Jump to bottom

362 comments
1 aagcobb  Jun 3, 2014 6:03:58pm

Did Murdoch buy it?

2 dog philosopher  Jun 3, 2014 6:04:21pm

well, the gop succeeded in buying npr, why not mad magazine?

3 piratedan  Jun 3, 2014 6:04:30pm

and I believe in baseball parlance this is known as a “swing and a miss”.

4 b.d.  Jun 3, 2014 6:05:11pm

So now all of the wingnuts are going to go out and subscribe to MAD Magazine, that;s how this works isn’t it?

5 wrenchwench  Jun 3, 2014 6:07:05pm

In happier news, the niece is walking (with a monkey).

Later, lizards.

6 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 6:08:44pm

Mad has been struggling for years.
(From 2001)

For Mad, a Reason to Worry; Struggling for Relevance in Sarcastic World

…But the magazine, still run by many of those who started out with Mr. Gaines, who died in 1992, remains wedded, for the most part, to familiar formulas.

Mr. Spiegelman said it now has an ”air of desperation and tiredness.”

7 Killgore Trout  Jun 3, 2014 6:09:07pm

Secret Videos Prompted Bowe Bergdahl Taliban Prisoner Swap

An intelligence analysis, based on a comparison of Taliban videos of Sgt. Bergdahl in captivity in 2011 and December 2013 that were provided to the U.S., found that the soldier’s rate of deterioration was accelerating. The latest video, provided to U.S. officials by mediators in Qatar, has never been publicly shown. Officials who have seen the video described Sgt. Bergdahl’s condition as “alarming.”

Evaluations of the two videos didn’t allow officials to estimate with any precision how much longer Sgt. Bergdahl might have to live without adequate treatment. But in the analysis, intelligence agencies identified several possible ailments to explain the change in his condition. Officials with access to the analysis declined to provide details about what those ailments were and what treatment Sgt. Bergdahl is now receiving at a U.S. military hospital in Germany.

8 A Mom Anon  Jun 3, 2014 6:09:46pm

re: #5 wrenchwench

OMG, the cute. She’s grown fast.

9 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 6:10:07pm

October 2013:

10 Killgore Trout  Jun 3, 2014 6:10:52pm
Three things changed between time Mr. Panetta rejected the arrangement and Mr. Hagel signed it, a defense official said: The health assessment, additional security assurances from Qatar, and the realization that Sgt. Bergdahl’s value as a prisoner was declining as his health deteriorated and U.S. troops pulled out of Afghanistan.

“We believe they saw Bergdahl as a golden egg. That is why they kept him alive and as healthy as possible. But as he deteriorated, some people believe he became more of a burden to them,” a U.S. official said. “And as the war was ending some of them [Taliban] came to doubt his value. He was more of a liability as his health declined.”

11 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:11:46pm

re: #1 aagcobb

Did Murdoch buy it?

Warner Media.

12 Killgore Trout  Jun 3, 2014 6:11:52pm

re: #6 jaunte

Mad has been struggling for years.

For Mad, a Reason to Worry; Struggling for Relevance in Sarcastic World

I would have guessed they went out of business long ago.

13 teleskiguy  Jun 3, 2014 6:12:22pm

This Mad cover always cracks me up.

ERFECTION AND IGH STANDARDS

14 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 6:13:16pm

And here in California it’s Primary Day, and ex-future CA AG Orly Taitz haz a madz with the Google and has added them to her REEK-O defendants list.

Google sabotaged my campaign ads, did not run one single ad, even though Google got my credit card and budget to run ads. More evidence of RICO involvement of Google

Orly already has her crack team of investigators on the case.

15 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:13:56pm

re: #9 jaunte

October 2013:

[Embedded image]

It’s OK for them to hit the Prez—they’re our national jesters. The ‘weasel’ shot at Bergdahl was unwarranted. I hope there’s a bit of a wall between the Mad website and the magazine.

16 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 6:14:03pm

Saving Iraq: we lost 4,000 Americans and we got nothing.

The mission is a disaster.

17 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 6:14:07pm
18 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 6:14:58pm

Evening Lizardim.

19 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:15:06pm

re: #12 Killgore Trout

I would have guessed they went out of business long ago.

The TV effort was probably the beginning of a lameout.

20 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 6:15:27pm

21 psddluva4evah  Jun 3, 2014 6:15:30pm

It’s a damn shame, but now the town where Bergdahl and family live can’t even enjoy the homecoming. Why, cause this is what the “serious” reporting has wrought!

Officials in Bergdahl’s Hometown: Stop the Hate

In Hailey, Idaho, the hometown of freed U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, the joy at his release has turned for some into shock and fear — the fear of picking up the phone.

That’s because some town officials have been deluged with angry calls from people who think that
Bergdahl is an Army deserter or traitor who doesn’t deserve a hero’s welcome.

Jane Drussel, the President of the Hailey Chamber of Commerce, has been fielding dozens of angry calls.

“Well, (I feel) disappointment number one, just absolutely total surprise at how bad
some of them are,” she told NBC News on Tuesday.

When the news that Bergdahl had been freed from five years of captivity in Afghanistan in
exchange for five Taliban commanders broke on Saturday, most reactions were happy, but the nebulous details of how he wound up in enemy hands in the first place in 2009 has caused some — both civilians and military — to turn against him and his family.

22 b.d.  Jun 3, 2014 6:15:42pm

MAD hasn’t been the same since Fonebone died:

Body Of Missing Mad Magazine Reporter Found In Blecchistan
NEWS • World • Media • ISSUE 38𠈢2 • Jun 12, 2002

POTRZEBIE, BLECCHISTAN—Questions regarding the fate of Mad magazine reporter Phil Fonebone, kidnapped at the hands of Blecchistani extremists three months ago, were answered Monday with the discovery of his body at an undisclosed location near Potrzebie.

“Phil Fonebone’s death was a brutal act of barbarism perpetrated by a group of clods, finks, and schmendricks who stand in direct opposition to the values we cherish as a democratic society,” read a statement issued by Mad magazine. “On behalf of journalists and freedom lovers everywhere, we condemn this senseless, furshlugginer act of violence.”

Widely admired by colleagues in the field of malaprop journalism, Fonebone, 32, won a 2002 Pee-yew-litzer Prize for his coverage of the Blecchistani crisis. He also earned praise for reportage on such stories as the rise of Ayatoldya Soslayme in Iranaway and the hunt for terrorist leader Whoah-Ahma Big-Loudmouth.

theonion.com

The torch has been passed.

23 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 6:15:49pm

re: #17 Lidane

Just out of the blue, too. No coordinated effort here, no sir!

But why do they want to have Biden as President?

24 Dr Lizardo  Jun 3, 2014 6:17:12pm

re: #17 Lidane

[Embedded content]

It’s mostly wingnut masturbatory fantasy. They get a chub when they think about impeaching President Obama.

25 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 6:17:42pm

re: #20 Gus

It’s interesting to look at that, and the one I posted, vs. teleskiguy’s from 1972. The illustration on the newer ones is very accomplished, but the idea from 1972 is a lot funnier.

26 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 6:17:59pm

Does anyone even care about Mad Magazine anymore? Cracked has all the weird internet lists you could ever want, The Onion is the gold standard of news satire, and Funny or Die has the funny videos.

27 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 6:18:05pm

re: #24 Dr Lizardo

It’s mostly wingnut masturbatory fantasy. They get a chub when they think about impeaching President Obama.

