist bump thing?  When my co-workers or friends try that with me I extend my full hand for a traditional handshake. I tell them sorry, but I don't do that "Obama thing."  Most of them chuckle, but some have gotten offended, look at me strangely. But they know where I stand right off the bat. And it helps me to weed out the good guys, freedom lovers, from the bad guy Democrat fascists.

...

You require a risky and complicated brain surgery, one that is performed by only two neurosurgeons in the country. One is a Republican and the other is a Democrat, but the Republican is generally unknown, and the Democrat was just heralded by Time Magazine as the nation's best neurosurgeon. Everything else — the cost, location, etc. — is the same. Which doctor do you choose?

Simple: Avoid them both. Go to Mexico for your medical treatment. Avoid all the red tape and bureaucracy.

...

A close Democratic family member is hanging off the side of a cliff. A Republican who is also an admitted child molester is also nearby hanging off the side of the same cliff. They both have but seconds until they plummet to their deaths, and you only have time to save one. Whom do you save?

Man, you're good.

I guess I ask the Democrat again to yell out "Obama sucks," and Ill be there in a jiffy to lend him a hand (pun intended.) The Republican child molester? I tell him to join that asshole Sandusky, Ed Savitz and that former Philly DA Ed Rendell who covered up for Savitz and a whole shitload of other Democrat child molesters in southeast Pennsylvania all those years, in hell.

Quote from: PenPho on November 08, 2012, 02:30:13 PM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 08, 2012, 02:15:57 PM

Quote from: Brownie on November 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
I get the appeal of Obama. I understand the problems people have with Mitt. But I will spend some time contemplating the problem you have with "Believe in America."

His Mormonism isn't disqualifying. More, the many in the GOP's overt, and Romney's subtle, injection of religion into the government is.  It makes me tune out pretty much the rest of what such a candidate is trying to say.  Since whoever wins is going to take my money, at least don't preach to me.

Also, I wouldn't/didn't say the slogan was offensive.  Just that the messaging behind it was a religious appeal.  I find that disqualifying.

I would have as much a problem with a Jewish candidate (or Catholic, or Muslim, or Druid, or...) who ran on the same type of slogan, regardless of party.

You want to preach to me?  Invite me to your house of worship.  Don't do it from an elected position.

This stance I totally get.

What I don't get is how (or why) you project it onto "Believe in America."

There are a thousand things that politicians (more often the GOP) do that lead with religion quite overtly that you could point to without looking for the naked lady in the glass of ice cubes.

Quote from: Fork on November 09, 2012, 09:17:56 AM

Who ordered the Cable Pundit Butthurt Racism Combo (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/bill-oreilly-the-white-establishment-is-now-the-minority-148705.html)?

Quote from: Fork on November 09, 2012, 09:17:56 AM

Who ordered the Cable Pundit Butthurt Racism Combo (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/bill-oreilly-the-white-establishment-is-now-the-minority-148705.html)?

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 09, 2012, 09:47:28 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 09, 2012, 09:17:56 AM

Who ordered the Cable Pundit Butthurt Racism Combo (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/bill-oreilly-the-white-establishment-is-now-the-minority-148705.html)?

This type of rhetoric (and that evil campaign slogan, natch) is the number one reason why I high-tailed it out of the Republican Party. I'm no Democrat. I voted for exactly one (and Biden) this election. But it's not just minorities and poor people they're alienating with this horse shit.

QuoteFor the chairman and chief executive of Murray Energy, an Ohio-based coal company, the reelection of President Obama was no cause for celebration. It was a time for prayer – and layoffs.

Robert E. Murray read a prayer to a group of company staff members on the day after the election, lamenting the direction of the country and asking: "Lord, please forgive me and anyone with me in Murray Energy Corp. for the decisions that we are now forced to make to preserve the very existence of any of the enterprises that you have helped us build."

On Wednesday, Murray also laid off 54 people at American Coal, one of his subsidiary companies, and 102 at Utah American Energy, blaming a "war on coal" by the administration of President Barack Obama."

Murray Energy is the country's largest privately owned coal mining company, with about 3,000 employees producing about 30 million tons of bituminous coal a year, according to its Web site.

The company was the subject of an article in the New Republic that said the company had forced miners to attend a Romney campaign speech in southeastern Ohio in August. Murray denied the account. The New Republic also reported that Murray Energy employees have given more than $1.4 million to Republican candidates for federal office since 2007.

QuoteThe Democrats like to think that their "ground game" is the tie-breaker that will give them the edge in a tight election, but this year there is reason to believe that the Democrats' efforts will be equaled, if not exceeded, by those of the Romney campaign. The Romney campaign is not only well-funded, but is run by one of the best organizers and managers of his generation, the candidate himself. Whom would you count on to organize anything, Mitt Romney or David Axelrod? Tonight the Romney campaign, for no obvious reason, sent out this description of Project Orca, which is just one weapon in its Election Day arsenal:

...

Sounds impressive. Let's hope it works!

QuoteThe story of how monumental a failure Project ORCA was on Election Day was first reported by a volunteer, John Ekdahl, on the Ace of Spades blog (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334783.php). After tweeting the article, I was contacted by several other volunteers who were eager to explain in greater detail just how many things went wrong with Project Orca on Tuesday.

...

Shoshanna's experience was far from unique. Starting in the early afternoon, reports were coming in from across swing states that ORCA had crashed. That morning, when Shoshanna was on the phone with Boston, she was told the system was crashing, unable to withstand thousands of simultaneous log-ins. The system had never been stress tested and couldn't handle the crush of traffic all at once. Thousands of man-hours went into designing and implementing a program that was useful on one day and one day only, and on that day, it crashed. My source familiar with the campaign described it this way, "It was a giant [mess] because a political operative sold a broken product with no support or backup plan. Just another arrogant piece of the arrogant Romney campaign."

QuoteTo build Orca, the Romney campaign turned to Microsoft and an unnamed application consulting firm.

QuoteBut Orca turned out to be toothless, thanks to a series of deployment blunders and network and system failures. While the system was stress-tested using automated testing tools, users received little or no advance training on the system. Crucially, there was no dry run to test how Orca would perform over the public Internet.

...

Before Election Day, volunteer training at Boston headquarters amounted to a series of 90-minute conference calls with Centinello. Users had no hands-on with the Orca application itself, which wasn't turned on until 6:00 AM on Election Day.

...

In a final training call on November 3, field volunteers were told to expect "packets" shortly containing the information they needed to use Orca. Those packets, which showed up in some volunteers' e-mail inboxes as late as November 5, turned out to be PDF files—huge PDF files which contained instructions on how to use the app and voter rolls for the voting precincts each volunteer would be working. After discovering the PDFs in his e-mail inbox at 10:00 PM on Election Eve, Ekdahl said that "I sat down and cursed, as I would have to print 60+ pages of instructions and voter rolls on my home printer. They expected 75 to 80-year old veteran volunteers to print out 60+ pages on their home computers? The night before election day?"

...

This sort of failure is why there's a trend in application testing (particularly in the development of public-facing applications) away from focusing on testing application infrastructure performance and toward focusing on user experience. Automated testing rigs can tell if software components are up to the task of handling expected loads, but they can't show what the system's performance will look like to the end user. And whatever testing environment Romney's campaign team and IT consultants used, it wasn't one that mimicked the conditions of Election Day. As a result, Orca's launch on Election Day was essentially a beta test of the software—not something most IT organizations would do in such a high-stakes environment.

IT projects are easy scapegoats for organizational failures. There's no way to know if Romney could have made up the margins in Ohio if Orca had worked. But the catastrophic failure of the system, purchased at large expense, squandered the campaign's most valuable resource—people—and was symptomatic of a much bigger leadership problem.

QuoteIn Iowa, for example, Bird & Co. are preparing for the Democratic caucuses as if they were contested. Their first paid staff members arrived in Des Moines nearly two years ago, and now Obama's Iowa operation—eight offices, a dozen staffers, hundreds of volunteers, 1,280 official events, 4,000 one-on-one conversations, and 350,000 calls to supporters—likely surpasses that of any Republican running. Bird's plan is to treat Caucus Night like a massive statewide organizing session, "training [caucusgoers] for what we have to do and giving them specific goals, because the general election will kick off that night." A week later, Obama volunteers from Massachusetts will flow across the border into New Hampshire, practicing for next November. "The primaries and caucuses allow us to test our systems," Bird explained. "Do we have car-sharing systems online so that people can car-pool? Do we have people from Springfield, Mass., going into Nashua [N.H.] always, so they get to know the organizers, so they get to know the turf they're walking, so they get to know the people they're talking to? It's just a big opportunity."

The opportunities aren't limited to the early primary states, either. In North Carolina, Obama staffers and volunteers used last year's mayoral race in Charlotte, which will host the 2012 Democratic convention, as a dry run for the general, road-testing their voter-registration and turnout tactics "with an actual election coming up, so there were deadlines and people were focused the way they will be next year," according to Bird. By Election Day, supporters of Anthony Foxx, the Democratic incumbent, had made more than 200,000 phone calls—10 times his challenger's tally. Foxx wound up winning by 35 percentage points. Meanwhile, similar operations are already underway in more than a dozen key swing states, including Ohio, where volunteers teamed up with labor groups last November to sink Gov. John Kasich's ban on collective bargaining, and Arizona, where the campaign has already opened three offices and recruited a Latino candidate for Senate. As one Republican strategist from Raleigh, N.C., recently told The New York Times: "This is real. I've seen it. I'm coming off the front lines—it ain't fun and we better be ready."

QuotePermanently linking the campaign's various databases in real time has become one of the major projects for Obama's team this year. Full data integration would allow the campaign to target its online communication as sharply as it does its offline voter contact. When it comes to sensitive subjects like contraception, the campaign could rely on its extensive predictive models of individual attitudes and preferences to find friendly recipients. In the case of Cutter's blast, that might mean pulling email addresses only for those who had identified themselves as women on their registration forms and whose voter records included a flag marking them as likely pro-abortion rights.

More broadly, Narwhal would bring new efficiency across the campaign's operations. No longer will canvassers be dispatched to knock on the doors of people who have already volunteered to support Obama. And if a donor has given the maximum $2,500 in permitted contributions, emails will stop hitting him up for money and start asking him to volunteer instead. Those familiar with Narwhal's development say the completion of such a technical infrastructure would also be a gift to future Democratic candidates who have struggled to organize political data that has been often arbitrarily siloed depending on which software vendor had primacy at a given moment.

QuoteFor all the praise Obama's team won in 2008 for its high-tech wizardry, its success masked a huge weakness: too many databases. Back then, volunteers making phone calls through the Obama website were working off lists that differed from the lists used by callers in the campaign office. Get-out-the-vote lists were never reconciled with fundraising lists. It was like the FBI and the CIA before 9/11: the two camps never shared data. "We analyzed very early that the problem in Democratic politics was you had databases all over the place," said one of the officials. "None of them talked to each other." So over the first 18 months, the campaign started over, creating a single massive system that could merge the information collected from pollsters, fundraisers, field workers and consumer databases as well as social-media and mobile contacts with the main Democratic voter files in the swing states.

...

The magic tricks that opened wallets were then repurposed to turn out votes. The analytics team used four streams of polling data to build a detailed picture of voters in key states. In the past month, said one official, the analytics team had polling data from about 29,000 people in Ohio alone — a whopping sample that composed nearly half of 1% of all voters there — allowing for deep dives into exactly where each demographic and regional group was trending at any given moment. This was a huge advantage: when polls started to slip after the first debate, they could check to see which voters were changing sides and which were not.

It was this database that helped steady campaign aides in October's choppy waters, assuring them that most of the Ohioans in motion were not Obama backers but likely Romney supporters whom Romney had lost because of his September blunders. "We were much calmer than others," said one of the officials. The polling and voter-contact data were processed and reprocessed nightly to account for every imaginable scenario. "We ran the election 66,000 times every night," said a senior official, describing the computer simulations the campaign ran to figure out Obama's odds of winning each swing state. "And every morning we got the spit-out — here are your chances of winning these states. And that is how we allocated resources."

...

Data helped drive the campaign's ad buying too. Rather than rely on outside media consultants to decide where ads should run, Messina based his purchases on the massive internal data sets. "We were able to put our target voters through some really complicated modeling, to say, O.K., if Miami-Dade women under 35 are the targets, [here is] how to reach them," said one official. As a result, the campaign bought ads to air during unconventional programming, like Sons of Anarchy, The Walking Dead and Don't Trust the B—- in Apt. 23, skirting the traditional route of buying ads next to local news programming. How much more efficient was the Obama campaign of 2012 than 2008 at ad buying? Chicago has a number for that: "On TV we were able to buy 14% more efficiently ... to make sure we were talking to our persuadable voters," the same official said.

QuoteAnother truly important change was in the technology itself. "Cloud computing barely existed in 2008," Mr. Slaby said.

This time, the Obama campaign's data center was mainly Amazon Web Services, the leading supplier of cloud services. The campaign's engineers built about 200 different programs that ran on the Amazon service including Dashboard, the remote calling tool, the campaign Web site, donation processing and data analytics applications.

Using mainly open-source software and the Amazon service, the Obama campaign could inexpensively write and tailor its own programs instead of using off-the-shelf commercial software.

"It let us attack and engineer our own approach to problems, and build solutions for an environment that moves so rapidly you can't plan," Mr. Slaby said. "It made a huge difference this time."

Quote from: Slaky on November 09, 2012, 09:19:02 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 09, 2012, 09:17:56 AM

Who ordered the Cable Pundit Butthurt Racism Combo (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/bill-oreilly-the-white-establishment-is-now-the-minority-148705.html)?

not me but now I want Portillo's.

QuoteSo what they did, and it's brilliant even while cynical, is they hooked women to Obama through these Hollywood stars. These women were saying well 'George Clooney loves President Obama,' and a fair number of them I'm guessing said, 'so I love President Obama,' and the same thing with Sarah Jessica Parker. That to me, and this is obviously an overstatement, that to me is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned that when they were hoping for a well-informed electorate being advised of the issues and studying the issues, no, what we've devolved to is 'I love George Clooney, George Clooney loves President Obama, therefore I love President Obama.'

Quote from: Wheezer on November 09, 2012, 08:05:33 PM
[what they did, and it's brilliant even while cynical, is they hooked women to Obama through these Hollywood stars. These women were saying well 'George Clooney loves President Obama,' and a fair number of them I'm guessing said, 'so I love President Obama,' and the same thing with Sarah Jessica Parker. That to me, and this is obviously an overstatement, that to me is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned that when they were hoping for a well-informed electorate being advised of the issues and studying the issues, no, what we've devolved to is 'I love George Clooney, George Clooney loves President Obama, therefore I love President Obama.'

Quote from: CBStew on November 09, 2012, 09:20:04 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on November 09, 2012, 08:05:33 PM

QuoteSo what they did, and it's brilliant even while cynical, is they hooked women to Obama through these Hollywood stars. These women were saying well 'George Clooney loves President Obama,' and a fair number of them I'm guessing said, 'so I love President Obama,' and the same thing with Sarah Jessica Parker. That to me, and this is obviously an overstatement, that to me is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned that when they were hoping for a well-informed electorate being advised of the issues and studying the issues, no, what we've devolved to is 'I love George Clooney, George Clooney loves President Obama, therefore I love President Obama.'

So...women were motivated to vote for Obama because of George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker?  More proof that I just don't understand women.

QuoteIn late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obama's campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.

So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obama's top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. "We were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker," explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parker's West Village brownstone.

For the general public, there was no way to know that the idea for the Parker contest had come from a data-mining discovery about some supporters: affection for contests, small dinners and celebrity. But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means. "We are going to measure every single thing in this campaign," he said after taking the job. He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official "chief scientist" for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 09, 2012, 07:03:59 PM
"Community organizer." LOL!

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 09, 2012, 10:49:40 PM

Quote from: CBStew on November 09, 2012, 09:20:04 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on November 09, 2012, 08:05:33 PM

QuoteSo what they did, and it's brilliant even while cynical, is they hooked women to Obama through these Hollywood stars. These women were saying well 'George Clooney loves President Obama,' and a fair number of them I'm guessing said, 'so I love President Obama,' and the same thing with Sarah Jessica Parker. That to me, and this is obviously an overstatement, that to me is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned that when they were hoping for a well-informed electorate being advised of the issues and studying the issues, no, what we've devolved to is 'I love George Clooney, George Clooney loves President Obama, therefore I love President Obama.'