Did you see that post I made last night about the guy on the I-94 overpass with the “Impeach Obama” sign and the “Don’t tread on me” flag? I wondered aloud to myself, as I drove underneath him, if it was supposed to be an organized event and he was the only poor sod who showed up.

28 Dr Lizardo  Jun 3, 2014 6:19:51pm

re: #27 thedopefishlives

Did you see that post I made last night about the guy on the I-94 overpass with the “Impeach Obama” sign and the “Don’t tread on me” flag? I wondered aloud to myself, as I drove underneath him, if it was supposed to be an organized event and he was the only poor sod who showed up.

Yeah, I saw that post. Could be he was the only one that showed up.

The wingnuts are working themselves into quite a frenzy. It must be all that buildup of impotent rage.

29 aagcobb  Jun 3, 2014 6:20:17pm

re: #17 Lidane

[Embedded content]

They would suggest he be impeached if he jaywalked.

30 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 6:20:29pm

re: #28 Dr Lizardo

Yeah, I saw that post. Could be he was the only one that showed up.

The wingnuts are working themselves into quite a frenzy. It must be all that buildup of impotent rage.

I briefly considered extending him the finger as I drove underneath him, but 1) it was too late by the time I thought of it, and 2) I wasn’t about to give him the satisfaction of getting a reaction.

31 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 6:21:40pm

Surprise!

PRESIDENT RELEASE OF TALIBAN DETAINEES IS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE

Courtesy of Megyn Kelly, Fixed News.

32 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 6:22:27pm

Where were the calls for impeachment when Bush released over 500 from Gitmo?

33 b.d.  Jun 3, 2014 6:22:44pm

HIGH CRIMES AND WHATEVERS!!1

34 Charles Johnson  Jun 3, 2014 6:23:10pm

re: #26 Lidane

Does anyone even care about Mad Magazine anymore?

Apparently not.

35 Targetpractice  Jun 3, 2014 6:23:17pm

re: #24 Dr Lizardo

It’s mostly wingnut masturbatory fantasy. They get a chub when they think about impeaching President Obama.

They’ve had impeachment blue balls for six years now. Every time a new “scandal” erupts, the conservative media begins making noise about “high crimes and misdemeanors” and starts calling on the House to finally bring out the articles of impeachment. And even time, they get disappointed, they start grumbling darkly, and then of course the mask slips enough for them to declare that Republicans will never impeach him because they’re afraid of the media attacking them for impeaching the first black president.

36 dog philosopher  Jun 3, 2014 6:23:37pm

actually i will take the optimistic position and predict that, if you asked them, mad magazine would say they consider it their mission to mercilessly fisk any presidential administration whatever the party

did i mention that i am an optimist?

37 The Ghost of a Flea  Jun 3, 2014 6:23:46pm

I just want an illustrated guide to suspicious Muslim unkempt beards versus all-American Christian unkempt beards.

Dammit, we need specifications.

38 Targetpractice  Jun 3, 2014 6:23:48pm

re: #32 Kid A

Where were the calls for impeachment when Bush released over 500 from Gitmo?

Bush has been out of office for six years! Whatever he did doesn’t matter anymore!

39 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 6:24:17pm

re: #32 Kid A

Why U Obamabots always blame Bush???!!??

40 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 6:25:02pm

re: #35 Targetpractice

They’ve had impeachment blue balls for six years now. Every time a new “scandal” erupts, the conservative media begins making noise about “high crimes and misdemeanors” and starts calling on the House to finally bring out the articles of impeachment. And even time, they get disappointed, they start grumbling darkly, and then of course the mask slips enough for them to declare that Republicans will never impeach him because they’re afraid of the media attacking them for impeaching the first black president.

They’d get crucified in the media for it, but that’s beside the point.

41 CuriousLurker  Jun 3, 2014 6:25:10pm

Reposting from downstairs, in case anyone’s interested:

re: #54 Rightwingconspirator

That’s fine, one of the best things about this blog is the occasional trip to educate myself and keep up.

Here’s a PDF with a much better, more in-depth explanation of Nasruddin than the one you’ll find at Wikipedia or wherever. It delves into the Sufi teaching aspect of his stories, if that interests you.

I’m outta here.

Later, lizards.

42 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 6:25:20pm

re: #37 The Ghost of a Flea

I just want an illustrated guide to suspicious Muslim unkempt beards versus all-American Christian unkempt beards.

Dammit, we need specifications.

Last name, first name, ethnic origin, religious affiliation?

43 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 6:25:29pm

We just put the five prisoners “back on there street,” Megyn? Oh, lookie here, Sir Theodore of Cruz is now her guest.

44 Killgore Trout  Jun 3, 2014 6:25:33pm

re: #19 Decatur Deb

The TV effort was probably the beginning of a lameout.

oh, yeah. I forgot about that

45 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:25:45pm

re: #28 Dr Lizardo

Yeah, I saw that post. Could be he was the only one that showed up.

The wingnuts are working themselves into quite a frenzy. It must be all that buildup of impotent rage.

The overpass protests are a thing. They have a website, strongly overlapping the Operation American Spring loons. Has the last OAS diehard unchained himself from a DC fireplug and found his way to the Greyhound station?

overpassesforamerica.com

46 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:26:51pm

re: #37 The Ghost of a Flea

I just want an illustrated guide to suspicious Muslim unkempt beards versus all-American Christian unkempt beards.

Dammit, we need specifications.

The Christian beards are measured in cubits. The commie muslins probably use metric.

47 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 6:27:48pm

re: #6 jaunte

Mad has been struggling for years.
(From 2001)

For Mad, a Reason to Worry; Struggling for Relevance in Sarcastic World

It’s worse now because of much better sites. They’re desperate for some sort of relevance. Hitching their wagon to the RWNJs seems to be their only hope.

Looking at their official website now, they need to fire their entire web development department and nuke their site from orbit. It looks terrible.

48 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 6:28:03pm

Hey, Theodore, an amendment to the constitution passed by Congress does not a law make, you fucking idiot. There’s that little thing called 3/4 of the states to ratify.

49 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 6:28:34pm

re: #19 Decatur Deb

My family actually enjoyed the show on Cartoon Network. We especially liked the mashups of different movies.

50 b.d.  Jun 3, 2014 6:29:19pm

re: #47 Lidane

It’s worse now because of much better sites. They’re desperate for some sort of relevance. Hitching their wagon to the RWNJs seems to be their only hope.

Looking at their official website now, they need to fire their entire web development department and nuke their site from orbit. It looks terrible.

Who designed their website? The FreeRepublic guy?

51 The Ghost of a Flea  Jun 3, 2014 6:29:27pm

re: #42 jaunte

Last name, first name, ethnic origin, religious affiliation?

I’m a lost cause before you ever get to facial hair. Early exposure to Pushto, chawdors, and those jaunty Pathan wool caps.

I mean, that’s all that’s required, right?

52 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:29:38pm

re: #49 Belafon

My family actually enjoyed the show on Cartoon Network. We especially liked the mashups of different movies.

Had great hopes for it, but they always seemed to be trying too hard.

53 Targetpractice  Jun 3, 2014 6:29:43pm

Thing is, I don’t expect them to try for impeachment earlier than next year. The backbenchers may not have been around, but guys like Boehner remember rather clearly how bad the burn to the GOP was when they tried to impeach a Democrat over what they thought was a slam dunk case and instead got dragged into months of explaining why lying about a blow job was on the same level as Nixon’s gross violations of the law.

Trying to impeach this President over bringing a POW home would be a step up, it’s true, but they’d still be explaining to the public why the law they passed, aimed at keeping Gitmo in business, is enough reason to impeach the President.

54 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 6:31:00pm

#DontRepeal1A is Ted Cruz’s new fundraising tool. Do these wingnuts know their base or what?

55 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 6:31:32pm

No. Fucking. Shame. None.

56 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 6:32:22pm

re: #53 Targetpractice

Thing is, I don’t expect them to try for impeachment earlier than next year.

If they do it, I will laugh my ass off. Impeachment would be unbelievably stupid. Every GOP primary candidate would end up on video trying to explain why bringing a POW home is on the level of Watergate. That’s the last thing the RNC wants.

57 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 6:32:54pm

re: #54 Kid A

#DontRepeal1A is Ted Cruz’s new fundraising tool. Do these wingnuts know their base or what?

Oh yeah, they sure do.

58 danarchy  Jun 3, 2014 6:33:02pm

re: #27 thedopefishlives

Did you see that post I made last night about the guy on the I-94 overpass with the “Impeach Obama” sign and the “Don’t tread on me” flag? I wondered aloud to myself, as I drove underneath him, if it was supposed to be an organized event and he was the only poor sod who showed up.

I was walking the dog the other day and along the main road in town there was a lady with a little table and bunch of impeach Obama signs, complete with little hitler mustaches on all the pictures of Obama. Was a little surprised to see larouchepac.com on the signs. I didn’t realize there were still LaRouche supporters. Everyone was giving her a wide berth, almost felt a little bad for her, it must be hard to be that irrelevant. Almost…

59 Dr Lizardo  Jun 3, 2014 6:33:59pm

And goodnight, Lizards.

60 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 6:34:16pm
61 dog philosopher  Jun 3, 2014 6:34:22pm

re: #32 Kid A

Where were the calls for impeachment when Bush released over 500 from Gitmo?

“now we know that bush was a closet liberal”

62 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 6:36:08pm
63 ObserverArt  Jun 3, 2014 6:36:35pm

re: #36 dog philosopher

actually i will take the optimistic position and predict that, if you asked them, mad magazine would say they consider it their mission to mercilessly fisk any presidential administration whatever the party

did i mention that i am an optimist?

I was thinking that way too, but then if you look at the graphic it isn’t done in any kind of a humorous way. There is no cartooning, no over-the-top reality. No nod ‘n’ wink, no smarmy character mugging. In fact it comes off as reality and it fails due to it. In my opinion.

64 Targetpractice  Jun 3, 2014 6:37:51pm

re: #56 Lidane

If they do it, I will laugh my ass off. Impeachment would be unbelievably stupid. Every GOP primary candidate would end up on video trying to explain why bringing a POW home is on the level of Watergate. That’s the last thing the RNC wants.

Think what always gets me about the impeachment talk from the wingnuts is to take it in context of the crimes that never saw serious talk about impeachment. Charlie Pierce has noted time and again that the media talked the nation down from demanding impeachment over Iran-Contra because they’d decided they didn’t want to destroy “another” president. And nothing this White House has been accused of measures up to the sheer scale of the damage that lying us into Iraq did. The only thing that kept Bush from facing impeachment is that Congress is he’d conned enough Democrats into signing off on his crimes.

65 William Barnett-Lewis  Jun 3, 2014 6:38:21pm

re: #41 CuriousLurker

Great article! Thanks! I’ve passed that link along to my priest as well.

66 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 6:38:29pm

re: #57 Skip Intro

I’ve been seeing this newsmax headline. What is it he keeps talking about?

67 Targetpractice  Jun 3, 2014 6:40:27pm

re: #66 Belafon

I’ve been seeing this newsmax headline. What is it he keeps talking about?

Senate Democrats put forward a campaign finance amendment that would pretty clearly spell out that money spent on political campaigns is not speech and thus cannot be given the same constitutional protections as speech. But since the people seeing the biggest success from rulings like Citizens United are guys like Ted, he’s of course spinning this as an “attack on free speech!”

68 Kragar  Jun 3, 2014 6:40:57pm
70 Kragar  Jun 3, 2014 6:42:09pm

re: #66 Belafon

I’ve been seeing this newsmax headline. What is it he keeps talking about?

Cruz thinks campaign finance reform is the same as repealing the 1st Amendment.

Which makes perfect sense when you take into account Cruz is a god damn idiot.

71 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:43:05pm

re: #70 Kragar

Cruz thinks campaign finance reform is the same as repealing the 1st Amendment.

Which makes perfect sense when you take into account Cruz is a god damn idiot.

Is he still Canadian?

72 The Ghost of a Flea  Jun 3, 2014 6:43:34pm

re: #66 Belafon

I’ve been seeing this newsmax headline. What is it he keeps talking about?

Context here—emphasis on con—unless this is a new and different claim about repealing the 1st Amendment.

73 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 6:43:57pm

re: #66 Belafon

I’ve been seeing this newsmax headline. What is it he keeps talking about?

The Dems don’t like the SC Citizens United decision so they want to pass a law to amend it. Since the RWNJs have been convinced that MONEY=SPEECH, Demagogue Cruz is using this to scare the GOP dimwit base into believing the entire First Amendment is about to be removed by the Dems.

It appears to be working well for him, which is why I consider him to be the most dangerous man in politics in the USA today. There’s nothing he won’t do or say to try to bring down the government.

74 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 6:44:12pm

75 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 6:44:42pm

First draft.

76 The Ghost of a Flea  Jun 3, 2014 6:44:58pm

Why does God need a starship superPAC?

77 blueraven  Jun 3, 2014 6:45:17pm

wow Mississippi Senate primary w/32% of vote

wlox.com

Thad Cochran (Inc.) 37,230 50%
Chris McDaniel 36,624 49%

78 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 6:45:29pm

re: #70 Kragar

Cruz thinks campaign finance reform is the same as repealing the 1st Amendment.

Which makes perfect sense when you take into account Cruz is a god damn idiot.

No, he’s a Joe McCarthy type demagogue, a person this country doesn’t see very often, but we’re sure seeing one now.

79 The Ghost of a Flea  Jun 3, 2014 6:46:20pm

re: #76 The Ghost of a Flea

Dammit, we should not live in a day and age where theology has become so vapid and venal that Star Trek V is a meaningful commentary on its flaws.

80 klys  Jun 3, 2014 6:47:02pm

re: #77 blueraven

wow Mississippi Senate primary w/32% of vote

wlox.com

Thad Cochran (Inc.) 37,230 50%
Chris McDaniel 36,624 49%

As I recall, this is the race with the blogger arrest related to photographing the incumbent’s disabled wife without her consent?

81 palomino  Jun 3, 2014 6:48:17pm

re: #72 The Ghost of a Flea

COntext here, unless this is a new and different claim about repealing the 1st Amendment.

It’s total bullshit. If you were able to pass a new amendment to limit campaign contributions, there’s no “repeal” of the 1st Amendment. It’s still there, and still has the same meaning (except for one small area, where it would return us to the days of McCain-Feingold, when no one in either party thought the 1st Amendment was being destroyed.)

82 blueraven  Jun 3, 2014 6:49:10pm

re: #80 klys

As I recall, this is the race with the blogger arrest related to photographing the incumbent’s disabled wife without her consent?

correct

83 klys  Jun 3, 2014 6:49:41pm

re: #82 blueraven

correct

Right, I’m going to go spend some time despairing of humanity now. Not that the rest of today hasn’t encouraged it.

84 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 6:50:30pm

re: #83 klys

Right, I’m going to go spend some time despairing of humanity now. Not that the rest of today hasn’t encouraged it.

It’s really been one of those days, hasn’t it. And it’s just getting wrapped up.