So...women were motivated to vote for Obama because of George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker?  More proof that I just don't understand women.

No. Women who already supported Obama were more motivated to donate to his campaign when offered a chance to win a dinner with them.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/

QuoteIn late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obama's campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.

So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obama's top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. "We were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker," explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parker's West Village brownstone.

For the general public, there was no way to know that the idea for the Parker contest had come from a data-mining discovery about some supporters: affection for contests, small dinners and celebrity. But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means. "We are going to measure every single thing in this campaign," he said after taking the job. He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official "chief scientist" for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions.

Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 11, 2012, 10:34:44 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 09, 2012, 10:49:40 PM

Quote from: CBStew on November 09, 2012, 09:20:04 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on November 09, 2012, 08:05:33 PM

QuoteSo what they did, and it's brilliant even while cynical, is they hooked women to Obama through these Hollywood stars. These women were saying well 'George Clooney loves President Obama,' and a fair number of them I'm guessing said, 'so I love President Obama,' and the same thing with Sarah Jessica Parker. That to me, and this is obviously an overstatement, that to me is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned that when they were hoping for a well-informed electorate being advised of the issues and studying the issues, no, what we've devolved to is 'I love George Clooney, George Clooney loves President Obama, therefore I love President Obama.'

So...women were motivated to vote for Obama because of George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker?  More proof that I just don't understand women.

No. Women who already supported Obama were more motivated to donate to his campaign when offered a chance to win a dinner with them.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/

QuoteIn late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obama's campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.

So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obama's top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. "We were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker," explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parker's West Village brownstone.

For the general public, there was no way to know that the idea for the Parker contest had come from a data-mining discovery about some supporters: affection for contests, small dinners and celebrity. But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means. "We are going to measure every single thing in this campaign," he said after taking the job. He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official "chief scientist" for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions.

So they pimped out the president? Nice.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 11, 2012, 11:54:24 PM

Quote from: Armchair_QB on November 11, 2012, 10:34:44 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 09, 2012, 10:49:40 PM

Quote from: CBStew on November 09, 2012, 09:20:04 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on November 09, 2012, 08:05:33 PM

QuoteSo what they did, and it's brilliant even while cynical, is they hooked women to Obama through these Hollywood stars. These women were saying well 'George Clooney loves President Obama,' and a fair number of them I'm guessing said, 'so I love President Obama,' and the same thing with Sarah Jessica Parker. That to me, and this is obviously an overstatement, that to me is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned that when they were hoping for a well-informed electorate being advised of the issues and studying the issues, no, what we've devolved to is 'I love George Clooney, George Clooney loves President Obama, therefore I love President Obama.'

So...women were motivated to vote for Obama because of George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker?  More proof that I just don't understand women.

No. Women who already supported Obama were more motivated to donate to his campaign when offered a chance to win a dinner with them.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/

QuoteIn late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obama's campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney — and Obama.

So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obama's top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. "We were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker," explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parker's West Village brownstone.

For the general public, there was no way to know that the idea for the Parker contest had come from a data-mining discovery about some supporters: affection for contests, small dinners and celebrity. But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means. "We are going to measure every single thing in this campaign," he said after taking the job. He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official "chief scientist" for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions.

So they pimped out the president? Nice.

Seems more like "pimping out" George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker.

Quote from: Slaky on November 12, 2012, 01:54:49 PM
It's good to remember there are still tons of people like this lady.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/gops-red-america-forced-to-rethink-its-image-of-country/2012/11/11/3bb15fb8-2ab0-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story_2.html

QuoteWASHINGTON—A federal agent who launched the investigation that ultimately led to the resignation of Central Intelligence Agency chief David Petraeus was barred from taking part in the case over the summer due to superiors' concerns that he had become personally involved in the case, according to officials familiar with the probe.

...

The FBI agent who started the case was a friend of Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman who received harassing, anonymous emails that led to the probe, according to officials. Ms. Kelley, a volunteer who organizes social events for military personnel in the Tampa area, complained in May about the emails to a friend who is an FBI agent. That agent referred it to a cyber crimes unit, which opened an investigation.

However, supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation, according to the officials.

The FBI officials found that he had sent shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley, according to the people familiar with the probe.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
This whole Petraeus business just keeps throwing us fresh twists... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578115410189757452.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)

QuoteWASHINGTON—A federal agent who launched the investigation that ultimately led to the resignation of Central Intelligence Agency chief David Petraeus was barred from taking part in the case over the summer due to superiors' concerns that he had become personally involved in the case, according to officials familiar with the probe.

...

The FBI agent who started the case was a friend of Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman who received harassing, anonymous emails that led to the probe, according to officials. Ms. Kelley, a volunteer who organizes social events for military personnel in the Tampa area, complained in May about the emails to a friend who is an FBI agent. That agent referred it to a cyber crimes unit, which opened an investigation.

However, supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation, according to the officials.

The FBI officials found that he had sent shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley, according to the people familiar with the probe.

Quote from: Bort on November 12, 2012, 10:37:39 PM
The best part of the Petraeus scandal is that this is arguably the least ethically horrible thing a CIA director has ever done.

Quote from: CT III on November 12, 2012, 11:00:19 PM

Quote from: Bort on November 12, 2012, 10:37:39 PM
The best part of the Petraeus scandal is that this is arguably the least ethically horrible thing a CIA director has ever done.

Yeah, but do we really want a CIA director who can't even keep an affair secret?

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 13, 2012, 09:32:30 AM
Can't find the "Arizona" thread to bump, but this one obviously applies.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-woman-runs-down-husband-car-not-voting-045426220.html

QuoteIf you go to Mitt Romney's facebook page and then click refresh, you can actually see his number of likes going down. (http://www.facebook.com/mittromney?fref=ts)

Quote from: Tonker on November 13, 2012, 11:56:33 AM
By the way, do you think we could get the title of this thread changed to the correct spelling of "achieved"?

It just bugs me, that's all.

Quote from: BH on November 13, 2012, 12:10:25 PM
I'm guessing this  (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83689.html)guy has some serious butthurt.

"My 15-year-old son, however, he was all about it."

QuoteFortunately, he cites his day job as a professional wrestler, so fighting off such opponents is not likely to be difficult.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
This whole Petraeus business just keeps throwing us fresh twists... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578115410189757452.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)

QuoteWASHINGTON—A federal agent who launched the investigation that ultimately led to the resignation of Central Intelligence Agency chief David Petraeus was barred from taking part in the case over the summer due to superiors' concerns that he had become personally involved in the case, according to officials familiar with the probe.

...

The FBI agent who started the case was a friend of Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman who received harassing, anonymous emails that led to the probe, according to officials. Ms. Kelley, a volunteer who organizes social events for military personnel in the Tampa area, complained in May about the emails to a friend who is an FBI agent. That agent referred it to a cyber crimes unit, which opened an investigation.

However, supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation, according to the officials.

The FBI officials found that he had sent shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley, according to the people familiar with the probe.

QuoteEven as the FBI prepared a timeline for Congress about the investigation that brought to light Petraeus' extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that the Pentagon had begun an internal investigation into emails from Gen. John Allen to a Florida woman involved in the case.

...

It was Broadwell's threatening emails to Jill Kelley, a Florida woman who is a Petraeus family friend, that led to the FBI's discovery of communications between Broadwell and Petraeus indicating they were having an affair. Petraeus acknowledged the affair when he resigned from the CIA post on Friday.

In the latest revelations, a Pentagon official traveling with Panetta to Australia said "inappropriate communications" — 20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails and other documents from Allen's communications with Kelley between 2010 and 2012 — are under review. He would not say whether they involved sexual matters or whether they are thought to include unauthorized disclosures of classified information. He said he did not know whether Petraeus is mentioned in the emails.

...

The decision by the FBI to hand off the Allen information to the military seems to indicate the issue is not one involving the handling of classified information, but rather some other issue.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

QuoteBy now, most of you have probably seen the Tumblr page (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/) entirely dedicated to pictures of white people mourning the Republican defeat last Tuesday.

I realize how easy it is to make fun of those people (our those people), but for me the images posted there call up -- somewhat to my surprise -- decidedly mixed emotions. Spite and sympathy, it seems, can co-exist, and even lay the groundwork for something that begins to resemble empathy.

It's an involuntary reflex, to be sure, after the bile, racism, and sheer deranged hatred those people have flung at us these past four years -- not to mention their cocksure arrogance (up until about 10:00 pm Tuesday night) that "real" Americans were going to rise as one and send the Kenyan usurper packing.

But looking at those woeful faces -- hopes smashed, the awful truth finally revealed -- it's hard not to remember election night 2004, when it became clear that lies and war crimes notwithstanding, President Cheney and his sidekick were going to be reelected despite our best efforts.

It's devastating to believe that your country has looked evil full in the face and decided to embrace it, and feel completely helpless to stop it. And if even one-twentieth of the things those people believe about President Obama, and about us, were true, they would be right to despair, just as we did eight years ago.

In the end, though, what really makes it hard for me to dine with gusto at the schadenfreude buffet is that the grieving faces on the other side of the partisan divide aren't those people, they're my people -- the middle-class neighbors of my Southern childhood, the kids I went to school with, my redneck uncles and cousins, my own mother and father.

...

QuoteJill Kelley, the Tampa socialite connected to ISAF Commander John Allen and former CIA Director David Petraeus, is an "honorary consul" of South Korea, a diplomatic official with direct knowledge of the arrangement told The Cable.

"She is an 'honorary consul' of the Republic of Korea," the official said. "She assumed this position last August thanks to her good connections and network."

The position of honorary consul is symbolic and has no official responsibilities, the official said.

...

Kelley does drive a Mercedes sedan with license plates that say "Honorary Consul," and she invoked her honorary diplomatic status in a Nov. 11 911 call when she was complaining about trespassers on her private property.

"I'm an honorary consul general, so I have inviolability, so they should not be able to cross my property," she told the 911 operator. "I don't know if you want to get diplomatic protection involved as well, because that's against the law to cross my property because, you know, it's inviolable."

"Ok, no problem, I'll let the officer know," the 911 operator responded.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 10:14:01 PM
QPD.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/13/jill_kelley_is_an_honorary_consul_of_south_korea

QuoteJill Kelley, the Tampa socialite connected to ISAF Commander John Allen and former CIA Director David Petraeus, is an "honorary consul" of South Korea, a diplomatic official with direct knowledge of the arrangement told The Cable.

"She is an 'honorary consul' of the Republic of Korea," the official said. "She assumed this position last August thanks to her good connections and network."

The position of honorary consul is symbolic and has no official responsibilities, the official said.

...

Kelley does drive a Mercedes sedan with license plates that say "Honorary Consul," and she invoked her honorary diplomatic status in a Nov. 11 911 call when she was complaining about trespassers on her private property.

"I'm an honorary consul general, so I have inviolability, so they should not be able to cross my property," she told the 911 operator. "I don't know if you want to get diplomatic protection involved as well, because that's against the law to cross my property because, you know, it's inviolable."

"Ok, no problem, I'll let the officer know," the 911 operator responded.

QuoteKelley's powerful military connections surfaced in another court matter when she sought help for her twin sister, Natalie Khawam, in a bitter child custody fight.

General John Allen and former CIA Director and retired General David Petraeus signed letters to the court that bear four-star-general emblems and are dated five-and-a-half weeks ago.

"Natalie clearly dotes on her son," wrote Petraeus. "It is unfortunate, in my view, that her interaction with her son has been so limited by the custody settlement."

General Allen says the toddler shouldn't be penalized by "limiting his expectations to experience the love, mentorship, and guidance of his mother."

The judge in the case had a different view. He expressed "profound concerns about Ms. Khawam's "extreme distortions" and "severe psychological deficits." He called Khawam a "psychologically unstable person" with an "unsteady moral and ethical compass."

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 12:48:57 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
This whole Petraeus business just keeps throwing us fresh twists... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578115410189757452.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)

QuoteWASHINGTON—A federal agent who launched the investigation that ultimately led to the resignation of Central Intelligence Agency chief David Petraeus was barred from taking part in the case over the summer due to superiors' concerns that he had become personally involved in the case, according to officials familiar with the probe.

...

The FBI agent who started the case was a friend of Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman who received harassing, anonymous emails that led to the probe, according to officials. Ms. Kelley, a volunteer who organizes social events for military personnel in the Tampa area, complained in May about the emails to a friend who is an FBI agent. That agent referred it to a cyber crimes unit, which opened an investigation.

However, supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation, according to the officials.

The FBI officials found that he had sent shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley, according to the people familiar with the probe.

And yet another twist... (http://news.yahoo.com/scandal-widens-probe-top-us-generals-emails-124020931.html)

QuoteEven as the FBI prepared a timeline for Congress about the investigation that brought to light Petraeus' extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that the Pentagon had begun an internal investigation into emails from Gen. John Allen to a Florida woman involved in the case.

...

It was Broadwell's threatening emails to Jill Kelley, a Florida woman who is a Petraeus family friend, that led to the FBI's discovery of communications between Broadwell and Petraeus indicating they were having an affair. Petraeus acknowledged the affair when he resigned from the CIA post on Friday.

In the latest revelations, a Pentagon official traveling with Panetta to Australia said "inappropriate communications" — 20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails and other documents from Allen's communications with Kelley between 2010 and 2012 — are under review. He would not say whether they involved sexual matters or whether they are thought to include unauthorized disclosures of classified information. He said he did not know whether Petraeus is mentioned in the emails.

...

The decision by the FBI to hand off the Allen information to the military seems to indicate the issue is not one involving the handling of classified information, but rather some other issue.

Apparently dudes are universally losing their shit for a taste of Ms. Kelley's goods.

(http://i.imgur.com/Pm4Ik.jpg)

Quote from: ChuckD on November 13, 2012, 11:23:39 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 12:48:57 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 12, 2012, 09:03:32 PM
This whole Petraeus business just keeps throwing us fresh twists... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578115410189757452.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories)

QuoteWASHINGTON—A federal agent who launched the investigation that ultimately led to the resignation of Central Intelligence Agency chief David Petraeus was barred from taking part in the case over the summer due to superiors' concerns that he had become personally involved in the case, according to officials familiar with the probe.

...

The FBI agent who started the case was a friend of Jill Kelley, the Tampa woman who received harassing, anonymous emails that led to the probe, according to officials. Ms. Kelley, a volunteer who organizes social events for military personnel in the Tampa area, complained in May about the emails to a friend who is an FBI agent. That agent referred it to a cyber crimes unit, which opened an investigation.

However, supervisors soon became concerned that the initial agent might have grown obsessed with the matter, and prohibited him from any role in the investigation, according to the officials.

The FBI officials found that he had sent shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley, according to the people familiar with the probe.

And yet another twist... (http://news.yahoo.com/scandal-widens-probe-top-us-generals-emails-124020931.html)

QuoteEven as the FBI prepared a timeline for Congress about the investigation that brought to light Petraeus' extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that the Pentagon had begun an internal investigation into emails from Gen. John Allen to a Florida woman involved in the case.

...

It was Broadwell's threatening emails to Jill Kelley, a Florida woman who is a Petraeus family friend, that led to the FBI's discovery of communications between Broadwell and Petraeus indicating they were having an affair. Petraeus acknowledged the affair when he resigned from the CIA post on Friday.

In the latest revelations, a Pentagon official traveling with Panetta to Australia said "inappropriate communications" — 20,000 to 30,000 pages of emails and other documents from Allen's communications with Kelley between 2010 and 2012 — are under review. He would not say whether they involved sexual matters or whether they are thought to include unauthorized disclosures of classified information. He said he did not know whether Petraeus is mentioned in the emails.

...

The decision by the FBI to hand off the Allen information to the military seems to indicate the issue is not one involving the handling of classified information, but rather some other issue.

Apparently dudes are universally losing their shit for a taste of Ms. Kelley's goods.

(http://i.imgur.com/Pm4Ik.jpg)

That's a pretty solid Wineroll.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1160263/-Mourning-in-America

QuoteBy now, most of you have probably seen the Tumblr page (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/) entirely dedicated to pictures of white people mourning the Republican defeat last Tuesday.

I realize how easy it is to make fun of those people (our those people), but for me the images posted there call up -- somewhat to my surprise -- decidedly mixed emotions. Spite and sympathy, it seems, can co-exist, and even lay the groundwork for something that begins to resemble empathy.

It's an involuntary reflex, to be sure, after the bile, racism, and sheer deranged hatred those people have flung at us these past four years -- not to mention their cocksure arrogance (up until about 10:00 pm Tuesday night) that "real" Americans were going to rise as one and send the Kenyan usurper packing.

But looking at those woeful faces -- hopes smashed, the awful truth finally revealed -- it's hard not to remember election night 2004, when it became clear that lies and war crimes notwithstanding, President Cheney and his sidekick were going to be reelected despite our best efforts.

It's devastating to believe that your country has looked evil full in the face and decided to embrace it, and feel completely helpless to stop it. And if even one-twentieth of the things those people believe about President Obama, and about us, were true, they would be right to despair, just as we did eight years ago.

In the end, though, what really makes it hard for me to dine with gusto at the schadenfreude buffet is that the grieving faces on the other side of the partisan divide aren't those people, they're my people -- the middle-class neighbors of my Southern childhood, the kids I went to school with, my redneck uncles and cousins, my own mother and father.

...

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1160263/-Mourning-in-America

QuoteBy now, most of you have probably seen the Tumblr page (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/) entirely dedicated to pictures of white people mourning the Republican defeat last Tuesday.

I realize how easy it is to make fun of those people (our those people), but for me the images posted there call up -- somewhat to my surprise -- decidedly mixed emotions. Spite and sympathy, it seems, can co-exist, and even lay the groundwork for something that begins to resemble empathy.

It's an involuntary reflex, to be sure, after the bile, racism, and sheer deranged hatred those people have flung at us these past four years -- not to mention their cocksure arrogance (up until about 10:00 pm Tuesday night) that "real" Americans were going to rise as one and send the Kenyan usurper packing.

But looking at those woeful faces -- hopes smashed, the awful truth finally revealed -- it's hard not to remember election night 2004, when it became clear that lies and war crimes notwithstanding, President Cheney and his sidekick were going to be reelected despite our best efforts.

It's devastating to believe that your country has looked evil full in the face and decided to embrace it, and feel completely helpless to stop it. And if even one-twentieth of the things those people believe about President Obama, and about us, were true, they would be right to despair, just as we did eight years ago.

In the end, though, what really makes it hard for me to dine with gusto at the schadenfreude buffet is that the grieving faces on the other side of the partisan divide aren't those people, they're my people -- the middle-class neighbors of my Southern childhood, the kids I went to school with, my redneck uncles and cousins, my own mother and father.

...

Quote from: PANK! on November 14, 2012, 05:14:44 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1160263/-Mourning-in-America

QuoteBy now, most of you have probably seen the Tumblr page (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/) entirely dedicated to pictures of white people mourning the Republican defeat last Tuesday.

I realize how easy it is to make fun of those people (our those people), but for me the images posted there call up -- somewhat to my surprise -- decidedly mixed emotions. Spite and sympathy, it seems, can co-exist, and even lay the groundwork for something that begins to resemble empathy.

It's an involuntary reflex, to be sure, after the bile, racism, and sheer deranged hatred those people have flung at us these past four years -- not to mention their cocksure arrogance (up until about 10:00 pm Tuesday night) that "real" Americans were going to rise as one and send the Kenyan usurper packing.

But looking at those woeful faces -- hopes smashed, the awful truth finally revealed -- it's hard not to remember election night 2004, when it became clear that lies and war crimes notwithstanding, President Cheney and his sidekick were going to be reelected despite our best efforts.

It's devastating to believe that your country has looked evil full in the face and decided to embrace it, and feel completely helpless to stop it. And if even one-twentieth of the things those people believe about President Obama, and about us, were true, they would be right to despair, just as we did eight years ago.

In the end, though, what really makes it hard for me to dine with gusto at the schadenfreude buffet is that the grieving faces on the other side of the partisan divide aren't those people, they're my people -- the middle-class neighbors of my Southern childhood, the kids I went to school with, my redneck uncles and cousins, my own mother and father.

...

I'll confess that on the morning after the 2004 Election, I woke up and told my wife we should take our money out of the bank.  By the end of the week, though, I had calmed down.  The asshurt and despair by many of the Republicans over this election, however, has had impressive staying power.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 08:32:02 AM

Quote from: PANK! on November 14, 2012, 05:14:44 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1160263/-Mourning-in-America

QuoteBy now, most of you have probably seen the Tumblr page (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/) entirely dedicated to pictures of white people mourning the Republican defeat last Tuesday.

I realize how easy it is to make fun of those people (our those people), but for me the images posted there call up -- somewhat to my surprise -- decidedly mixed emotions. Spite and sympathy, it seems, can co-exist, and even lay the groundwork for something that begins to resemble empathy.

It's an involuntary reflex, to be sure, after the bile, racism, and sheer deranged hatred those people have flung at us these past four years -- not to mention their cocksure arrogance (up until about 10:00 pm Tuesday night) that "real" Americans were going to rise as one and send the Kenyan usurper packing.

But looking at those woeful faces -- hopes smashed, the awful truth finally revealed -- it's hard not to remember election night 2004, when it became clear that lies and war crimes notwithstanding, President Cheney and his sidekick were going to be reelected despite our best efforts.

It's devastating to believe that your country has looked evil full in the face and decided to embrace it, and feel completely helpless to stop it. And if even one-twentieth of the things those people believe about President Obama, and about us, were true, they would be right to despair, just as we did eight years ago.

In the end, though, what really makes it hard for me to dine with gusto at the schadenfreude buffet is that the grieving faces on the other side of the partisan divide aren't those people, they're my people -- the middle-class neighbors of my Southern childhood, the kids I went to school with, my redneck uncles and cousins, my own mother and father.

...

I'll confess that on the morning after the 2004 Election, I woke up and told my wife we should take our money out of the bank.  By the end of the week, though, I had calmed down.  The asshurt and despair by many of the Republicans over this election, however, has had impressive staying power.

Your butthurt barely lasted 7 days, whereas their butthurt is going on 8.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 09:42:42 AM
http://punditshaming.tumblr.com/

Quote from: PenPho on November 14, 2012, 11:05:21 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 09:42:42 AM
http://punditshaming.tumblr.com/

I hope every one of these hacks and their producers sees this and remembers it before next election (and frankly, every day in between.)

These people have no accountability and represent so much of what is wrong.

Quote from: CBStew on November 14, 2012, 11:56:11 AM
What delights me is the number of people who are trying to get their states to secede from the union.  The only other time in history when this happened on this magnitude was in 1860, and we know how that ended.   Most of these states are "under water" in that they receive more from the Federal government than they contribute.  If they left us it would be a great help in bringing down the deficit.

Quote from: PANK! on November 14, 2012, 11:02:57 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 08:32:02 AM

Quote from: PANK! on November 14, 2012, 05:14:44 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 13, 2012, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 08, 2012, 11:02:32 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 08, 2012, 10:32:23 AM
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/ (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/)

These are less hilarious butthurt, more plain old disappointment.

No, Fork.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1160263/-Mourning-in-America

QuoteBy now, most of you have probably seen the Tumblr page (http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/) entirely dedicated to pictures of white people mourning the Republican defeat last Tuesday.

I realize how easy it is to make fun of those people (our those people), but for me the images posted there call up -- somewhat to my surprise -- decidedly mixed emotions. Spite and sympathy, it seems, can co-exist, and even lay the groundwork for something that begins to resemble empathy.

It's an involuntary reflex, to be sure, after the bile, racism, and sheer deranged hatred those people have flung at us these past four years -- not to mention their cocksure arrogance (up until about 10:00 pm Tuesday night) that "real" Americans were going to rise as one and send the Kenyan usurper packing.

But looking at those woeful faces -- hopes smashed, the awful truth finally revealed -- it's hard not to remember election night 2004, when it became clear that lies and war crimes notwithstanding, President Cheney and his sidekick were going to be reelected despite our best efforts.

It's devastating to believe that your country has looked evil full in the face and decided to embrace it, and feel completely helpless to stop it. And if even one-twentieth of the things those people believe about President Obama, and about us, were true, they would be right to despair, just as we did eight years ago.

In the end, though, what really makes it hard for me to dine with gusto at the schadenfreude buffet is that the grieving faces on the other side of the partisan divide aren't those people, they're my people -- the middle-class neighbors of my Southern childhood, the kids I went to school with, my redneck uncles and cousins, my own mother and father.

...

I'll confess that on the morning after the 2004 Election, I woke up and told my wife we should take our money out of the bank.  By the end of the week, though, I had calmed down.  The asshurt and despair by many of the Republicans over this election, however, has had impressive staying power.

Your butthurt barely lasted 7 days, whereas their butthurt is going on 8.

End of the week = Friday, Saturday Sunday.

3-5 days.

QuoteThe meeting consisted of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a 90-minute screening of the anti-Agenda 21 documentary, Agenda: Grinding America Down (http://agendadocumentary.com/). It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was forced out (http://www.indefenseofliberty.tv/index.php/2012/04/georgia-tea-party-board-member-removed/#.UKPDjFTQao0) of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7. The presentation also featured a special video cameo from conservative talking-head Dick Morris in which the former Clinton aide warns that Obama "wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."

About 23 minutes into the briefing, Searcy explained how President Obama, aided by liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress and business groups like local chambers of commerce, are secretly using mind-control techniques to push their plan for forcible relocation on the gullible public:

QuoteThey do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.

How perilous is the situation? Here's a slide from the presentation comparing Obama's record to that of Mao and Stalin:

(http://i.imgur.com/gtr04.png)

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

QuoteThe meeting consisted of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a 90-minute screening of the anti-Agenda 21 documentary, Agenda: Grinding America Down (http://agendadocumentary.com/). It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was forced out (http://www.indefenseofliberty.tv/index.php/2012/04/georgia-tea-party-board-member-removed/#.UKPDjFTQao0) of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7. The presentation also featured a special video cameo from conservative talking-head Dick Morris in which the former Clinton aide warns that Obama "wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."

About 23 minutes into the briefing, Searcy explained how President Obama, aided by liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress and business groups like local chambers of commerce, are secretly using mind-control techniques to push their plan for forcible relocation on the gullible public:

QuoteThey do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.

How perilous is the situation? Here's a slide from the presentation comparing Obama's record to that of Mao and Stalin:

(http://i.imgur.com/gtr04.png)

And yet, not one damn word about Obama taking my Ameros to fund the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway.

Quote from: CT III on November 15, 2012, 02:31:26 PM
Based on the slide, I'm going to say that they don't quite understand how a public/private partnership works.

Edit: Also, I like that they differentiated that while Mao killed people, Stalin only killed Ukrainians.

Quote from: CT III on November 15, 2012, 02:31:26 PM
Based on the slide, I'm going to say that they don't quite understand how a public/private partnership works.

Edit: Also, I like that they differentiated that while Mao killed people, Stalin only killed Ukrainians.

Quote from: Fork on November 15, 2012, 06:08:29 PM
Holy shit (http://hellothereracists.tumblr.com/).

Quote from: Chuck Marchese ‏@knowledgofchuckFor all u dumb politically correct fucks out there I never said I would assassinate him Im just hoping some1 does #FuckOff #KillYourselves

Quote from: CBStew on November 15, 2012, 06:06:32 PM
Apparently there are petitions from all 50 states seeking permission to secede from the union.  But if we all secede together, form a confederacy of seceded states, and then hold an election to determine who is going to be president, a majority of that electorate appears to want Obama to be president.  Kind of nullifying the reason for secession.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2012, 07:11:00 PM

Quote from: Fork on November 15, 2012, 06:08:29 PM
Holy shit (http://hellothereracists.tumblr.com/).

http://twitter.com/knowledgofchuck/status/269185536349065216

Quote from: Chuck Marchese ‏@knowledgofchuckFor all u dumb politically correct fucks out there I never said I would assassinate him Im just hoping some1 does #FuckOff #KillYourselves

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2012, 10:11:04 PM
Relevant...

http://hellothereracists.tumblr.com/post/35813540330/tyler-beattie-fuquay-varina-north-carolina

(http://i.imgur.com/7iXxJ.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/sqo55.png)

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

Let's try and keep things casual, Ty.

Quote from: Yeti on November 15, 2012, 12:41:50 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

QuoteThe meeting consisted of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a 90-minute screening of the anti-Agenda 21 documentary, Agenda: Grinding America Down (http://agendadocumentary.com/). It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was forced out (http://www.indefenseofliberty.tv/index.php/2012/04/georgia-tea-party-board-member-removed/#.UKPDjFTQao0) of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7. The presentation also featured a special video cameo from conservative talking-head Dick Morris in which the former Clinton aide warns that Obama "wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."

About 23 minutes into the briefing, Searcy explained how President Obama, aided by liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress and business groups like local chambers of commerce, are secretly using mind-control techniques to push their plan for forcible relocation on the gullible public:

QuoteThey do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.

How perilous is the situation? Here's a slide from the presentation comparing Obama's record to that of Mao and Stalin:

(http://i.imgur.com/gtr04.png)

And yet, not one damn word about Obama taking my Ameros to fund the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway.

It appears that 2.5 million people in America die each year.. So he's got at least 5 million deaths on his hands.

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 15, 2012, 10:51:28 PM

Quote from: Yeti on November 15, 2012, 12:41:50 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

QuoteThe meeting consisted of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a 90-minute screening of the anti-Agenda 21 documentary, Agenda: Grinding America Down (http://agendadocumentary.com/). It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was forced out (http://www.indefenseofliberty.tv/index.php/2012/04/georgia-tea-party-board-member-removed/#.UKPDjFTQao0) of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7. The presentation also featured a special video cameo from conservative talking-head Dick Morris in which the former Clinton aide warns that Obama "wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."

About 23 minutes into the briefing, Searcy explained how President Obama, aided by liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress and business groups like local chambers of commerce, are secretly using mind-control techniques to push their plan for forcible relocation on the gullible public:

QuoteThey do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.

How perilous is the situation? Here's a slide from the presentation comparing Obama's record to that of Mao and Stalin:

(http://i.imgur.com/gtr04.png)

And yet, not one damn word about Obama taking my Ameros to fund the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway.

It appears that 2.5 million people in America die each year.. So he's got at least 5 million deaths on his hands.

Say what you will about the tenets of McCarthyism. At least it's an ethos.

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 08:12:59 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 15, 2012, 10:51:28 PM

Quote from: Yeti on November 15, 2012, 12:41:50 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

QuoteThe meeting consisted of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a 90-minute screening of the anti-Agenda 21 documentary, Agenda: Grinding America Down (http://agendadocumentary.com/). It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was forced out (http://www.indefenseofliberty.tv/index.php/2012/04/georgia-tea-party-board-member-removed/#.UKPDjFTQao0) of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7. The presentation also featured a special video cameo from conservative talking-head Dick Morris in which the former Clinton aide warns that Obama "wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."

About 23 minutes into the briefing, Searcy explained how President Obama, aided by liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress and business groups like local chambers of commerce, are secretly using mind-control techniques to push their plan for forcible relocation on the gullible public:

QuoteThey do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.

How perilous is the situation? Here's a slide from the presentation comparing Obama's record to that of Mao and Stalin:

(http://i.imgur.com/gtr04.png)

And yet, not one damn word about Obama taking my Ameros to fund the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway.

It appears that 2.5 million people in America die each year.. So he's got at least 5 million deaths on his hands.

Say what you will about the tenets of McCarthyism. At least it's an ethos.

I'm just tired, again, of the lack of creativity Americans have when it comes to comparing presidents to dictators. Always Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. What about Pol Pot? Enver Hoxha? Nicolae Ceausescu?! Oh man, that would sink an election right there, comparing someone to Ceausescu! What a hoot.

Quote from: Fork on November 16, 2012, 08:17:43 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 08:12:59 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 15, 2012, 10:51:28 PM

Quote from: Yeti on November 15, 2012, 12:41:50 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

QuoteThe meeting consisted of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a 90-minute screening of the anti-Agenda 21 documentary, Agenda: Grinding America Down (http://agendadocumentary.com/). It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was forced out (http://www.indefenseofliberty.tv/index.php/2012/04/georgia-tea-party-board-member-removed/#.UKPDjFTQao0) of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7. The presentation also featured a special video cameo from conservative talking-head Dick Morris in which the former Clinton aide warns that Obama "wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."