85 klys  Jun 3, 2014 6:52:03pm

re: #84 thedopefishlives

It’s really been one of those days, hasn’t it. And it’s just getting wrapped up.

I did my civic duty. I voted in my primary.

86 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 6:52:06pm

87 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 6:52:36pm

Maureen Dowd has an Edible Reefer Madness day:

I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights.
….
I strained to remember where I was or even what I was wearing, touching my green corduroy jeans and staring at the exposed-brick wall. As my paranoia deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.
nytimes.com

88 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:54:55pm

re: #81 palomino

It’s total bullshit. If you were able to pass a new amendment to limit campaign contributions, there’s no “repeal” of the 1st Amendment. It’s still there, and still has the same meaning (except for one small area, where it would return us to the days of McCain-Feingold, when no one in either party thought the 1st Amendment was being destroyed.)

The Dems aren’t trying to damage the 1st Amedment, just undo the damage the USSC did to the dictionary.

89 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 6:57:46pm

re: #77 blueraven

wow Mississippi Senate primary w/32% of vote

wlox.com

Thad Cochran (Inc.) 37,230 50%
Chris McDaniel 36,624 49%

90 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 6:58:07pm

re: #87 jaunte

Maureen Dowd has an Edible Reefer Madness day:

Lucky she didn’t try acid.

91 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 6:58:37pm

Gotta hand it to Americans. We go from over 4,000 dead in Iraq. Over 1,000 dead in Afghanistan. Over 150,000 dead civilians in Iraq. To freaking out about 4 dead in Benghazi and possibly 6 dead searching for a possible deserter in Afghanistan.

92 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 6:59:23pm

re: #90 Decatur Deb

She should have had a couple of friends in the room to explain what was happening.

93 palomino  Jun 3, 2014 7:01:28pm

re: #88 Decatur Deb

The Dems aren’t trying to damage the 1st Amedment, just undo the damage the USSC did to the dictionary.

Exactly. The proposed amendment is so limited in scope it would have no impact on 99.99% of First Amendment rights and the attendant jurisprudence.

94 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 7:01:48pm

re: #92 jaunte

She should have had a couple of friends in the room to explain what was happening.

Should have researched her topic before trying experimental anthropology.

95 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 7:06:21pm

“I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get didn’t feel like getting up to get water.

96 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 7:08:03pm

re: #95 jaunte

“I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get didn’t feel like getting up to get water.

Should have turned her spirit into a crow and let it fly in search of water.

97 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 7:08:49pm

re: #27 thedopefishlives

Did you see that post I made last night about the guy on the I-94 overpass with the “Impeach Obama” sign and the “Don’t tread on me” flag? I wondered aloud to myself, as I drove underneath him, if it was supposed to be an organized event and he was the only poor sod who showed up.

Where on I-94? It runs right through Chicago, so I want to make sure that loon doesn’t live near anyone I care about.

98 klys  Jun 3, 2014 7:10:42pm

re: #97 Dark_Falcon

Where on I-94? It runs right through Chicago, so I want to make sure that loon doesn’t live near anyone I care about.

Well, since the Fish family lives in the wild north country of MN, I’m going to guess there.

99 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 7:10:58pm

This was always my favorite MAD cover:

The Big Con, indeed

Sadly, it appears that “the usual gang of idiots” has become *exactly* that.

100 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 7:13:20pm

re: #96 Decatur Deb

NYT, 1921:

101 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 7:14:03pm

re: #93 palomino

Exactly. The proposed amendment is so limited in scope it would have no impact on 99.99% of First Amendment rights and the attendant jurisprudence.

How do you figure? Because from where I sit, restricting political spending could easily be read restricting a news corporation, since American law doesn’t make fundamental distinctions between those and other corps.

102 gwangung  Jun 3, 2014 7:15:36pm

re: #101 Dark_Falcon

How do you figure? Because from where I sit, restricting political spending could easily be read restricting a news corporation, since American law doesn’t make fundamental distinctions between those and other corps.

I take it you can quote the pertinent language from the proposed law?

103 klys  Jun 3, 2014 7:15:54pm

re: #101 Dark_Falcon

How do you figure? Because from where I sit, restricting political spending could easily be read restricting a news corporation, since American law doesn’t make fundamental distinctions between those and other corps.

Well, considering that it was working just fine before Citizens United, I don’t believe that it would be all that difficult again.

But you think that any restrictions on campaign spending is infringing on free speech, as we established in another thread, so.

104 TedStriker  Jun 3, 2014 7:17:23pm

re: #86 Gus

[Embedded image]

“Mass destruction”

Whoops…

105 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 7:17:30pm

re: #101 Dark_Falcon

Odd how we didn’t have that kind of issue before Roberts and Co decided rich men needed to be able to have more influence without needing to have any new ideas.

106 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 7:17:43pm
107 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 7:17:48pm

re: #102 gwangung

I take it you can quote the pertinent language from the proposed law?

It’s an amendment, not a law. And not from memory, no.

108 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 7:20:33pm
109 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 7:21:57pm

re: #97 Dark_Falcon

Where on I-94? It runs right through Chicago, so I want to make sure that loon doesn’t live near anyone I care about.

That would be I-94 in the middle of Minneapolis, you silly goose.

110 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 7:22:53pm
111 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 7:24:10pm

re: #109 thedopefishlives

That would be I-94 in the middle of Minneapolis, you silly goose.

Falcons ain’t geese and thank goodness for that, since up where you are geese sometimes find dopefish in their lakes. ;)

112 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 7:24:30pm

re: #111 Dark_Falcon

Falcons ain’t geese and thank goodness for that, since up where you are geese sometimes find dopefish in their lakes. ;)

Yeah, but even we leave the loons alone. Crazy fuckers, those.

113 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 7:24:31pm

re: #108 jaunte

114 Feline Fearless Leader  Jun 3, 2014 7:25:09pm

Tired of politics - so I watched “2001” on TCM.

115 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 7:25:32pm

re: #110 Lidane

Does having a long beard automatically make you a Talib now?

Answered. Thanks, Lidane.

116 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 7:25:43pm
117 William Barnett-Lewis  Jun 3, 2014 7:25:47pm

re: #112 thedopefishlives

Yeah, but even we leave the loons alone. Crazy fuckers, those.

Lovely voice on the real ones at sunset though.

118 klys  Jun 3, 2014 7:26:31pm

re: #115 Dark_Falcon

Does having a long beard automatically make you a Talib now?

Well, let me consult with the right-wing nutosphere…

119 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 7:26:48pm

re: #117 William Barnett-Lewis

Lovely voice on the real ones at sunset though.

Quite so. Don’t get so many of them here at the fishbowl, but I’ve spent enough time lakeside to hear their multitude of calls. I love watching them take off - like watching a fully loaded B-29, clawing for airspeed and hoping they can pull up in time.

120 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 7:26:54pm

re: #115 Dark_Falcon

Does having a long beard automatically make you a Talib now?

Ah. You missed that choice bit of stupid. Allow me to provide context:

121 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 7:27:43pm

More context:

122 teleskiguy  Jun 3, 2014 7:28:38pm
123 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 7:30:00pm

Jim Wright is pissed, royally pissed, so pissed that saying he’s pissed understates just how pissed he is.

An excerpt:

For the last eighteen months these very same people have been screaming for Obama’s impeachment. Impeachment? Hell, some of these silly sons of bitches, including sitting members of Congress and members of the military, have marched on the White House demanding the actual overthrow of the United States government and the imprisonment or death of the President, because four Americans died in Benghazi, Libya. They are outraged, outraged beyond logic, beyond prudence, beyond reason, because they believe Obama didn’t do absolutely everything possible up to and including an armed military invasion to save those men. But these same people, these very same people, would leave an American soldier to die at the hands of the Taliban and they refuse to cheer his safe return, solely because they hate Barack Obama beyond all rational bounds and they will not allow this administration any victory no matter how small - even when they themselves have been condemning Obama for leaving an American serviceman in the hands of our enemies.

stonekettle.com

124 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 7:31:32pm

re: #120 Lidane

Ah. You missed that choice bit of stupid. Allow me to provide context:

[Embedded content]

re: #115 Dark_Falcon

Does having a long beard automatically make you a Talib now?

Answered. Thanks, Lidane.

125 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 7:31:39pm

re: #87 jaunte

Maureen Dowd has an Edible Reefer Madness day:

Gawd that woman has issues.

I figured I’d order dinner from room service and return to my more mundane drugs of choice, chardonnay and mediocre-movies-on-demand.

It’s weird how she thinks a habit of drinking alone is something to mention casually, as if that’s not a warning sign in its own right.

126 gwangung  Jun 3, 2014 7:32:42pm

re: #107 Dark_Falcon

It’s an amendment, not a law. And not from memory, no.

So, basically, pulling it out of your ass.

Details matter. Or else you don’t know what you’re talking about.

127 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 7:32:42pm
128 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 7:33:09pm

Well, that was fast…

NRA Apologizes For Calling Guns-In-Restaurants Crowd ‘Weird’

The National Rifle Association has disavowed its recent criticism of pro-gun demonstrations in Texas.
In an interview on Tuesday with the organization’s own news site, the head of the NRA’s lobbying arm blamed a staff member’s “personal opinion” for the content of an unsigned statement published Friday on the organization’s website, and he apologized for “any confusion” the statement may have caused.
“It’s a distraction,” Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told NRA News. “There was some confusion, we apologize, again, for any confusion that that post caused.”

129 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 7:33:52pm
130 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 7:34:00pm

re: #128 Backwoods_Sleuth

Good to see Murder Incorporated is back on track.

131 TedStriker  Jun 3, 2014 7:35:05pm

re: #123 Skip Intro

Jim Wright is pissed, royally pissed, so pissed that saying he’s pissed understates just how pissed he is.

An excerpt:

stonekettle.com

Yeah, we were hashing this out last night. Of course, KT was more concerned with Wright’s writing style than what Wright was actually saying about the RWNJs’ hypocrisy.

132 The Ghost of a Flea  Jun 3, 2014 7:36:22pm

re: #128 Backwoods_Sleuth

Well, that was fast…

NRA Apologizes For Calling Guns-In-Restaurants Crowd ‘Weird’

Clearly that backbone was only a 24-hour rental.

133 TedStriker  Jun 3, 2014 7:36:35pm

re: #128 Backwoods_Sleuth

Well, that was fast…

NRA Apologizes For Calling Guns-In-Restaurants Crowd ‘Weird’

Said “staff member” is probably out on their ass right now, all for saying something halfway sane.

134 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 7:36:51pm
135 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 7:37:04pm

re: #100 jaunte

NYT, 1921:

[Embedded content]

Heh.

136 Feline Fearless Leader  Jun 3, 2014 7:37:05pm

re: #128 Backwoods_Sleuth

Well, that was fast…

NRA Apologizes For Calling Guns-In-Restaurants Crowd ‘Weird’

Staffer thrown under bus, and presumably probably going to get fired as well.

137 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:37:51pm

re: #128 Backwoods_Sleuth

Well, that was fast…

NRA Apologizes For Calling Guns-In-Restaurants Crowd ‘Weird’

What a bunch of spineless cowards. My bet? There was some backlash and they knew they would lose some members (read money) if they didn’t retract. Cowards. Goes to show you that this isn’t even about principles for the NRA. It’s about money and appeasing the membership.

138 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 7:38:30pm

re: #131 TedStriker

Of course, KT was more concerned with Wright’s writing style than what Wright was actually saying about the RWNJs’ hypocrisy.

Oh, is that what that was about? I missed that one.

139 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 7:38:36pm

Politico’s live results show McDaniel edging into the lead, 113K to 111K. Anyone got any more recent updates than that?

140 teleskiguy  Jun 3, 2014 7:38:47pm
141 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 7:38:51pm

re: #137 HappyWarrior

What a bunch of spineless cowards. My bet? There was some backlash and they knew they would lose some members (read money) if they didn’t retract. Cowards. Goes to show you that this isn’t even about principles for the NRA. It’s about money and appeasing the membership.

Yesterday the open carry people in Texas were cutting up their NRA cards.

142 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 7:39:01pm

re: #125 goddamnedfrank

Hey Frank, I just found an auction item you may be interested in. I remember you’ve been looking for .22LR ammo, so perhaps you’d like to bid on this:

Ten-Thousand Rounds of Armscor Precision 22 Long Rifle Ammunition

Of course, at $1300-$1800 it would be a major purchase, but you’d have all the .22 ammo you and your friends would ever need.

(Mostly kidding, and all in good fun. The auction item is real, though.)

143 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:39:43pm

re: #139 BongCrodny

Politico’s live results show McDaniel edging into the lead, 113K to 111K. Anyone got any more recent updates than that?

Well what’s troubling about that is unlike Kentucky, I don’t see anyway a Democrat can pick up the seat. So we could be looking at puke Senator McDaniel.

144 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:40:09pm

re: #141 Backwoods_Sleuth

Yesterday the open carry people in Texas were cutting up their NRA cards.

Yeah I did see that. I’m thinking that there was a lot more than that.

145 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 7:40:32pm

re: #141 Backwoods_Sleuth

Yesterday the open carry people in Texas were cutting up their NRA cards.

They should’ve let those people go. Better some lost members than gun rights lost to laws passed in reaction to OCT’s insanity.

146 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 7:40:34pm

Proposed campaign finance amendment.

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

147 TedStriker  Jun 3, 2014 7:41:06pm

re: #138 Skip Intro

Oh, is that what that was about? I missed that one.

littlegreenfootballs.com

148 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 7:41:08pm
149 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 7:42:29pm
150 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:42:40pm

re: #145 Dark_Falcon

They should’ve let those people go. Better some lost members than gun rights lost to laws passed in reaction to OCT’s insanity.

Well maybe now you understand why some of us don’t think too highly of them. They do value the lost members and appeasing kooks than sensible legislation and that’s been their problem for years now.

151 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 7:42:52pm

re: #146 goddamnedfrank

Proposed campaign finance amendment.

Maybe someday they can add that corporations are not people, at least not until Texas executes one.

152 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 7:43:08pm

Wright BTW is a retired USN Chief Warrant Officer.

153 allegro  Jun 3, 2014 7:43:23pm

I’ve gone beyond pissed to now just feeling terribly sad. The Bergdahl’s seem like such a loving, close family. They did everything right, everything they were ever supposed to do to be good, productive citizens. They worked hard, educated their son and raised him to grow to be a thoughtful, compassionate man who loves learning and reaching out to understand new cultures. He joined the military during a time of war, no doubt knowing he would be serving in action. The price he and his parents have paid for this choice has been devastatingly high.

And this is how they are treated? It’s unconscionable. So. Fucking. Evil.

154 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:44:28pm

re: #148 Gus

[Embedded content]

He’s absolutely right. Earlier it was rescue Bergdahl at all costs. And Obama does rescue him. And what do they engage in? Not only suggesting that Obama needs to be impeached over this but also attacking the character of Sgt Bergdahl and his family. These people are simply ghouls who can’t find any fault with anything Obama does since they’re blinded by their own hatred.