About 23 minutes into the briefing, Searcy explained how President Obama, aided by liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress and business groups like local chambers of commerce, are secretly using mind-control techniques to push their plan for forcible relocation on the gullible public:

QuoteThey do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.

How perilous is the situation? Here's a slide from the presentation comparing Obama's record to that of Mao and Stalin:

(http://i.imgur.com/gtr04.png)

And yet, not one damn word about Obama taking my Ameros to fund the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway.

It appears that 2.5 million people in America die each year.. So he's got at least 5 million deaths on his hands.

Say what you will about the tenets of McCarthyism. At least it's an ethos.

I'm just tired, again, of the lack of creativity Americans have when it comes to comparing presidents to dictators. Always Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. What about Pol Pot? Enver Hoxha? Nicolae Ceausescu?! Oh man, that would sink an election right there, comparing someone to Ceausescu! What a hoot.

I'd rather kick it old school and use Richard the Lionheart.

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 08:24:39 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 16, 2012, 08:17:43 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 08:12:59 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 15, 2012, 10:51:28 PM

Quote from: Yeti on November 15, 2012, 12:41:50 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 15, 2012, 12:35:46 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

QuoteThe meeting consisted of a PowerPoint presentation followed by a 90-minute screening of the anti-Agenda 21 documentary, Agenda: Grinding America Down (http://agendadocumentary.com/). It was emceed by Field Searcy, a local conservative activist who was forced out (http://www.indefenseofliberty.tv/index.php/2012/04/georgia-tea-party-board-member-removed/#.UKPDjFTQao0) of the Georgia Tea Party in April due to his endorsement of conspiracy theories about the president's birth certificate and the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7. The presentation also featured a special video cameo from conservative talking-head Dick Morris in which the former Clinton aide warns that Obama "wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled."

About 23 minutes into the briefing, Searcy explained how President Obama, aided by liberal organizations like the Center for American Progress and business groups like local chambers of commerce, are secretly using mind-control techniques to push their plan for forcible relocation on the gullible public:

QuoteThey do that by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as "consensive process." But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input.

How perilous is the situation? Here's a slide from the presentation comparing Obama's record to that of Mao and Stalin:

(http://i.imgur.com/gtr04.png)

And yet, not one damn word about Obama taking my Ameros to fund the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway.

It appears that 2.5 million people in America die each year.. So he's got at least 5 million deaths on his hands.

Say what you will about the tenets of McCarthyism. At least it's an ethos.

I'm just tired, again, of the lack of creativity Americans have when it comes to comparing presidents to dictators. Always Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. What about Pol Pot? Enver Hoxha? Nicolae Ceausescu?! Oh man, that would sink an election right there, comparing someone to Ceausescu! What a hoot.

I'd rather kick it old school and use Richard the Lionheart.

He's a 21st century Catherine De Medici.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

Quote from: R-V on November 16, 2012, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

You can't expect Gil to ever pass up on an opportunity to point out the stupidity of others, after which he'll immediately click over to enjoy the comments section of a Politico article.

QuoteStop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle (...) If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second.

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM
I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

Quote from: Fork on November 16, 2012, 10:36:58 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM
I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

I learned that if you carry pictures of him you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

Quote from: R-V on November 16, 2012, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

You can't expect Gil to ever pass up on an opportunity to point out the stupidity of others, after which he'll immediately click over to enjoy the comments section of a Politico article.

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:47:46 AM

Quote from: Fork on November 16, 2012, 10:36:58 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM
I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

I learned that if you carry pictures of him you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

I very nearly ended that post with "...and Fork quotes "Revolution" in 3...2...1..."

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM

Quote from: R-V on November 16, 2012, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

You can't expect Gil to ever pass up on an opportunity to point out the stupidity of others, after which he'll immediately click over to enjoy the comments section of a Politico article.

I'm also wondering what school in America teaches anything about any of those people I mentioned. Hell, I'm not even sure my school mentioned anything about Stalin other than= Godless Communist. I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

Quote from: CBStew on November 16, 2012, 11:07:02 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM

Quote from: R-V on November 16, 2012, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

You can't expect Gil to ever pass up on an opportunity to point out the stupidity of others, after which he'll immediately click over to enjoy the comments section of a Politico article.

I'm also wondering what school in America teaches anything about any of those people I mentioned. Hell, I'm not even sure my school mentioned anything about Stalin other than= Godless Communist. I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

When I went to school Stalin and Mao were still making history gleams in their daddies' eyes.

Quote from: CBStew on November 16, 2012, 11:07:02 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM

Quote from: R-V on November 16, 2012, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

You can't expect Gil to ever pass up on an opportunity to point out the stupidity of others, after which he'll immediately click over to enjoy the comments section of a Politico article.

I'm also wondering what school in America teaches anything about any of those people I mentioned. Hell, I'm not even sure my school mentioned anything about Stalin other than= Godless Communist. I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

When I went to school Stalin and Mao were still making history.

Quote from: flannj on November 16, 2012, 11:22:13 AM

Quote from: CBStew on November 16, 2012, 11:07:02 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM

Quote from: R-V on November 16, 2012, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

You can't expect Gil to ever pass up on an opportunity to point out the stupidity of others, after which he'll immediately click over to enjoy the comments section of a Politico article.

I'm also wondering what school in America teaches anything about any of those people I mentioned. Hell, I'm not even sure my school mentioned anything about Stalin other than= Godless Communist. I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

When I went to school Stalin and Mao were still making history.

I would have guessed Vlad the Impaler.

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 16, 2012, 11:42:52 AM

Quote from: flannj on November 16, 2012, 11:22:13 AM

Quote from: CBStew on November 16, 2012, 11:07:02 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM

Quote from: R-V on November 16, 2012, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

You can't expect Gil to ever pass up on an opportunity to point out the stupidity of others, after which he'll immediately click over to enjoy the comments section of a Politico article.

I'm also wondering what school in America teaches anything about any of those people I mentioned. Hell, I'm not even sure my school mentioned anything about Stalin other than= Godless Communist. I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

When I went to school Stalin and Mao were still making history.

I would have guessed Vlad the Impaler.

I would have guessed Gilgamesh.

Quote from: Slaky on November 16, 2012, 11:51:22 AM

Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 16, 2012, 11:42:52 AM

Quote from: flannj on November 16, 2012, 11:22:13 AM

Quote from: CBStew on November 16, 2012, 11:07:02 AM

Quote from: SKO on November 16, 2012, 10:16:38 AM

Quote from: R-V on November 16, 2012, 09:59:33 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 16, 2012, 09:48:31 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 16, 2012, 09:37:00 AM
All of that presumes that the average American stayed awake during any history class, which I'm not willing to bet on.

I THINK HE WAS JOKING.

You can't expect Gil to ever pass up on an opportunity to point out the stupidity of others, after which he'll immediately click over to enjoy the comments section of a Politico article.

I'm also wondering what school in America teaches anything about any of those people I mentioned. Hell, I'm not even sure my school mentioned anything about Stalin other than= Godless Communist. I know we didn't learn shit about Chairman Mao.

When I went to school Stalin and Mao were still making history.

I would have guessed Vlad the Impaler.

I would have guessed Gilgamesh.

Ur joking.

QuoteAfter months of promising a major grass-roots effort to win public support for reforming the state's government worker pension system, Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday unveiled a plan that featured an incomplete online strategy, children wearing red plastic megaphones and an animated "Squeezy the Pension Python" mascot.

QuoteThe pension system's unfunded liability now is estimated to be at least $96 billion. The governor has warned that without changes, future funding for public employee retirement will put the squeeze on state funding for education and social services. That led to the introduction of "Squeezy" about midway through a 3-minute, 44-second video produced in-house by the governor's office.

The strategy includes a website featuring a video on the history of pensions since ancient Rome and a chorus of children shouting "Thanks in advance" for fixing the retirement system. Quinn appeared at a Thompson Center news conference with about 15 children who wore red plastic megaphones with "Thanks in advance" stickers.

Quote from: R-V on November 19, 2012, 10:28:44 AM
Pat Quinn GETS IT (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-governor-quinn-pension-reform-20121119,0,3422889.story).

QuoteAfter months of promising a major grass-roots effort to win public support for reforming the state's government worker pension system, Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday unveiled a plan that featured an incomplete online strategy, children wearing red plastic megaphones and an animated "Squeezy the Pension Python" mascot.

QuoteThe pension system's unfunded liability now is estimated to be at least $96 billion. The governor has warned that without changes, future funding for public employee retirement will put the squeeze on state funding for education and social services. That led to the introduction of "Squeezy" about midway through a 3-minute, 44-second video produced in-house by the governor's office.

The strategy includes a website featuring a video on the history of pensions since ancient Rome and a chorus of children shouting "Thanks in advance" for fixing the retirement system. Quinn appeared at a Thompson Center news conference with about 15 children who wore red plastic megaphones with "Thanks in advance" stickers.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 19, 2012, 03:44:28 PM
This is actually a pretty interesting read: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/organized-labors-newest-heroes-strippers/265376/

And, for those wondering, the organized strip club referenced therein is in Stew's backyard.  The Lucky Lady, as I recall.  There was a documentary made about those workers back a few years ago.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 19, 2012, 03:44:28 PM
This is actually a pretty interesting read: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/organized-labors-newest-heroes-strippers/265376/

And, for those wondering, the organized strip club referenced therein is in Stew's backyard.  The Lucky Lady, as I recall.  There was a documentary made about those workers back a few years ago.

Quote from: CBStew on November 19, 2012, 04:18:16 PM
Back in the 1970's when "Hair" came out, (no double entendre intended), the San Francisco cast was contemplating a strike over working conditions and had me meet with them their dressing room before a performance to discuss the consequences if they called a wildcat strike.  They invited me to join them for the "under the parachute" nude scene.  It is one of the regrets that this old man has about things that I could have done, but chickened out.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 20, 2012, 08:44:02 AM
A defeated Mitt Romney or awesome Bruce Campbell?

You decide!

(http://qoou.net/images/2012/11/20/0Elx.jpg)

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 20, 2012, 09:05:20 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 20, 2012, 08:44:02 AM
A defeated Mitt Romney or awesome Bruce Campbell?

You decide!

(http://qoou.net/images/2012/11/20/0Elx.jpg)

Seriously, who is that?

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 20, 2012, 08:44:02 AM
A defeated Mitt Romney or awesome Bruce Campbell?

You decide!

(http://qoou.net/images/2012/11/20/0Elx.jpg)

Quote from: Internet Apex on November 20, 2012, 09:05:20 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 20, 2012, 08:44:02 AM
A defeated Mitt Romney or awesome Bruce Campbell?

You decide!

(http://qoou.net/images/2012/11/20/0Elx.jpg)

Seriously, who is that?

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 20, 2012, 09:36:29 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 20, 2012, 08:44:02 AM
A defeated Mitt Romney or awesome Bruce Campbell?

You decide!

(http://qoou.net/images/2012/11/20/0Elx.jpg)

Unsqueeze'd

QuoteDean Chambers, the founder of UnSkewedPolls.com, launched a new website last week alleging that President Barack Obama did not legitimately carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida, but instead won those states thanks to voter fraud.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 20, 2012, 11:26:25 AM

QuoteDean Chambers, the founder of UnSkewedPolls.com, launched a new website last week alleging that President Barack Obama did not legitimately carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida, but instead won those states thanks to voter fraud.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/Images/Screen%20shot%202012-11-20%20at%2012.18.49%20PM.png)

http://www.barackofraudo.com/

QuoteVoter Suppression: Clearly, the raw number of votes nationally is way down from where it was in 2008. For months the mainstream media clearly communicated a message with ONE voice, that Barack Obama was likely to win reelection, Mitt Romney was a weakened candidate that was damaged in the primary process and further weakened when Obama attacked him with tens of millions of negative ads on TV and Romney stood no chance of getting elected. That millions of potential Republican voters, that vote for McCain in 2008 while far less enthused about doing so, did not turn out to vote for Romney in 2012 clearly proves the voter suppression campaign waged by the mainstream media and to some extent by the Democrat Party, worked quite well.

While the overall strategy was voter suppression, it is clear from viewing these stats that boosting the turnout in key swing states (the ones in yellow above) was taking place as well. Without further or more detailed proof, there is objectively two ways to increase voter turnout on the side of those supporting Obama, as it clearly did happen in some key swing states: either get more real people out to vote who will vote for Obama, or stuff the ballot boxes and engage in a variety of vote fraud and vote scamming methods. Odds are quite likely, to maximize their odds of succeeding in getting President Obama elected, that they engaged in all of the above to make it happen. Other information presented on this web site is gradually building the case that the margin of voter fraud exceeds any real margin by which this race was won by Obama. It is beginning to appear that the likely Romney victory, even it was to be close, that many believed was going to happen was actually going to happen if it was reversed with vote fraud.

Quote from: Slaky on November 20, 2012, 11:42:15 AM
Baracko Fraudo?

Did Huey come up with the url?

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 20, 2012, 11:52:51 AM
I love that he's forced to include PA, which Obama won by a margin of a nearly 300,000 votes, in order to get under 270.

I also like that his proof is just a list of vote counts in urban precincts that Obama won by a lot (http://www.barackofraudo.com/pa.cfm).

That sure is a lot of numbers!

http://www.barackofraudo.com/voter_turnout_2012.cfm

QuoteVoter Suppression: Clearly, the raw number of votes nationally is way down from where it was in 2008. For months the mainstream media clearly communicated a message with ONE voice, that Barack Obama was likely to win reelection, Mitt Romney was a weakened candidate that was damaged in the primary process and further weakened when Obama attacked him with tens of millions of negative ads on TV and Romney stood no chance of getting elected. That millions of potential Republican voters, that vote for McCain in 2008 while far less enthused about doing so, did not turn out to vote for Romney in 2012 clearly proves the voter suppression campaign waged by the mainstream media and to some extent by the Democrat Party, worked quite well.

While the overall strategy was voter suppression, it is clear from viewing these stats that boosting the turnout in key swing states (the ones in yellow above) was taking place as well. Without further or more detailed proof, there is objectively two ways to increase voter turnout on the side of those supporting Obama, as it clearly did happen in some key swing states: either get more real people out to vote who will vote for Obama, or stuff the ballot boxes and engage in a variety of vote fraud and vote scamming methods. Odds are quite likely, to maximize their odds of succeeding in getting President Obama elected, that they engaged in all of the above to make it happen. Other information presented on this web site is gradually building the case that the margin of voter fraud exceeds any real margin by which this race was won by Obama. It is beginning to appear that the likely Romney victory, even it was to be close, that many believed was going to happen was actually going to happen if it was reversed with vote fraud.

A triumph of the Paranoid Style.

Quote from: Fork on November 20, 2012, 01:06:50 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 20, 2012, 11:52:51 AM
I love that he's forced to include PA, which Obama won by a margin of a nearly 300,000 votes, in order to get under 270.

I also like that his proof is just a list of vote counts in urban precincts that Obama won by a lot (http://www.barackofraudo.com/pa.cfm).

That sure is a lot of numbers!

http://www.barackofraudo.com/voter_turnout_2012.cfm

QuoteVoter Suppression: Clearly, the raw number of votes nationally is way down from where it was in 2008. For months the mainstream media clearly communicated a message with ONE voice, that Barack Obama was likely to win reelection, Mitt Romney was a weakened candidate that was damaged in the primary process and further weakened when Obama attacked him with tens of millions of negative ads on TV and Romney stood no chance of getting elected. That millions of potential Republican voters, that vote for McCain in 2008 while far less enthused about doing so, did not turn out to vote for Romney in 2012 clearly proves the voter suppression campaign waged by the mainstream media and to some extent by the Democrat Party, worked quite well.

While the overall strategy was voter suppression, it is clear from viewing these stats that boosting the turnout in key swing states (the ones in yellow above) was taking place as well. Without further or more detailed proof, there is objectively two ways to increase voter turnout on the side of those supporting Obama, as it clearly did happen in some key swing states: either get more real people out to vote who will vote for Obama, or stuff the ballot boxes and engage in a variety of vote fraud and vote scamming methods. Odds are quite likely, to maximize their odds of succeeding in getting President Obama elected, that they engaged in all of the above to make it happen. Other information presented on this web site is gradually building the case that the margin of voter fraud exceeds any real margin by which this race was won by Obama. It is beginning to appear that the likely Romney victory, even it was to be close, that many believed was going to happen was actually going to happen if it was reversed with vote fraud.