155 Lidane  Jun 3, 2014 7:45:10pm
156 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 7:45:29pm

re: #153 allegro

<blockquote
And this is how they are treated? It’s unconscionable. So. Fucking. Evil.

Around half of this country is evil, just fucking evil and consumed with a never ending hatred of everyone and everything that isn’t exactly like them.

157 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 7:45:30pm

re: #143 HappyWarrior

Well what’s troubling about that is unlike Kentucky, I don’t see anyway a Democrat can pick up the seat. So we could be looking at puke Senator McDaniel.

Ooh, he’s a neo-Confederate, too?

Though McDaniel might have missed the [Sons of Confederate Veteras] conference because of airline issues, he did deliver the keynote address at an event the group held on June 22 in Jackson. Jaynes confirmed to the Clarion-Ledger that McDaniel had indeed spoken to the group in previous years (which Jaynes also told me). So whether or not McDaniel made it to the August conference, there is no question he’s been a friend to this particular group.

Mother Jones

What the fuck is in the water down there, anyway?

158 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 7:45:35pm

In Iowa tonight:

159 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 7:45:38pm

re: #127 jaunte

[Embedded content]

Notice Dowd doesn’t say how much of the pot bar she ate, and yet she didn’t end up in the ER. Because overdosing on pot is physically impossible.

A weak minded person with a lifetime of repression trying to claw its way out of their spiritual butthole can obviously freak out enough to go to the ER, but it’s never physically necessary. No feasibly consumable amount of pot can cause physical harm.

160 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:46:05pm

re: #155 Lidane

[Embedded content]

He should stick to his day job of calling out the right for being too crazy. He’s still an idiot on lots of other stuff.

161 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 7:46:32pm
162 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:47:05pm

re: #157 BongCrodny

Ooh, he’s a neo-Confederate, too?

Mother Jones

What the fuck is in the water down there, anyway?

Yep, a step up from Rand Paul who merely employed a “Confederate Avenger.” This guy is the genuine article and I’m sure if elected will become like Cruz another favorite of the fanatics that make up the GOP base.

163 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 7:47:18pm

re: #161 Gus

That’s it. We have a new Internet game. Show photographs of beardos and have people guess if they’re a terrorist or not.

164 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 7:47:24pm
165 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 7:47:48pm

re: #149 jaunte

[Embedded content]

Politico has McDaniel up by 5K with 83% in,

166 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:48:22pm

re: #163 thedopefishlives

That’s it. We have a new Internet game. Show photographs of beardos and have people guess if they’re a terrorist or not.

Image: mel-gibson.jpg

167 Charles Johnson  Jun 3, 2014 7:48:45pm

Triple facepalm.

168 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 7:48:50pm

re: #166 HappyWarrior

Image: mel-gibson.jpg

Definitely a terrorist.

169 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 7:49:02pm

re: #155 Lidane

[Embedded content]

Why would anybody want something that Maureen Dowd has ingested?

Every imaginable variation of how that would work is disgusting.

170 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 7:49:34pm

Election news:

A ridiculously stupid Alabama gun rights supporter took a loaded pistol to the polls on Tuesday and he’s upset because he had to put his weapon back in his pickup truck before voting. John David Murphy entered the polling location at the First Methodist Church of Alabaster while wearing a holstered 9 mm handgun and two ammunition magazines to vote in the Republican primary.
The church, like other precincts, had a sign in the door saying firearms are prohibited, according to the AP.

More fun at:
Open Carry supporter upset, told he can’t vote at poll with a loaded gun

171 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:49:36pm

Really GOP you can’t call yourself the party of Lincoln anymore when you’re in the process of nominating open Neo-Confederates. Maybe you should change it to Lincoln Rockwell since Chris McDaniel’s message is closer to his than Abraham Lincoln’s.

172 blueraven  Jun 3, 2014 7:49:36pm

Chris McDaniel 124,046 50%
Thad Cochran (Inc.) 119,339 48%

173 Mentis Fugit  Jun 3, 2014 7:49:37pm

re: #112 thedopefishlives

Yeah, but even we leave the loons alone. Crazy fuckers, those.

SWIM SWIM NOT THAT HUNGRY
SWIM SWIM NOT THAT HUNGRY
SWIM SWIM NOT THAT HUNGRY

174 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 7:49:51pm

Krakauer Explores Pat Tillman’s Death And Cover-Up

Video

175 Charles Johnson  Jun 3, 2014 7:50:07pm
176 Decatur Deb  Jun 3, 2014 7:50:12pm

Doritos truck hijacked. Denver police seeking skinny Caucasian woman with Uppaeasside accent.

177 blueraven  Jun 3, 2014 7:50:49pm

re: #172 blueraven

Chris McDaniel 124,046 50%
Thad Cochran (Inc.) 119,339 48%

83% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING

178 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 7:50:54pm

re: #175 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

Speaking Doughy Pantload.

179 Kragar  Jun 3, 2014 7:51:08pm
180 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 7:51:08pm

re: #166 HappyWarrior

Image: mel-gibson.jpg

Maybe someone could piggy back off that idea and do the same with gun owners: Can you tell the good guy with a gun from the bad guy with a gunr? It could be sponsored by the NRA, since this is their big idea.

181 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:51:25pm

re: #170 Backwoods_Sleuth

Election news:

More fun at:
Open Carry supporter upset, told he can’t vote at poll with a loaded gun

Now can someone nicely tell me why you need a gun on you when you’re voting? Something that takes all but five minutes in a smaller precinct such as this one.

182 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 7:51:29pm

re: #180 Skip Intro

Maybe someone could piggy back off that idea and do the same with gun owners: Can you tell the good guy with a gun from the bad guy with a gunr? It could be sponsored by the NRA, since this is their big idea.

The creative juices are really flowin’ around here tonight.

183 The Ghost of a Flea  Jun 3, 2014 7:51:42pm

re: #157 BongCrodny

What the fuck is in the water down there, anyway?

Selenium, toluene, and particles of mummified Stonewall Jackson.

184 allegro  Jun 3, 2014 7:51:56pm

re: #145 Dark_Falcon

They should’ve let those people go. Better some lost members than gun rights lost to laws passed in reaction to OCT’s insanity.

It’s the damnedest thing. Yours is about the third comment I’ve seen in the past day or so referring to the consequences of the OCT idiots being the potential harm to gun owners. Period.

The consequences I’m concerned about are the innocent people those jackasses are putting in harm’s way with their nonsense.

Priorities. How do they work?

185 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 7:52:04pm

re: #146 goddamnedfrank

Hey Dark_Falcon, do you have any problems with the listed amendment, and if so are you able to articulate them?

186 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 7:52:16pm

re: #178 Gus

Speaking Doughy Pantload.

Doughy Mr. Grundy.

187 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 7:53:20pm

Someone earlier today asked what kinda of damage baseball-sized hail could do to a windshield. Here’s what it does to an entire vehicle.

188 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 7:53:37pm

re: #181 HappyWarrior

Now can someone nicely tell me why you need a gun on you when you’re voting? Something that takes all but five minutes in a smaller precinct such as this one.

Gets rid of hanging chads.

189 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:54:06pm

re: #175 Charles Johnson

[Embedded content]

I guess that’s the NRO for you. Get pissy about salty language but employ white supremacists like John Derbyshire to write for them. Shrug.

190 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 7:54:10pm

re: #187 Backwoods_Sleuth

Someone earlier today asked what kinda of damage baseball-sized hail could do to a windshield. Here’s what it does to an entire vehicle.

[Embedded content]

That’ll buff right out.

191 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:54:20pm

re: #188 BongCrodny

Gets rid of hanging chads.

Ha!

192 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:55:11pm

re: #180 Skip Intro

Maybe someone could piggy back off that idea and do the same with gun owners: Can you tell the good guy with a gun from the bad guy with a gunr? It could be sponsored by the NRA, since this is their big idea.

Could be a game for the next NRA convention and you can have good guy-bad guy arbitrator Wayne LaPierre as the host.

193 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 7:58:40pm

McDaniel’s still got about a 4K lead, but has just dropped below the 50% mark.

What happens with the runoff? Would it be Cochran v. McDaniel, Part II?

194 Romantic Heretic  Jun 3, 2014 7:59:00pm

re: #74 Gus

The U.S. did get something. Massive debt.

195 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 7:59:12pm

re: #193 BongCrodny

McDaniel’s still got about a 4K lead, but has just dropped below the 50% mark.

What happens with the runoff? Would it be Cochran v. McDaniel, Part II?

Have to assume so.

196 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:00:03pm

These gun jerkoffs would allow guns in bars if they could. Because nothing bad involving alcohol has ever happened in the history of history.

197 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:00:06pm

re: #194 Romantic Heretic

The U.S. did get something. Massive debt.

Iraq got ISIS! Win. Now they’re fighting in Syria alongside Russia and Iranians. Mission accomplished.

198 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:01:02pm

re: #197 Gus

We’ll be greeted as liberators!

199 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:01:13pm

re: #196 Kid A

These gun jerkoffs would allow guns in bars if they could. Because nothing bad involving alcohol has ever happened in the history of history.

They want that. Scary thought.

200 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:01:37pm

re: #198 Kid A

We’ll be greeted as liberators!

Mushroom clouds!

201 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 8:02:10pm

re: #200 Gus

Wasn’t that what Dowd was talking about?

202 thedopefishlives  Jun 3, 2014 8:02:16pm

re: #199 HappyWarrior

They want that. Scary thought.

They sincerely believe the old adage, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” However, they insist on putting people with guns in situations where people already kill (or try to kill) people WITHOUT guns. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!

203 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:02:53pm

Yellowcake from Africa!

204 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:03:27pm

re: #203 Kid A

Yellowcake from Africa!

Aluminum tubes!

205 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 8:03:30pm

re: #185 goddamnedfrank

Hey Dark_Falcon, do you have any problems with the listed amendment, and if so are you able to articulate them?

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

206 Skip Intro  Jun 3, 2014 8:03:36pm

re: #196 Kid A

These gun jerkoffs would allow guns in bars if they could. Because nothing bad involving alcohol has ever happened in the history of history.

I thought they already did. Georgia comes to mind, but it could be somewhere else.

When are they going to demand to be able to carry loaded weapons on airplanes? You know that one is coming.

207 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:03:54pm

re: #202 thedopefishlives

They sincerely believe the old adage, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” However, they insist on putting people with guns in situations where people already kill (or try to kill) people WITHOUT guns. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?!

Yep. Really though. They pretty much want to put guns into environments where things can get heated in a hurry. Tell you this much. If they ever allow something stupid like guns to bars here in Virginia. I’m not going to bars here. That’s just stupid and asking for tragedy.

208 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:04:13pm

re: #200 Gus

Mushroom clouds!

It’s about freedom!

209 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 8:04:26pm
210 klys  Jun 3, 2014 8:04:31pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

Just …wow.

You don’t believe in all people created equal. You believe in all money created equal.

211 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 8:05:24pm

re: #206 Skip Intro

I thought they already did. Georgia comes to mind, but it could be somewhere else.

When are they going to demand to be able to carry loaded weapons on airplanes? You know that one is coming.

Tennessee

212 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:05:44pm

213 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:05:50pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

So it’s OK if those rich people expropriate stuff from the poor? Not a lot from each one of course, but there are a lot of poor so it adds up.

214 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:06:10pm

Is there at least a decent Dem running in Mississippi? Haven’t heard as much about that unlike Kentucky where Grimes has gotten a lot of talk.

215 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 8:06:25pm

re: #193 BongCrodny

McDaniel’s still got about a 4K lead, but has just dropped below the 50% mark.

What happens with the runoff? Would it be Cochran v. McDaniel, Part II?

That’s bad for Cochran though right. The third candidate is another born again Christian fundy nutjob, anti EPA / IRS flat taxer.

Also he has really dingy smoker’s teeth and wears transitions lenses.

Bonus pts: Under accomplishment’s he lists “LEADING PEOPLE TO CHRIST.”

216 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:07:29pm

217 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:08:01pm

re: #208 Kid A

It’s about freedom!

Freedom, heh, isn’t free.

“You’re either with ush! Or you’re with teh terrorists!”

218 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 8:08:02pm

re: #210 klys

Just …wow.

You don’t believe in all people created equal. You believe in all money created equal.

Because having a shitload of millionaires (both parties) in Congress has served the country so very, very well.

219 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:08:41pm

Assholes. Freaking assholes. I couldn’t believe listening to fucking Giuliani after I snapped out of it and listening to his fucking speech.

220 Romantic Heretic  Jun 3, 2014 8:08:47pm

re: #151 Skip Intro

Maybe someday they can add that corporations are not people, at least not until Texas executes one.

Or dies in a foxhole.

221 gwangung  Jun 3, 2014 8:08:48pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

Hm, so basically you’re saying that you’re OK with the rich rigging the rules so that they can’t EVER lose it once they get it (because you do know, don’t you, that you have to work at it to lose that money?).

222 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 8:08:56pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Uh, no. Hell no, and fuck no. The wealthy have earned their money because they don’t have to pay for security guards, their own personal fire departments, and don’t have to hire thugs to enforce their contracts. And they get this because the people here agree that, in the ideal, every person is equal in the government and under the law. Because of that, people don’t tend to think “that rich man doesn’t really need all those cars.” The price of that is wealthy people paying a larger percentage of their non-necessary earnings in order for other people to enjoy the same freedoms even if they cannot have the same luxuries. If wealthy people don’t like dealing with the consequences of democracy, then they can stop enjoying the benefits of democracy.

223 klys  Jun 3, 2014 8:09:12pm

re: #218 BongCrodny

Because having a shitload of millionaires (both parties) in Congress has served the country so very, very well.

Rich people know best, apparently. That’s why they’re rich.

///

224 Stanley Sea  Jun 3, 2014 8:09:34pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

Dark Falcon

225 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:10:22pm

re: #217 Gus

Freedom, heh, isn’t free.

“You’re either with ush! Or you’re with teh terrorists!”

Bring it on!

226 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:10:47pm

re: #225 Kid A

Bring it on!

Let’s roll!

227 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:10:56pm

228 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:10:59pm

Smoke em out.

229 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:12:08pm

230 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:12:19pm

re: #224 Stanley Sea

Dark Falcon

I like that graphic SS.

231 klys  Jun 3, 2014 8:12:29pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

Dark, just so we’re clear: the shorter version of what you just said is “one dollar = one vote.”

232 Stanley Sea  Jun 3, 2014 8:13:50pm

re: #230 HappyWarrior

I like that graphic SS.

It’s very useful.

233 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:13:59pm

Axis of evil!

234 allegro  Jun 3, 2014 8:14:28pm

re: #231 klys

Dark, just so we’re clear: the shorter version of what you just said is “one dollar = one vote.”