A triumph of the Paranoid Style.

So if voter suppression was the reason why Romney got less votes than McCain, how does he explain 2012 Obama getting almost 6 million less votes than 2008 Obama?

Quote from: Fork on November 20, 2012, 01:06:50 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 20, 2012, 11:52:51 AM
I love that he's forced to include PA, which Obama won by a margin of a nearly 300,000 votes, in order to get under 270.

I also like that his proof is just a list of vote counts in urban precincts that Obama won by a lot (http://www.barackofraudo.com/pa.cfm).

That sure is a lot of numbers!

http://www.barackofraudo.com/voter_turnout_2012.cfm

QuoteVoter Suppression: Clearly, the raw number of votes nationally is way down from where it was in 2008. For months the mainstream media clearly communicated a message with ONE voice, that Barack Obama was likely to win reelection, Mitt Romney was a weakened candidate that was damaged in the primary process and further weakened when Obama attacked him with tens of millions of negative ads on TV and Romney stood no chance of getting elected. That millions of potential Republican voters, that vote for McCain in 2008 while far less enthused about doing so, did not turn out to vote for Romney in 2012 clearly proves the voter suppression campaign waged by the mainstream media and to some extent by the Democrat Party, worked quite well.

While the overall strategy was voter suppression, it is clear from viewing these stats that boosting the turnout in key swing states (the ones in yellow above) was taking place as well. Without further or more detailed proof, there is objectively two ways to increase voter turnout on the side of those supporting Obama, as it clearly did happen in some key swing states: either get more real people out to vote who will vote for Obama, or stuff the ballot boxes and engage in a variety of vote fraud and vote scamming methods. Odds are quite likely, to maximize their odds of succeeding in getting President Obama elected, that they engaged in all of the above to make it happen. Other information presented on this web site is gradually building the case that the margin of voter fraud exceeds any real margin by which this race was won by Obama. It is beginning to appear that the likely Romney victory, even it was to be close, that many believed was going to happen was actually going to happen if it was reversed with vote fraud.

A triumph of the Paranoid Style.

So if voter suppression was the reason why Romney got less votes than McCain, how does he explain 2012 Obama getting almost 6 million less votes than 2008 Obama?

QuoteI consulted with my lawyer and confirmed that the bet we made is indeed legal. When I told Dean this, he countered that (a) he also had a lawyer, (b) he had advised Dean that the bet is illegal, and (c) she would arrest me if I tried to collect my winnings. (You read that correctly. Evidently, Dean's lawyer had a sex change operation in the middle of our exchange.)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 27, 2012, 12:23:59 PM
One last chance for Mitt to still win!!!

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/11/27/2360565/lawmaker-shares-last-chance-idea.html

QuoteShe said, "I think it is very, very sad that we elected our current president, because he is definitely not following (the) Constitution...."

Quote from: Fork on November 28, 2012, 08:29:59 AM
TRADER (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/)!!!

Quote from: CT III on December 04, 2012, 10:44:52 AM
Congress in general, and Dan Burton in particular are terrible.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/12/03/congress-holds-an-anti-vaccination-hearing/

QuoteSen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most prominent conservative voices on Capitol Hill, will leave the Senate to run the Heritage Foundation.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Quote from: BH on December 06, 2012, 12:58:28 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Part of the reason I didn't want CT knowing I was having a child.

Quote from: BH on December 06, 2012, 12:58:28 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Part of the reason I didn't want CT knowing I was having a child.

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Yeah it doesn't really hit home until you've got your own kid. Weird fucking people.

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Yeah it doesn't really hit home until you've got your own kid. Weird fucking people.

Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2012, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Yeah it doesn't really hit home until you've got your own kid. Weird fucking people.

We had a lady stop us in the grocery store when my wife was about 8 months pregnant with our first, telling us how her grandson got autism because of the MMR vaccine.

Despite being armed with hundreds of witty responses, we just walked away.

People, man. How do they work?

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 03:48:14 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2012, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Yeah it doesn't really hit home until you've got your own kid. Weird fucking people.

We had a lady stop us in the grocery store when my wife was about 8 months pregnant with our first, telling us how her grandson got autism because of the MMR vaccine.

Despite being armed with hundreds of witty responses, we just walked away.

People, man. How do they work?

The best advice I have for other people and their kids is to mind my own fucking business.

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 03:49:39 PM

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 03:48:14 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2012, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Yeah it doesn't really hit home until you've got your own kid. Weird fucking people.

We had a lady stop us in the grocery store when my wife was about 8 months pregnant with our first, telling us how her grandson got autism because of the MMR vaccine.

Despite being armed with hundreds of witty responses, we just walked away.

People, man. How do they work?

The best advice I have for other people and their kids is to mind my own fucking business.

Tell me about it.

Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2012, 03:51:00 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 03:49:39 PM

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 03:48:14 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2012, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Yeah it doesn't really hit home until you've got your own kid. Weird fucking people.

We had a lady stop us in the grocery store when my wife was about 8 months pregnant with our first, telling us how her grandson got autism because of the MMR vaccine.

Despite being armed with hundreds of witty responses, we just walked away.

People, man. How do they work?

The best advice I have for other people and their kids is to mind my own fucking business.

Tell me about it.

I don't think he wants to.

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 03:48:14 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 06, 2012, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: Slaky on December 06, 2012, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Yeah it doesn't really hit home until you've got your own kid. Weird fucking people.

We had a lady stop us in the grocery store when my wife was about 8 months pregnant with our first, telling us how her grandson got autism because of the MMR vaccine.

Despite being armed with hundreds of witty responses, we just walked away.

People, man. How do they work?

The best advice I have for other people and their kids is to mind my own fucking business.

Quote from: PANK! on December 06, 2012, 05:06:26 PM
THERE ARE TOO MANY HIPSTER FATHERS ON THE FIELD.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2012, 06:36:11 PM

Quote from: PANK! on December 06, 2012, 05:06:26 PM
THERE ARE TOO MANY HIPSTER FATHERS ON THE FIELD.

If there's one thing hipsters love more than a fixed gear bike or boutique moustache wax, it's a government-issue immunization schedule.

Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 06, 2012, 06:42:36 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2012, 06:36:11 PM

Quote from: PANK! on December 06, 2012, 05:06:26 PM
THERE ARE TOO MANY HIPSTER FATHERS ON THE FIELD.

If there's one thing hipsters love more than a fixed gear bike or boutique moustache wax, it's a government-issue immunization schedule.

DPD, for TRUTH

Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 06, 2012, 06:42:36 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2012, 06:36:11 PM

Quote from: PANK! on December 06, 2012, 05:06:26 PM
THERE ARE TOO MANY HIPSTER FATHERS ON THE FIELD.

If there's one thing hipsters love more than a fixed gear bike or boutique moustache wax, it's a government-issue immunization schedule.

DPD, for TRUTH

Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 06, 2012, 06:38:32 PM
... and her almost-militant and nearly-abortion-clinic-bombing-level opposition to circumcision...

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 06:44:59 PM

Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 06, 2012, 06:42:36 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2012, 06:36:11 PM

Quote from: PANK! on December 06, 2012, 05:06:26 PM
THERE ARE TOO MANY HIPSTER FATHERS ON THE FIELD.

If there's one thing hipsters love more than a fixed gear bike or boutique moustache wax, it's a government-issue immunization schedule.

DPD, for TRUTH

Good old fixies.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2012, 07:09:04 PM

Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 06, 2012, 06:42:36 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2012, 06:36:11 PM

Quote from: PANK! on December 06, 2012, 05:06:26 PM
THERE ARE TOO MANY HIPSTER FATHERS ON THE FIELD.

If there's one thing hipsters love more than a fixed gear bike or boutique moustache wax, it's a government-issue immunization schedule.

DPD, for TRUTH

I figured that was implied in my setup.

Quote from: Sterling Archer on December 06, 2012, 06:38:32 PM
... and her almost-militant and nearly-abortion-clinic-bombing-level opposition to circumcision...

You had Wheezer at "intactivism".

Quote from: Bort on December 06, 2012, 12:41:43 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 06, 2012, 10:14:22 AM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 04, 2012, 04:25:54 PM
Just in case you want to cite to some specific evidence the next time someone says that the Republican Party supports science: http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/1-in-88-children-a-look-into-the-federal-response-to-rising-rates-of-autism/

Antivaccine crankery transcends politics.

I'm starting to encounter this now. Unsolicited vaccine advice from space cadet hippie moms.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 06, 2012, 09:36:50 PM
Mitch McConnell, ladies and gentlemen.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Quote from: Oleg on December 12, 2012, 08:18:05 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

Hooray!  More guns in the streets.  I'll feel soooo much safer.

Quote from: Tonker on December 12, 2012, 10:23:47 AM

Quote from: Oleg on December 12, 2012, 08:18:05 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

Hooray!  More guns in the streets.  I'll feel soooo much safer.

Oleg, old chum... if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

(http://affotd.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/the_big_gun.jpg)

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 12, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

To be fair, I could have probably linked to it in the first place.

It was the first thing on my internet when I got home last night. So, I wasn't even thinking of the other gun news from yesterday.

Then I got all self-righteously indignant when I saw your response, but managed to hold off posting a pissy reply long enough to realize that you probably thought I was referring to the concealed carry ruling.

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 10:59:55 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 12, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

To be fair, I could have probably linked to it in the first place.

It was the first thing on my internet when I got home last night. So, I wasn't even thinking of the other gun news from yesterday.

Then I got all self-righteously indignant when I saw your response, but managed to hold off posting a pissy reply long enough to realize that you probably thought I was referring to the concealed carry ruling.

Why does a person need to carry a concealed loaded pistol?

Quote from: Slaky on December 12, 2012, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 10:59:55 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 12, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

To be fair, I could have probably linked to it in the first place.

It was the first thing on my internet when I got home last night. So, I wasn't even thinking of the other gun news from yesterday.

Then I got all self-righteously indignant when I saw your response, but managed to hold off posting a pissy reply long enough to realize that you probably thought I was referring to the concealed carry ruling.

Why does a person need to carry a concealed loaded pistol?

In case there are minorities around.

Quote from: BH on December 12, 2012, 11:48:18 AM

Quote from: Slaky on December 12, 2012, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 10:59:55 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 12, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

To be fair, I could have probably linked to it in the first place.

It was the first thing on my internet when I got home last night. So, I wasn't even thinking of the other gun news from yesterday.

Then I got all self-righteously indignant when I saw your response, but managed to hold off posting a pissy reply long enough to realize that you probably thought I was referring to the concealed carry ruling.

Why does a person need to carry a concealed loaded pistol?

In case there are minorities around.

On FB the concensus is that people will stop killing innocent people because the bad guys will have some fear of getting shot. Those comments from people i know are in posts about drive by shootings, increase in violence in Chicago, or the shooting last night in Oregon. Which make no sense to me.

Quote from: BH on December 12, 2012, 11:48:18 AM

Quote from: Slaky on December 12, 2012, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 10:59:55 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 12, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

To be fair, I could have probably linked to it in the first place.

It was the first thing on my internet when I got home last night. So, I wasn't even thinking of the other gun news from yesterday.

Then I got all self-righteously indignant when I saw your response, but managed to hold off posting a pissy reply long enough to realize that you probably thought I was referring to the concealed carry ruling.

Why does a person need to carry a concealed loaded pistol?

In case there are minorities around.

On FB the concensus is that people will stop killing innocent people because the bad guys will have some fear of getting shot. Those comments from people i know are in posts about drive by shootings, increase in violence in Chicago, or the shooting last night in Oregon. Which make no sense to me.

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 10:59:55 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 12, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

To be fair, I could have probably linked to it in the first place.

It was the first thing on my internet when I got home last night. So, I wasn't even thinking of the other gun news from yesterday.

Then I got all self-righteously indignant when I saw your response, but managed to hold off posting a pissy reply long enough to realize that you probably thought I was referring to the concealed carry ruling.

Why does a person need to carry a concealed loaded pistol?

Quote from: flannj on December 12, 2012, 12:20:06 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 10:59:55 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 12, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

To be fair, I could have probably linked to it in the first place.

It was the first thing on my internet when I got home last night. So, I wasn't even thinking of the other gun news from yesterday.

Then I got all self-righteously indignant when I saw your response, but managed to hold off posting a pissy reply long enough to realize that you probably thought I was referring to the concealed carry ruling.

Why does a person need to carry a concealed loaded pistol?

Well an unloaded pistol is pretty much just a paper weight.

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 12:02:37 PM

Quote from: BH on December 12, 2012, 11:48:18 AM

Quote from: Slaky on December 12, 2012, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 10:59:55 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 12, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 10:46:03 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 10:33:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on December 11, 2012, 09:14:53 PM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Because of course the millions of law abiding gun owners are the primary cause of gun violence in this country.

I was referring to this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html).

Senseless and tragic.

My bad, I thought you were referring to today's 7th. Court of Appeals decision.

To be fair, I could have probably linked to it in the first place.

It was the first thing on my internet when I got home last night. So, I wasn't even thinking of the other gun news from yesterday.

Then I got all self-righteously indignant when I saw your response, but managed to hold off posting a pissy reply long enough to realize that you probably thought I was referring to the concealed carry ruling.

Why does a person need to carry a concealed loaded pistol?

In case there are minorities around.

On FB the concensus is that people will stop killing innocent people because the bad guys will have some fear of getting shot. Those comments from people i know are in posts about drive by shootings, increase in violence in Chicago, or the shooting last night in Oregon. Which make no sense to me.

I've encountered a fair amount of that myself from fuckfaces in Buttpuddle. People want to puff their chest out and pretend to be some kind of tough guy because they carry a weapon. I think most of them suffer from micropenis syndrome. The rest from microintelligence syndrome.

Quote from: SKO on December 12, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
You're all forgetting that guns are cool and make you look cool, and that you're all probably a bunch of gheys. Or women. Or ghey women. 'Cept ghey women could probably handle a weapon better than some twink like Thrill.

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:09:45 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 12, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
You're all forgetting that guns are cool and make you look cool, and that you're all probably a bunch of gheys. Or women. Or ghey women. 'Cept ghey women could probably handle a weapon better than some twink like Thrill.

Guns, like giant spoilers on small cars indicate the owner is compensating for something, such as a tiny little dick. If you think chicks don't know this by now, you're getting blinded by your bangs again. 

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:09:45 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 12, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
You're all forgetting that guns are cool and make you look cool, and that you're all probably a bunch of gheys. Or women. Or ghey women. 'Cept ghey women could probably handle a weapon better than some twink like Thrill.

Guns, like giant spoilers on small cars indicate the owner is compensating for something, such as a tiny little dick. If you think chicks don't know this by now, you're getting blinded by your bangs again.

Quote from: R-V on December 12, 2012, 03:16:02 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:09:45 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 12, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
You're all forgetting that guns are cool and make you look cool, and that you're all probably a bunch of gheys. Or women. Or ghey women. 'Cept ghey women could probably handle a weapon better than some twink like Thrill.

Guns, like giant spoilers on small cars indicate the owner is compensating for something, such as a tiny little dick. If you think chicks don't know this by now, you're getting blinded by your bangs again.

I feel like somebody in this conversation is quoting Fro Dog but I'm not sure who it is.

Quote from: PenPho on December 12, 2012, 03:20:53 PM

Quote from: R-V on December 12, 2012, 03:16:02 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:09:45 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 12, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
You're all forgetting that guns are cool and make you look cool, and that you're all probably a bunch of gheys. Or women. Or ghey women. 'Cept ghey women could probably handle a weapon better than some twink like Thrill.

Guns, like giant spoilers on small cars indicate the owner is compensating for something, such as a tiny little dick. If you think chicks don't know this by now, you're getting blinded by your bangs again.

I feel like somebody in this conversation is quoting Fro Dog but I'm not sure who it is.

Probably Eli. 

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:24:59 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 12, 2012, 03:20:53 PM

Quote from: R-V on December 12, 2012, 03:16:02 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:09:45 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 12, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
You're all forgetting that guns are cool and make you look cool, and that you're all probably a bunch of gheys. Or women. Or ghey women. 'Cept ghey women could probably handle a weapon better than some twink like Thrill.

Guns, like giant spoilers on small cars indicate the owner is compensating for something, such as a tiny little dick. If you think chicks don't know this by now, you're getting blinded by your bangs again.

I feel like somebody in this conversation is quoting Fro Dog but I'm not sure who it is.

Probably Eli. 

I knew SKO was joking.

Quote from: Richard Chuggar on December 12, 2012, 05:12:05 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:24:59 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 12, 2012, 03:20:53 PM

Quote from: R-V on December 12, 2012, 03:16:02 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:09:45 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 12, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
You're all forgetting that guns are cool and make you look cool, and that you're all probably a bunch of gheys. Or women. Or ghey women. 'Cept ghey women could probably handle a weapon better than some twink like Thrill.

Guns, like giant spoilers on small cars indicate the owner is compensating for something, such as a tiny little dick. If you think chicks don't know this by now, you're getting blinded by your bangs again.

I feel like somebody in this conversation is quoting Fro Dog but I'm not sure who it is.

Probably Eli. 

I knew SKO was joking.

I'd actually think that most of the huge black dudes that play professional sports and also carry guns have huge cocks.  What are they compensating for in that case?

Quote from: Richard Chuggar on December 12, 2012, 05:12:05 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:24:59 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 12, 2012, 03:20:53 PM

Quote from: R-V on December 12, 2012, 03:16:02 PM

Quote from: Internet Apex on December 12, 2012, 03:09:45 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 12, 2012, 02:01:21 PM
You're all forgetting that guns are cool and make you look cool, and that you're all probably a bunch of gheys. Or women. Or ghey women. 'Cept ghey women could probably handle a weapon better than some twink like Thrill.

Guns, like giant spoilers on small cars indicate the owner is compensating for something, such as a tiny little dick. If you think chicks don't know this by now, you're getting blinded by your bangs again.

I feel like somebody in this conversation is quoting Fro Dog but I'm not sure who it is.

Probably Eli. 

I knew SKO was joking.

I'd actually think that most of the huge black dudes that play professional sports and also carry guns have huge cocks.  What are they compensating for in that case?

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 12:27:13 PM
GET YOUR CHECK UPS and don't be persuaded to forego PSA tests.

Quote from: Wheezer on December 13, 2012, 04:27:53 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 12:27:13 PM
GET YOUR CHECK UPS and don't be persuaded to forego PSA tests.

I don't think anyone is trying to "persuade" anyone to skip PSA testing. The USPSTF guidelines (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/prostatecancerscreening.htm) that have caused so much fuss simply recommend informed consent over routine screening. It's not as bad as the situation with mammography (which the Komen Foundation vastly overrates by silent invocation of lead-time bias), as the test itself carries almost no risk. Biopsies, however, carry risk. Treatment carries serious risk and uncertain benefit. Harms from overdiagnosis are real, and this is something that it can be hard to convey to the general public.

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 05:14:13 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 13, 2012, 04:27:53 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 12:27:13 PM
GET YOUR CHECK UPS and don't be persuaded to forego PSA tests.

I don't think anyone is trying to "persuade" anyone to skip PSA testing. The USPSTF guidelines (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/prostatecancerscreening.htm) that have caused so much fuss simply recommend informed consent over routine screening. It's not as bad as the situation with mammography (which the Komen Foundation vastly overrates by silent invocation of lead-time bias), as the test itself carries almost no risk. Biopsies, however, carry risk. Treatment carries serious risk and uncertain benefit. Harms from overdiagnosis are real, and this is something that it can be hard to convey to the general public.

What this means in actual practice is that doctors tell their patients that they do not advise routine screening, and that that a high PSA doesn't necessarily indicate cancer, and may even reflect lab error. Please believe me, doctors, including urologists, actively attempt to discourage patients from getting tested, and are not advising it for men in appropriate age groups, even those with a family history of prostate cancer. 
"We encourage clinicians to consider this evidence and not screen their patients with a PSA test unless the individual being screened understands what is known about PSA screening and makes the personal decision that even a small possibility of benefit outweighs the known risk of harms."

Quote from: Wheezer on December 13, 2012, 06:27:03 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 05:14:13 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 13, 2012, 04:27:53 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 12:27:13 PM
GET YOUR CHECK UPS and don't be persuaded to forego PSA tests.

I don't think anyone is trying to "persuade" anyone to skip PSA testing. The USPSTF guidelines (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/prostatecancerscreening.htm) that have caused so much fuss simply recommend informed consent over routine screening. It's not as bad as the situation with mammography (which the Komen Foundation vastly overrates by silent invocation of lead-time bias), as the test itself carries almost no risk. Biopsies, however, carry risk. Treatment carries serious risk and uncertain benefit. Harms from overdiagnosis are real, and this is something that it can be hard to convey to the general public.

What this means in actual practice is that doctors tell their patients that they do not advise routine screening, and that that a high PSA doesn't necessarily indicate cancer, and may even reflect lab error. Please believe me, doctors, including urologists, actively attempt to discourage patients from getting tested, and are not advising it for men in appropriate age groups, even those with a family history of prostate cancer. 
"We encourage clinicians to consider this evidence and not screen their patients with a PSA test unless the individual being screened understands what is known about PSA screening and makes the personal decision that even a small possibility of benefit outweighs the known risk of harms."

This doesn't, of itself, mean anything in actual practice. Moreover, a low PSA doesn't indicate absence of cancer, and at certain ages, you're going to find 80% prevalence on autopsy anyway. We're not talking about PSAs over 10 ng/ml here. Once again, overdiagnosis has harms. As with mammographic screening, when you actively look for something, you're quite likely to find a hell of a lot of it (e.g., ductal carcinoma in situ). This doesn't readily translate to outcomes.

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 08:28:20 PM
Everything you say is correct, except that practitioners are in fact discouraging men from getting their PSA tested. False negatives are not the issue here. They are concerned with false positives leading to unnecessary treatment. A high PSA isn't tantamount to a diagnosis of prostate cancer. There can be many reasons that one's PSA level is higher than "normal". One of which is that the individual recently ejaculated. Another reason is that the person has an infection. Or that he has an enlarged prostate.  These last two are good things to know, because the man may want to have those things treated.  Enlarged prostates and prostate infections are more common than prostate cancer, and if one learns from a PSA test that he has elevated levels, additional exams are available to determine what is going on. (DRE and white blood cell test, for example) To me it is irresponsible for the medical profession to advocate keeping individuals in the dark about their health conditions.

Quote from: Wheezer on December 13, 2012, 09:00:05 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 08:28:20 PM
Everything you say is correct, except that practitioners are in fact discouraging men from getting their PSA tested. False negatives are not the issue here. They are concerned with false positives leading to unnecessary treatment. A high PSA isn't tantamount to a diagnosis of prostate cancer. There can be many reasons that one's PSA level is higher than "normal". One of which is that the individual recently ejaculated. Another reason is that the person has an infection. Or that he has an enlarged prostate.  These last two are good things to know, because the man may want to have those things treated.  Enlarged prostates and prostate infections are more common than prostate cancer, and if one learns from a PSA test that he has elevated levels, additional exams are available to determine what is going on. (DRE and white blood cell test, for example) To me it is irresponsible for the medical profession to advocate keeping individuals in the dark about their health conditions.

It's not even false positives. Once an actual cancer is found, the "compulsion to treat" kicks in. One is stuck with the fact that most patients are completely unable to competently evaluate the evidence on the subject. Clinical guidelines are based on overall outcomes. If you have to screen 1068 and treat 48, with significant individual risk associated with the treatment, to prevent a single death due to prostate cancer (here (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0810084)), what do you imagine the guidelines for practice would be? All medical interventions hinge on a risk-benefit analysis. PSA numbers do not shine a great deal of light, particularly as received by most individuals.

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 11:53:38 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 13, 2012, 09:00:05 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 08:28:20 PM
Everything you say is correct, except that practitioners are in fact discouraging men from getting their PSA tested. False negatives are not the issue here. They are concerned with false positives leading to unnecessary treatment. A high PSA isn't tantamount to a diagnosis of prostate cancer. There can be many reasons that one's PSA level is higher than "normal". One of which is that the individual recently ejaculated. Another reason is that the person has an infection. Or that he has an enlarged prostate.  These last two are good things to know, because the man may want to have those things treated.  Enlarged prostates and prostate infections are more common than prostate cancer, and if one learns from a PSA test that he has elevated levels, additional exams are available to determine what is going on. (DRE and white blood cell test, for example) To me it is irresponsible for the medical profession to advocate keeping individuals in the dark about their health conditions.

It's not even false positives. Once an actual cancer is found, the "compulsion to treat" kicks in. One is stuck with the fact that most patients are completely unable to competently evaluate the evidence on the subject. Clinical guidelines are based on overall outcomes. If you have to screen 1068 and treat 48, with significant individual risk associated with the treatment, to prevent a single death due to prostate cancer (here (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0810084)), what do you imagine the guidelines for practice would be? All medical interventions hinge on a risk-benefit analysis. PSA numbers do not shine a great deal of light, particularly as received by most individuals.

There is a certain familiar ring to that, but that ain't the way I heard it. "If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population"

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 14, 2012, 01:35:42 AM
We get it, Wheezer. You want to kill off Stew and the rest of his age cohort and burn their bones to heat your coke ovens.

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 14, 2012, 01:35:42 AM
We get it, Wheezer. You want to kill off Stew and the rest of his age cohort and burn their bones to heat your coke ovens.

Given the racial disparity in serious complications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21944136) following prostate biopsy, you tell me who's targeting whom.

More screenings mean more biopsies mean more complications (http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838%2812%2900173-X/fulltext"). This is not sensibly in dispute.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 11, 2012, 07:44:45 PM
Looks like we have yet another reason to never have a practical discussion about gun violence in this country. Oh, well.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 14, 2012, 01:35:42 AM
We get it, Wheezer. You want to kill off Stew and the rest of his age cohort and burn their bones to heat your coke ovens.

Given the racial disparity in serious complications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21944136) following prostate biopsy, you tell me who's targeting whom.

More screenings mean more biopsies mean more complications (http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838%2812%2900173-X/fulltext"). This is not sensibly in dispute.

This discussion has changed from whether or not medical practitioners are attempting to discourage men from getting their PSA tested to whether there is good reason for doing so.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM
You assume that a man who learns that his PSA has gone from 2.0 to 6.0 in a year is going to demand a biopsy. That is doubtful.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AMThe next logical step is a DRE, not a biopsy. All I am arguing is that we deserve to know if there is a potential issue that may involve cancer or some less serious condition, ...

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM... and to be given information to help us decide the best course of action. That may also include "watchful waiting". Cutting down on the number of PSA tests will surely lessen the number of biopsies, but it will increase the number of deaths from cancer.

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 06:02:52 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 14, 2012, 01:35:42 AM
We get it, Wheezer. You want to kill off Stew and the rest of his age cohort and burn their bones to heat your coke ovens.

Given the racial disparity in serious complications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21944136) following prostate biopsy, you tell me who's targeting whom.

More screenings mean more biopsies mean more complications (http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838%2812%2900173-X/fulltext"). This is not sensibly in dispute.

This discussion has changed from whether or not medical practitioners are attempting to discourage men from getting their PSA tested to whether there is good reason for doing so.

No. This thesis was merely insinuated in your original exhortation.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM
You assume that a man who learns that his PSA has gone from 2.0 to 6.0 in a year is going to demand a biopsy. That is doubtful.

This is a straw man of the first water.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AMThe next logical step is a DRE, not a biopsy. All I am arguing is that we deserve to know if there is a potential issue that may involve cancer or some less serious condition, ...

The notion that PSA testing gets some sort of slipstream boost as a detection mechanism for prostatitis is similarly absurd.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM... and to be given information to help us decide the best course of action. That may also include "watchful waiting". Cutting down on the number of PSA tests will surely lessen the number of biopsies, but it will increase the number of deaths from cancer.

"Deaths from cancer" is not the only endpoint. PSA testing has a low signal-to-noise ratio. You have singled out this "source of information" as more important than the information suggesting that, overall, the real-world harms that ensue directly from screening may well outweigh the risks. It is not reasonable to declare that the average patient will magically acquire the ability to evaluate this based  on nothing more than your own self-appraisal.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 06:12:44 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 06:02:52 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 14, 2012, 01:35:42 AM
We get it, Wheezer. You want to kill off Stew and the rest of his age cohort and burn their bones to heat your coke ovens.

Given the racial disparity in serious complications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21944136) following prostate biopsy, you tell me who's targeting whom.

More screenings mean more biopsies mean more complications (http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838%2812%2900173-X/fulltext"). This is not sensibly in dispute.

This discussion has changed from whether or not medical practitioners are attempting to discourage men from getting their PSA tested to whether there is good reason for doing so.

No. This thesis was merely insinuated in your original exhortation.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM
You assume that a man who learns that his PSA has gone from 2.0 to 6.0 in a year is going to demand a biopsy. That is doubtful.

This is a straw man of the first water.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AMThe next logical step is a DRE, not a biopsy. All I am arguing is that we deserve to know if there is a potential issue that may involve cancer or some less serious condition, ...

The notion that PSA testing gets some sort of slipstream boost as a detection mechanism for prostatitis is similarly absurd.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 09:26:21 AM... and to be given information to help us decide the best course of action. That may also include "watchful waiting". Cutting down on the number of PSA tests will surely lessen the number of biopsies, but it will increase the number of deaths from cancer.

"Deaths from cancer" is not the only endpoint. PSA testing has a low signal-to-noise ratio. You have singled out this "source of information" as more important than the information suggesting that, overall, the real-world harms that ensue directly from screening may well outweigh the risks. It is not reasonable to declare that the average patient will magically acquire the ability to evaluate this based  on nothing more than your own self-appraisal.

   Have you any close relatives who have had prostate cancer?  Have you ever had a PSA test?  If not, will you ever have one?

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 06:12:44 PM
Have you any close relatives who have had prostate cancer? Have you ever had a PSA test? If not, will you ever have one?

Quote from: PANK! on December 14, 2012, 09:13:43 PM
Damn I still love this place.

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 07:45:09 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 06:12:44 PM
Have you any close relatives who have had prostate cancer? Have you ever had a PSA test? If not, will you ever have one?

1. No, not to my knowledge. My mother has HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (which, as these things go, could be worse), and I lost my best friend far too early, and before he was able even to see his second child, to metastatic colon cancer. I'm not trying to minimize things.

2. No, but I don't think I've reached the age bracket.

3. On the off chance that I manage to secure insurance rather than simply jumping off a bridge, if my physician suggests that it's warranted, sure.

Stew, the question is what is generalizable. In this case, the evidence for universal screening simply isn't good.

[Edit.--Oh, and there's a good, non-self-diagnosed, chance that I have Gardner syndrome, but a colonoscopy is out of the question at the moment. So goes anecdote, as immediate or distant as it may be.]

QuoteFrom what I have seen it is a really shitty way to go.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 10:50:44 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 07:45:09 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 06:12:44 PM
Have you any close relatives who have had prostate cancer? Have you ever had a PSA test? If not, will you ever have one?

1. No, not to my knowledge. My mother has HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (which, as these things go, could be worse), and I lost my best friend far too early, and before he was able even to see his second child, to metastatic colon cancer. I'm not trying to minimize things.

2. No, but I don't think I've reached the age bracket.

3. On the off chance that I manage to secure insurance rather than simply jumping off a bridge, if my physician suggests that it's warranted, sure.

Stew, the question is what is generalizable. In this case, the evidence for universal screening simply isn't good.

[Edit.--Oh, and there's a good, non-self-diagnosed, chance that I have Gardner syndrome, but a colonoscopy is out of the question at the moment. So goes anecdote, as immediate or distant as it may be.]

I hate cancer. Medical science has lengthened our lives to the point where it is one of the last things that can kill us. From what I have seen it is a really shitty way to go. I met a doctor years ago who drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney and ate all of the things that common sense tells us to avoid. When I thought that I knew him well enough I asked him why, since he was a doctor, he chose a life style that was so unhealthy? He said because he was a doctor. He had seen enough suffering and when it was his turn he wanted to go out with a bang. No lingering. No suffering. Just the big one and out. And he was going to enjoy life on the way there. But I am not that brave.  

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 10:50:44 PM
I hate cancer.  Medical science has lengthened our lives to the point where it is one of the last things that can kill us.

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 10:50:44 PMFrom what I have seen it is a really shitty way to go.  I met a doctor years ago who drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney and ate all of the things that common sense tells us to avoid.  When I thought that I knew him well enough I asked him why, since he was a doctor, he chose a life style that was so unhealthy?  He said because he was a doctor.  He had seen enough suffering and when it was his turn he wanted to go out with a bang.  No lingering.  No suffering.  Just the big one and out.  And he was going to enjoy life on the way there.  But I am not that brave.  

QuoteYears ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. This surgeon was one of the best in the country. He had even invented a new procedure for this exact cancer that could triple a patient's five-year-survival odds–from 5 percent to 15 percent–albeit with a poor quality of life. Charlie was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn't spend much on him.

It's not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don't die like the rest of us. What's unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.

Of course, doctors don't want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They've talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen–that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that's what happens if CPR is done right).

Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call "futile care" being performed on people. That's when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. All of this occurs in the Intensive Care Unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, "Promise me if you find me like this that you'll kill me." They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped "NO CODE" to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 14, 2012, 11:41:28 PM
Cancer is the classic disease of longevity, right? I mean, each cell division is a little roll of the the dice. The longer you live, the more likely you are to eventually come up snake eyes with a nasty malignant mutation.

Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2012, 12:27:13 PM
This is literally "Butthurt".

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 11:24:52 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 10:50:44 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 14, 2012, 07:45:09 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 14, 2012, 06:12:44 PM
Have you any close relatives who have had prostate cancer? Have you ever had a PSA test? If not, will you ever have one?

1. No, not to my knowledge. My mother has HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (which, as these things go, could be worse), and I lost my best friend far too early, and before he was able even to see his second child, to metastatic colon cancer. I'm not trying to minimize things.

2. No, but I don't think I've reached the age bracket.

3. On the off chance that I manage to secure insurance rather than simply jumping off a bridge, if my physician suggests that it's warranted, sure.

Stew, the question is what is generalizable. In this case, the evidence for universal screening simply isn't good.

[Edit.--Oh, and there's a good, non-self-diagnosed, chance that I have Gardner syndrome, but a colonoscopy is out of the question at the moment. So goes anecdote, as immediate or distant as it may be.]

I hate cancer. Medical science has lengthened our lives to the point where it is one of the last things that can kill us. From what I have seen it is a really shitty way to go. I met a doctor years ago who drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney and ate all of the things that common sense tells us to avoid. When I thought that I knew him well enough I asked him why, since he was a doctor, he chose a life style that was so unhealthy? He said because he was a doctor. He had seen enough suffering and when it was his turn he wanted to go out with a bang. No lingering. No suffering. Just the big one and out. And he was going to enjoy life on the way there. But I am not that brave.  

Stew, this is either simply contradictory or an argument for assisted suicide. We're talking about the risk-benefit balance in PSA testing, right? This doesn't cause prostate cancer to happen or not to happen. It is certainly true that cancers, as derangements of cellular reproduction, cone hand-in-hand with longevity. But if you're going to invoke QALYs, quality-adjusted life-years, it's back to square one. One can't glibly bank on (or, really, target) "the big one," because Moby Dick might turn out to be a debilitating but nowhere near fatal stroke.

Quote from: Wheezer on December 15, 2012, 01:52:50 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 14, 2012, 11:41:28 PM
Cancer is the classic disease of longevity, right? I mean, each cell division is a little roll of the the dice. The longer you live, the more likely you are to eventually come up snake eyes with a nasty malignant mutation.

It's complicated. It is horribly complicated. It is not one disease. I was once young and naive and proud enough to think that the biological sciences paled in comparison to the physical sciences and, oho!, look at this Riemannian manifold! I was dead fucking wrong. Cellular mutations accumulate; there's no snake eyes. There is a mitochondrial clock, and a roundabout of checkpoints. What might be a survival benefit in normal metabolism may be a turnkey to destruction later on. Malignancies adapt to evade cytotoxic chemotherapy. The search for therapies is a painstaking hunt for ways to sabotage saboteurs. And once childhood leukemia was death sentence, and now it is not, and HER2+ breast cancer was once a bad actor, and now it is subject to significant immunological attack.

I suppose I'm just rambling. But given the massed assault of human endeavor in this regard, I'm not willing to dismiss the considered opinion on screening, and not just prostate, in favor of some sort of "informed consumer" routine any more than I would engage in the drastically simpler activity of pro se representation.

Quote from: CBStew on December 15, 2012, 12:01:17 PM
Once again I agree.  When we use the word "cancer" to describe all of these diseases we are echoing centuries old science.

Quote from: Wheezer on December 15, 2012, 02:55:22 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 15, 2012, 12:01:17 PM
Once again I agree.  When we use the word "cancer" to describe all of these diseases we are echoing centuries old science.

Well, decades-old (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/mdd/v05/i04/html/04lesney.html). People may complain about Nixon's other war, but most of the real advances in understanding have occurred since then. (Ergo hoc sold separately.)

Quote from: Wheezer on December 15, 2012, 04:41:45 PM
Leave Dubbs out of this.

QuoteRepublicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office.

QuoteSenior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 17, 2012, 09:45:00 AM
Why even bother reforming your political ideology or outreach to minority/women voters when you can just rig the system and win the White House faster?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217

QuoteRepublicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office.

QuoteSenior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.

They tried this earlier in the year in Pennsylvania before the proposal was quietly shelved.

Quote from: Brownie on December 17, 2012, 12:00:29 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 17, 2012, 09:45:00 AM
Why even bother reforming your political ideology or outreach to minority/women voters when you can just rig the system and win the White House faster?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/the-gop-s-electoral-college-scheme-20121217

QuoteRepublicans alarmed at the apparent challenges they face in winning the White House are preparing an all-out assault on the Electoral College system in critical states, an initiative that would significantly ease the party's path to the Oval Office.

QuoteSenior Republicans say they will try to leverage their party's majorities in Democratic-leaning states in an effort to end the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes. Instead, bills that will be introduced in several Democratic states would award electoral votes on a proportional basis.

They tried this earlier in the year in Pennsylvania before the proposal was quietly shelved.

I'm shocked that a political party would use its power to tilt elections! (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/05/illinois_congressional_remap_d.html)

QuoteNullification is yet again picking up steam in Dixie.

Pursuing an archaic legal theory that punctuated pre-Civil War disputes between the federal government and states, South Carolina state Rep. Bill Chumley last week pre-filed a bill for the upcoming legislative session that would criminalize implementation of President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare reform law.

If his bill becomes law, any state official caught enforcing the healthcare law would be guilty of a misdemeanor and "must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Federal officials caught enforcing the law, however, would be given stiffer punishment under the proposal.

Any federal employee or contractor enforcing the law "is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both," the bill proposes.

"I think we're within our rights to do this," Chumley explained to U.S. News. "It's an obligation, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect the people."

...

"If we don't do something now, when do we?" says Chumley. "It's a sad situation that the government put us in... an unpleasant task you have to do from time to time."

Quote from: Bob LitfinObama should be deported.

Quote from: Donny CottenThere is a reason there is a 2nd amendment. Bama has plenty of guns to defend her against the likes of mexico or liberal idiots and tyrannical governments.

Quote from: Jan SheddHey UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh! The supremacy clause establishes the supremacy of the Constitution, not Obama, or any other federal. If your interpretation of the supremacy clause were accurate, there would be no 10th Amendment. Unfortunately for you, there is a 10th Amendment and we intend to put it to good use.

Quote from: Sam WilsonUCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, however, told U.S. News the proposed law "would be clearly un-enforceable, because the federal law – upheld by the Supreme Court – trumps state law."

They give any ignorant tool of the statists a law degree these days, don't they? The County Sheriff trumps any Federal agent. Period. It's EXTREMELY enforceable. That "law professor" needs a lesson in the law.

Quote from: Ed Nolan"UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, however, told U.S. News the proposed law "would be clearly un-enforceable, because the federal law – upheld by the Supreme Court – trumps state law."

Another liberal professor. Sorry but the Constitution says STATE law TRUMPS the feds.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 18, 2012, 05:40:08 PM
DPD... There are hours' worth of entertainment for Gil in the comments to that...

Quote from: Bob LitfinObama should be deported.

Quote from: Donny CottenThere is a reason there is a 2nd amendment. Bama has plenty of guns to defend her against the likes of mexico or liberal idiots and tyrannical governments.

And Tenthers aplenty!

Quote from: Jan SheddHey UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh! The supremacy clause establishes the supremacy of the Constitution, not Obama, or any other federal. If your interpretation of the supremacy clause were accurate, there would be no 10th Amendment. Unfortunately for you, there is a 10th Amendment and we intend to put it to good use.

Quote from: Sam WilsonUCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, however, told U.S. News the proposed law "would be clearly un-enforceable, because the federal law – upheld by the Supreme Court – trumps state law."

They give any ignorant tool of the statists a law degree these days, don't they? The County Sheriff trumps any Federal agent. Period. It's EXTREMELY enforceable. That "law professor" needs a lesson in the law.

Quote from: Ed Nolan"UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, however, told U.S. News the proposed law "would be clearly un-enforceable, because the federal law – upheld by the Supreme Court – trumps state law."

Another liberal professor. Sorry but the Constitution says STATE law TRUMPS the feds.

Eugene Volokh: just another liberal statist libertarian.

Quote"If we don't do something now, when do we?" says Chumley.

Quote from: flannj on December 19, 2012, 08:08:40 AM

I can't imagine how hard it must be to parent in a situation like this.
"Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness."

I am Adam Lanza's Mother. (http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/)

Quote from: BH on December 19, 2012, 08:33:56 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 19, 2012, 08:08:40 AM

I can't imagine how hard it must be to parent in a situation like this.
"Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness."

I am Adam Lanza's Mother. (http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/)

Did they conclude that the shooter had a mental illness?  I thought it was all speculative.

Quote from: flannj on December 19, 2012, 08:08:40 AM

I can't imagine how hard it must be to parent in a situation like this.
"Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness."

I am Adam Lanza's Mother. (http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/)

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2012, 09:54:52 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 19, 2012, 08:08:40 AM

I can't imagine how hard it must be to parent in a situation like this.
"Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness."

I am Adam Lanza's Mother. (http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/)

As I think powen noted on Facebook the other day, one difference between Liza Long and Nancy Lanza is that, with all due respect, it doesn't seem like the former has a Bushmaster AR-15 sitting around the house.

Whatever your stance on gun control, that's mind-boggling.

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2012, 09:54:52 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 19, 2012, 08:08:40 AM

I can't imagine how hard it must be to parent in a situation like this.
"Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness."

I am Adam Lanza's Mother. (http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/)

As I think powen noted on Facebook the other day, one difference between Liza Long and Nancy Lanza is that, with all due respect, it doesn't seem like the former has a Bushmaster AR-15 sitting around the house.

Whatever your stance on gun control, that's mind-boggling.

QuoteI'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 19, 2012, 10:16:07 AM

Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on December 19, 2012, 09:54:52 AM

Quote from: flannj on December 19, 2012, 08:08:40 AM

I can't imagine how hard it must be to parent in a situation like this.
"Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness."

I am Adam Lanza's Mother. (http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/)

As I think powen noted on Facebook the other day, one difference between Liza Long and Nancy Lanza is that, with all due respect, it doesn't seem like the former has a Bushmaster AR-15 sitting around the house.

Whatever your stance on gun control, that's mind-boggling.

This is mind-boggling:

QuoteI'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.

- Megan McArdle.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

QuoteI'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.

- Megan McArdle.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

Quote from: Fork on December 26, 2012, 10:46:24 AM
Remember the hundreds of millions of dollars spent trying to get Romney elected?

Now his son's saying he never wanted the job (http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-didnt-want-president-son-claims-173907500--abc-news-politics.html).

Strange way to spend 6 years of your life.

Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Can any of the lawyers (or Gil) on this messageboard tell me how the fuck this makes any sense? : http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/article_011a69c8-4bba-11e2-9d99-0019bb2963f4.html

Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2012, 04:20:28 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Can any of the lawyers (or Gil) on this messageboard tell me how the fuck this makes any sense? : http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/article_011a69c8-4bba-11e2-9d99-0019bb2963f4.html

My explanation is that apparently it doesn't take much to be an appellate court judge in Iowa.  According to the all male court the boss fired her because of feelings and emotions, not gender.  It is her own fault for having too many exagerated female characteristics.  I suppose that if he developed an intense hatred of her skin color it would not because of her race, but because of his feelings and emotions about that color.  No.  I can't explain it.

Quote from: CT III on December 27, 2012, 04:24:53 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2012, 04:20:28 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Can any of the lawyers (or Gil) on this messageboard tell me how the fuck this makes any sense? : http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/article_011a69c8-4bba-11e2-9d99-0019bb2963f4.html

My explanation is that apparently it doesn't take much to be an appellate court judge in Iowa.  According to the all male court the boss fired her because of feelings and emotions, not gender.  It is her own fault for having too many exagerated female characteristics.  I suppose that if he developed an intense hatred of her skin color it would not because of her race, but because of his feelings and emotions about that color.  No.  I can't explain it.

Well it is possible he would of fired a male assistant to whom he was attracted.

Also, in Iowa, it's apparently customary to consult your pastor on human resources decisions.

Quote
in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing.

Quote from: PenPho on December 27, 2012, 04:34:58 PM

Quote from: CT III on December 27, 2012, 04:24:53 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2012, 04:20:28 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Can any of the lawyers (or Gil) on this messageboard tell me how the fuck this makes any sense? : http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/article_011a69c8-4bba-11e2-9d99-0019bb2963f4.html

My explanation is that apparently it doesn't take much to be an appellate court judge in Iowa.  According to the all male court the boss fired her because of feelings and emotions, not gender.  It is her own fault for having too many exagerated female characteristics.  I suppose that if he developed an intense hatred of her skin color it would not because of her race, but because of his feelings and emotions about that color.  No.  I can't explain it.

Well it is possible he would of fired a male assistant to whom he was attracted.

Also, in Iowa, it's apparently customary to consult your pastor on human resources decisions.

It is seriously irresponsible to post this article and continue this conversation without an image of the plaintiff.

(http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/melissa-nelson-too-irresistible-supreme-court-rules.jpg)

Quote
in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing.

Pretty sure it's not her clothes that are too revealing. 

Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2012, 04:20:28 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Can any of the lawyers (or Gil) on this messageboard tell me how the fuck this makes any sense? : http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/article_011a69c8-4bba-11e2-9d99-0019bb2963f4.html

My explanation is that apparently it doesn't take much to be an appellate court judge in Iowa.  According to the all male court the boss fired her because of feelings and emotions, not gender.  It is her own fault for having too many exagerated female characteristics.  I suppose that if he developed an intense hatred of her skin color it would not because of her race, but because of his feelings and emotions about that color.  No.  I can't explain it.

Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2012, 06:18:52 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 27, 2012, 04:34:58 PM

Quote from: CT III on December 27, 2012, 04:24:53 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2012, 04:20:28 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Can any of the lawyers (or Gil) on this messageboard tell me how the fuck this makes any sense? : http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/article_011a69c8-4bba-11e2-9d99-0019bb2963f4.html

My explanation is that apparently it doesn't take much to be an appellate court judge in Iowa.  According to the all male court the boss fired her because of feelings and emotions, not gender.  It is her own fault for having too many exagerated female characteristics.  I suppose that if he developed an intense hatred of her skin color it would not because of her race, but because of his feelings and emotions about that color.  No.  I can't explain it.

Well it is possible he would of fired a male assistant to whom he was attracted.

Also, in Iowa, it's apparently customary to consult your pastor on human resources decisions.

It is seriously irresponsible to post this article and continue this conversation without an image of the plaintiff.

(http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/melissa-nelson-too-irresistible-supreme-court-rules.jpg)

Quote
in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing.

Pretty sure it's not her clothes that are too revealing. 

"Mansfield noted that Knight had an all-female workforce and Nelson was replaced by a woman."

No doubt they were all ugly women. 

Quote from: PenPho on December 27, 2012, 04:34:58 PM

Quote from: CT III on December 27, 2012, 04:24:53 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 27, 2012, 04:20:28 PM

Quote from: SKO on December 27, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
Can any of the lawyers (or Gil) on this messageboard tell me how the fuck this makes any sense? : http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/iowa-court-bosses-can-fire-irresistible-workers/article_011a69c8-4bba-11e2-9d99-0019bb2963f4.html

My explanation is that apparently it doesn't take much to be an appellate court judge in Iowa.  According to the all male court the boss fired her because of feelings and emotions, not gender.  It is her own fault for having too many exagerated female characteristics.  I suppose that if he developed an intense hatred of her skin color it would not because of her race, but because of his feelings and emotions about that color.  No.  I can't explain it.

Well it is possible he would of fired a male assistant to whom he was attracted.

Also, in Iowa, it's apparently customary to consult your pastor on human resources decisions.

It is seriously irresponsible to post this article and continue this conversation without an image of the plaintiff.

(http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/melissa-nelson-too-irresistible-supreme-court-rules.jpg)

Quote
in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing.

Pretty sure it's not her clothes that are too revealing. 

Quote from: Slaky on December 28, 2012, 09:48:00 AM
So Congress agrees to pass a bunch of laws allowing more warrantless spying.

Glad they can come together on the important stuff.

This is why both sides are crap.

Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2012, 12:11:50 PM

Quote from: Slaky on December 28, 2012, 09:48:00 AM
So Congress agrees to pass a bunch of laws allowing more warrantless spying.

Glad they can come together on the important stuff.

This is why both sides are crap.

We see those polls on "which profession do you least trust/respect?"  Historically car salesmen have usually topped the list.  To my chagrin, but not surprise, lawyers have been a close second. 1/  But lately congress members are runaway leaders.

footnote 1.   Does anyone remember the scene in "A Man For All Seasons" when two characters are swapping insults?  One calls the other a "butcher's son", and he responds "lawyer!"

Quote from: 1776
John Dickinson: Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hopkins, Dr. Franklin, why have you joined this... incendiary little man, this BOSTON radical? This demagogue, this MADMAN?
John Adams: Are you calling me a madman, you, you... you FRIBBLE!
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Easy John.
John Adams: You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you'll still remain afloat!
John Dickinson: Are you calling me a coward?
John Adams: Yes... coward!
John Dickinson: Madman!
John Adams: Landlord!
John Dickinson: LAWYER!

Quote from: PenPho on December 28, 2012, 12:14:48 PM


We see those polls on "which profession do you least trust/respect?"  Historically car salesmen have usually topped the list.  To my chagrin, but not surprise, lawyers have been a close second. 1/  But lately congress members are runaway leaders.

footnote 1.   Does anyone remember the scene in "A Man For All Seasons" when two characters are swapping insults?  One calls the other a "butcher's son", and he responds "lawyer!"

Quote from: 1776
John Dickinson: Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hopkins, Dr. Franklin, why have you joined this... incendiary little man, this BOSTON radical? This demagogue, this MADMAN?
John Adams: Are you calling me a madman, you, you... you FRIBBLE!
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Easy John.
John Adams: You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you'll still remain afloat!
John Dickinson: Are you calling me a coward?
John Adams: Yes... coward!
John Dickinson: Madman!
John Adams: Landlord!
John Dickinson: LAWYER!

Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2012, 12:23:07 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 28, 2012, 12:14:48 PM


We see those polls on "which profession do you least trust/respect?"  Historically car salesmen have usually topped the list.  To my chagrin, but not surprise, lawyers have been a close second. 1/  But lately congress members are runaway leaders.

footnote 1.   Does anyone remember the scene in "A Man For All Seasons" when two characters are swapping insults?  One calls the other a "butcher's son", and he responds "lawyer!"

My 5th grade teacher introduced us to the play (and movie) 1776, which for some reason (nostalgia, no doubt) has always remained enjoyable and memorable to me.

Featuring this exchange.

Quote from: 1776
John Dickinson: Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hopkins, Dr. Franklin, why have you joined this... incendiary little man, this BOSTON radical? This demagogue, this MADMAN?
John Adams: Are you calling me a madman, you, you... you FRIBBLE!
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Easy John.
John Adams: You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you'll still remain afloat!
John Dickinson: Are you calling me a coward?
John Adams: Yes... coward!
John Dickinson: Madman!
John Adams: Landlord!
John Dickinson: LAWYER!

So a Lawyer is lower on the social scale than a "Fribble"?  Oh, how humiliating!

Quote from: PenPho on December 28, 2012, 12:25:07 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2012, 12:23:07 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 28, 2012, 12:14:48 PM


We see those polls on "which profession do you least trust/respect?"  Historically car salesmen have usually topped the list.  To my chagrin, but not surprise, lawyers have been a close second. 1/  But lately congress members are runaway leaders.

footnote 1.   Does anyone remember the scene in "A Man For All Seasons" when two characters are swapping insults?  One calls the other a "butcher's son", and he responds "lawyer!"

My 5th grade teacher introduced us to the play (and movie) 1776, which for some reason (nostalgia, no doubt) has always remained enjoyable and memorable to me.

Featuring this exchange.

Quote from: 1776
John Dickinson: Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hopkins, Dr. Franklin, why have you joined this... incendiary little man, this BOSTON radical? This demagogue, this MADMAN?
John Adams: Are you calling me a madman, you, you... you FRIBBLE!
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Easy John.
John Adams: You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you'll still remain afloat!
John Dickinson: Are you calling me a coward?
John Adams: Yes... coward!
John Dickinson: Madman!
John Adams: Landlord!
John Dickinson: LAWYER!

So a Lawyer is lower on the social scale than a "Fribble"?  Oh, how humiliating!

Well, to be fair, Fribbles are amazing.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5006/5294441915_f840fa9f33.jpg)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on December 28, 2012, 12:53:01 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 28, 2012, 12:25:07 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2012, 12:23:07 PM

Quote from: PenPho on December 28, 2012, 12:14:48 PM


We see those polls on "which profession do you least trust/respect?"  Historically car salesmen have usually topped the list.  To my chagrin, but not surprise, lawyers have been a close second. 1/  But lately congress members are runaway leaders.

footnote 1.   Does anyone remember the scene in "A Man For All Seasons" when two characters are swapping insults?  One calls the other a "butcher's son", and he responds "lawyer!"

My 5th grade teacher introduced us to the play (and movie) 1776, which for some reason (nostalgia, no doubt) has always remained enjoyable and memorable to me.

Featuring this exchange.

Quote from: 1776
John Dickinson: Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hopkins, Dr. Franklin, why have you joined this... incendiary little man, this BOSTON radical? This demagogue, this MADMAN?
John Adams: Are you calling me a madman, you, you... you FRIBBLE!
Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Easy John.
John Adams: You cool, considerate men. You hang to the rear on every issue so that if we should go under, you'll still remain afloat!
John Dickinson: Are you calling me a coward?
John Adams: Yes... coward!
John Dickinson: Madman!
John Adams: Landlord!
John Dickinson: LAWYER!

So a Lawyer is lower on the social scale than a "Fribble"?  Oh, how humiliating!

Well, to be fair, Fribbles are amazing.

(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5006/5294441915_f840fa9f33.jpg)

Intrepid Reader TEC: "Intrepid Reader Gil: 'something something tribbles Star Trek something...'"

Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2012, 12:23:07 PM
My 5th grade teacher introduced us to the play (and movie) 1776, which for some reason (nostalgia, no doubt) has always remained enjoyable and memorable to me.

Quote from: Wheezer on December 29, 2012, 03:58:47 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2012, 12:23:07 PM
My 5th grade teacher introduced us to the play (and movie) 1776, which for some reason (nostalgia, no doubt) has always remained enjoyable and memorable to me.

For some reason, I always think of 1776 as actually having a pornographic counterpart.

Quote from: PenPho on January 02, 2013, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on December 29, 2012, 03:58:47 PM

Quote from: CBStew on December 28, 2012, 12:23:07 PM
My 5th grade teacher introduced us to the play (and movie) 1776, which for some reason (nostalgia, no doubt) has always remained enjoyable and memorable to me.

For some reason, I always think of 1776 as actually having a pornographic counterpart.

That's 2001.  (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069665/)

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:05:58 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

Quote(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 04:19:37 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:05:58 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

Quote(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:44:25 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 04:19:37 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:05:58 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

Quote(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:44:25 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 04:19:37 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:05:58 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

Quote(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

Quote from: Wheezer on January 06, 2013, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:44:25 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 04:19:37 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:05:58 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

Quote(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 07, 2013, 10:18:32 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 06, 2013, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:44:25 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 04:19:37 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:05:58 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

Quote(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

It was a bill designed to allow the Treasury to mint commemorative coins which is now being read in such a way to allow the Treasury to mint and produce coins of such value to hypothetically reduce all of the national debt by fiat.

Here's the Congressional Record of the bill's passage: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-09-26/pdf/CREC-2000-09-26-pt1-PgH8191.pdf#page=1

There is nothing there to suggest that this bill permits anything that the trillion dollar coin advocates suggest it can do.

Quote from: Wheezer on January 07, 2013, 01:04:12 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 07, 2013, 10:18:32 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 06, 2013, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:44:25 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 04:19:37 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:05:58 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

Quote(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

It was a bill designed to allow the Treasury to mint commemorative coins which is now being read in such a way to allow the Treasury to mint and produce coins of such value to hypothetically reduce all of the national debt by fiat.

Here's the Congressional Record of the bill's passage: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-09-26/pdf/CREC-2000-09-26-pt1-PgH8191.pdf#page=1

There is nothing there to suggest that this bill permits anything that the trillion dollar coin advocates suggest it can do.

There's not really anything to suggest that it doesn't, either. I think you're missing my point, which is that trying to construct an argument based on legislative history is more "hypertechnical."

Quote from: R-V on January 07, 2013, 01:08:58 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 07, 2013, 01:04:12 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 07, 2013, 10:18:32 AM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 06, 2013, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 06:00:54 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:44:25 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 04:19:37 PM

Quote from: Wheezer on January 05, 2013, 04:05:58 PM

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 05, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
I don't know what's sillier, using a hypertechnical reading of a statute intended to allow the Treasury to create commemorative coins or a political party holding the world economy hostage so that it can extract policy concessions instead of paying the bills it's already racked up.

"Hypertechnical"? We're not talking Bruesewitz here.

Quote(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

You left out the "hypertechnical" part.

It derives from a statute enabling the Treasury to mint commemorative coins: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

I know that. This does not make a plain reading "hypertechnical." Why are you even waving around the statute? The subsection itself exists only in proximity to the word "commemorative," so you're stuck with ponying up the legislative history. Which is totally not hypertechnical.

It was a bill designed to allow the Treasury to mint commemorative coins which is now being read in such a way to allow the Treasury to mint and produce coins of such value to hypothetically reduce all of the national debt by fiat.

Here's the Congressional Record of the bill's passage: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2000-09-26/pdf/CREC-2000-09-26-pt1-PgH8191.pdf#page=1

There is nothing there to suggest that this bill permits anything that the trillion dollar coin advocates suggest it can do.

There's not really anything to suggest that it doesn't, either. I think you're missing my point, which is that trying to construct an argument based on legislative history is more "hypertechnical."

Gil, as an objective observer, I'm sorry to report that you are losing this legal argument. Maybe you'll be ready for internet legal tussles with Wheezer once you finish Hollywood Upstairs Law School.

Quote from: flannj on January 07, 2013, 02:09:51 PM

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

Quote from: flannj on January 07, 2013, 02:09:51 PM

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

Quote from: morpheus on January 08, 2013, 11:04:15 AM

Quote from: flannj on January 07, 2013, 02:09:51 PM

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

(http://i.imgur.com/UHhEW.jpg)

Quote from: flannj on January 08, 2013, 11:33:33 AM

Quote from: morpheus on January 08, 2013, 11:04:15 AM

Quote from: flannj on January 07, 2013, 02:09:51 PM

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

(http://i.imgur.com/UHhEW.jpg)

"In Big Cheyenne we trust"

Quote from: thehawk on January 08, 2013, 05:24:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on January 08, 2013, 11:33:33 AM

Quote from: morpheus on January 08, 2013, 11:04:15 AM

Quote from: flannj on January 07, 2013, 02:09:51 PM

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

(http://i.imgur.com/UHhEW.jpg)

"In Big Cheyenne we trust"

Per google translate:

In Big Cheyennensi nos confídimus. Videamus quam quomodo hoc ludit ex


Makes about as much sense as the debt cieling vote itself does.

Quote from: thehawk on January 08, 2013, 05:24:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on January 08, 2013, 11:33:33 AM

Quote from: morpheus on January 08, 2013, 11:04:15 AM

Quote from: flannj on January 07, 2013, 02:09:51 PM

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

(http://i.imgur.com/UHhEW.jpg)

"In Big Cheyenne we trust"

Per google translate:

In Big Cheyennensi nos confídimus. Videamus quam quomodo hoc ludit ex

Makes about as much sense as the debt cieling vote itself does.

Quote from: R-V on January 09, 2013, 08:43:57 AM
Some might say this isn't a very generous way to treat a waiter, but I applaud morph for his honesty.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2gM6_KCcA3AxGSY6r9MOZUvRF-inEN6_dMSVFewLFqjv2pePGUXspSW8kxw)

Quote from: Wheezer on January 09, 2013, 12:09:48 AM

Quote from: thehawk on January 08, 2013, 05:24:18 PM

Quote from: flannj on January 08, 2013, 11:33:33 AM

Quote from: morpheus on January 08, 2013, 11:04:15 AM

Quote from: flannj on January 07, 2013, 02:09:51 PM

The face of that coin is going to need something big.

I think even Gil will find this perfectly acceptable legal tender.

(http://i.imgur.com/UHhEW.jpg)

"In Big Cheyenne we trust"

Per google translate:

In Big Cheyennensi nos confídimus. Videamus quam quomodo hoc ludit ex

Makes about as much sense as the debt cieling vote itself does.

That "-si" seems improbable.

[Edit.--I'm calling erroneously formed locative plural that hinges on the "In."]

Quote from: R-V on January 09, 2013, 08:43:57 AM
Some might say this isn't a very generous way to treat a waiter, but I applaud morph for his honesty.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2gM6_KCcA3AxGSY6r9MOZUvRF-inEN6_dMSVFewLFqjv2pePGUXspSW8kxw)

Quote from: Yeti on January 09, 2013, 10:32:00 AM

Quote from: R-V on January 09, 2013, 08:43:57 AM
Some might say this isn't a very generous way to treat a waiter, but I applaud morph for his honesty.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2gM6_KCcA3AxGSY6r9MOZUvRF-inEN6_dMSVFewLFqjv2pePGUXspSW8kxw)

Why did the guy have to go out to eat if he couldn't afford the tip?

Quote from: Gilgamesh on January 09, 2013, 10:37:09 AM

Quote from: Yeti on January 09, 2013, 10:32:00 AM

Quote from: R-V on January 09, 2013, 08:43:57 AM
Some might say this isn't a very generous way to treat a waiter, but I applaud morph for his honesty.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2gM6_KCcA3AxGSY6r9MOZUvRF-inEN6_dMSVFewLFqjv2pePGUXspSW8kxw)

Why did the guy have to go out to eat if he couldn't afford the tip?

"I'm going to use two democratically elected outcomes that I don't agree with as an excuse to save 20 bucks because I'm an asshole."

Better.

Quote from: Yeti on January 09, 2013, 10:32:00 AM

Quote from: R-V on January 09, 2013, 08:43:57 AM
Some might say this isn't a very generous way to treat a waiter, but I applaud morph for his honesty.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2gM6_KCcA3AxGSY6r9MOZUvRF-inEN6_dMSVFewLFqjv2pePGUXspSW8kxw)

Why did the guy have to go out to eat if he couldn't afford the tip?

Quote from: Bort on January 09, 2013, 12:46:10 PM

Quote from: Yeti on January 09, 2013, 10:32:00 AM

Quote from: R-V on January 09, 2013, 08:43:57 AM
Some might say this isn't a very generous way to treat a waiter, but I applaud morph for his honesty.

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2gM6_KCcA3AxGSY6r9MOZUvRF-inEN6_dMSVFewLFqjv2pePGUXspSW8kxw)

Why did the guy have to go out to eat if he couldn't afford the tip?

This is literally AND figuratively something that gets my goat about people who don't tip for shit.

QuoteAt the White House Briefing, Jay Carney doesn't embrace, but doesn't fully rule out the $1 trillion coin option

QuoteCarney will not take the $1 trillion coin off the table

Quote@chucktodd has asked Jay Carney about 6 times about the coin.

Quote from: R-V on January 09, 2013, 02:01:58 PM
Suck it, Gil. Suck that trilly hard.

QuoteAt the White House Briefing, Jay Carney doesn't embrace, but doesn't fully rule out the $1 trillion coin option

QuoteCarney will not take the $1 trillion coin off the table

Quote@chucktodd has asked Jay Carney about 6 times about the coin.