Such a patriotic American.

235 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:14:54pm

Liberating Iraq will be a cakewalk!

236 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:15:25pm

re: #232 Stanley Sea

It’s very useful.

It’s very true in regards to what’s being discussed. Really someone having practically unlimited resources shouldn’t mean that they should get the equivalent of a half mile head start in a mile long race. I do wonder if a decision like Citizens United would have been as widely praised had it happened in age where labor had more influence and money. Somehow I doubt it.

237 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:15:26pm

re: #231 klys

Dark, just so we’re clear: the shorter version of what you just said is “one dollar = one vote.”

Also: “I don’t have to take responsibility myself.”

238 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:15:44pm

re: #235 Kid A

Liberating Iraq will be a cakewalk!

3 weeks! Tops!

239 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:15:58pm
240 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:16:01pm

re: #233 Gus

It’ll only cost 50 billion dollars!

241 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:16:01pm

Mission Accomplished.

242 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 8:16:27pm

re: #231 klys

It goes beyond that. He’s OK with the wealthy guy going to DC and talking directly to senators because he can afford to take the week off. And if the guy convinces senators that it’s just too expensive to have extra voting areas in poor precincts, DF’s ok with that.

243 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:16:56pm

Well yall are hitting on another point. They talk “fiscal responsibility” when it comes to schools, health care, infrastructure, etc but they lose it pretty quick when war is the topic of conversation. Funny that eh?

244 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:17:10pm
245 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 8:17:16pm

re: #214 HappyWarrior

Is there at least a decent Dem running in Mississippi? Haven’t heard as much about that unlike Kentucky where Grimes has gotten a lot of talk.

I doubt it matters one way or the other.

So far, it looks like about 280,000 Republicans have voted in the primary…compared to about 75,000 Democrats.

This one’s got “lopsided” written all over it.

246 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:17:26pm

re: #242 Belafon

It goes beyond that. He’s OK with the wealthy guy going to DC and talking directly to senators because he can afford to take the week off. And if the guy convinces senators that it’s just too expensive to have extra voting areas in poor precincts, DF’s ok with that.

Isn’t that the textbook definition of an oligarchy?

247 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:17:28pm

re: #241 HappyWarrior

Mission Accomplished.

The oil will pay for the war.

248 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:17:33pm

re: #241 HappyWarrior

Mission Accomplished.

Last throes of the insurgency!

249 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:18:05pm

re: #245 BongCrodny

I doubt it matters one way or the other.

So far, it looks like about 280,000 Republicans have voted in the primary…compared to about 75,000 Democrats.

This one’s got “lopsided” written all over it.

So if McDaniels wins, we’ll have an open Neo-Confederate in the Senate. Welcome to 2014 America.

250 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 8:18:36pm

re: #235 Kid A

Liberating Iraq will be a cakewalk!

JOYOUS IRAQIS DANCING IN THE STREETS!

251 3eff Jeff  Jun 3, 2014 8:18:37pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

This is it, isn’t it? An explanation for why you refuse to leave the Republican party. Why you periodically insist such-and-such politician or pundit are still moderates (even when it’s easy to find those guys saying crazy things). Why you insist it can still be saved from the inside. Why you discount politicians’ views on abortion when voting. All of it. You are part of the rich white guy wing of the party. As long as it stands for rich guy interests, it’s your party. It hasn’t ever really been broken for you, thus, the craziness isn’t that big a problem.

252 klys  Jun 3, 2014 8:18:39pm

re: #246 HappyWarrior

Isn’t that the textbook definition of an oligarchy?

That would be what DF essentially said he was ok with, yes.

Which, to be fair, is what the Republican party has been working towards the past few years. I just never expected to see it so blatantly stated.

253 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 8:19:03pm

re: #239 Gus

That image is just freaky as shit.

254 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:19:52pm

re: #253 jaunte

That image is just freaky as shit.

255 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:19:56pm

re: #252 klys

That would be what DF essentially said he was ok with, yes.

Which, to be fair, is what the Republican party has been working towards the past few years. I just never expected to see it so blatantly stated.

Right,. That scares me and DF’s one of their more sane ones.

256 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 8:20:08pm

re: #242 Belafon

It goes beyond that. He’s OK with the wealthy guy going to DC and talking directly to senators because he can afford to take the week off. And if the guy convinces senators that it’s just too expensive to have extra voting areas in poor precincts, DF’s ok with that.

And you’re saying he shouldn’t be able to do that? That he should be restricted in where he can travel to and to whom he can speak?

Maybe I’m reading you wrong and if I am I apologize, but I really need you to clarify what you’re arguing here.

257 Romantic Heretic  Jun 3, 2014 8:20:26pm

re: #235 Kid A

Liberating Iraq will be a cakewalk!

The war was a cakewalk. The cleanup afterwards was the tricky part. As it always is.

The chickenhawks idea of war is once the good guys win and the credits roll the whole thing is over.

Morons.

258 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:20:30pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

This should be good. Please explain how government expropriation of wealth from the rich is to be avoided at all cost while the institutionalized expropriation of wealth by the rich from all others (e.g., executive compensation) is justified.

259 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 8:20:40pm

re: #254 Gus

*MoDo fugue state*

260 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:21:39pm

re: #257 Romantic Heretic

The war was a cakewalk. The cleanup afterwards was the tricky part. As it always is.

The chickenhawks idea of war is once the good guys win and the credits roll the whole thing is over.

Morons.

Well that was what infuriated my grandfather. Seoul had been retaken by the time he got to Korea over 60 years ago but the war was far from over. Hell still isn’t technically. Chickenhawks act like what you say, good guys win and credits roll and sappy music plays.

261 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:21:56pm

re: #250 BongCrodny

JOYOUS IRAQIS DANCING IN THE STREETS!

Flowers and candy for our troops!

262 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:21:59pm

re: #246 HappyWarrior

Isn’t that the textbook definition of an oligarchy?

It certainly is. The ur-policy of conservatism is always some kind of oligarchy/aristocracy. The US version is an aristocracy of the wealthy.

263 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:22:33pm

re: #259 jaunte

*MoDo fugue state*

Left is Beyonce’s eyes, right is Katy Perry. Forgot who was the middle.

264 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:22:59pm

re: #262 EPR-radar

It certainly is. The ur-policy of conservatism is always some kind of oligarchy/aristocracy. The US version is an aristocracy of the wealthy.

At the risk of being called a red, I’d honestly take communism over that.

265 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:23:28pm

re: #256 Dark_Falcon

And you’re saying he shouldn’t be able to do that? That he should be restricted in where he can travel to and to whom he can speak?

Maybe I’m reading you wrong and if I am I apologize, but I really need you to clarify what you’re arguing here.

I think the idea is that he shouldn’t be able to use his influence to reduce the rights of other people.

266 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 8:23:42pm

re: #263 Gus

267 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:24:00pm

re: #265 calochortus

I think the idea is that he shouldn’t be able to use his influence to reduce the rights of other people.

Yes, yes this.

268 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:24:27pm
269 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 8:25:00pm

re: #265 calochortus

if the guy convinces senators that it’s just too expensive to have extra enough voting areas in poor precincts

That’s the issue.

270 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:25:43pm

re: #256 Dark_Falcon

And you’re saying he shouldn’t be able to do that? That he should be restricted in where he can travel to and to whom he can speak?

Maybe I’m reading you wrong and if I am I apologize, but I really need you to clarify what you’re arguing here.

Expenditures and contributions damn well should be limited when it comes to political activities. This is self evident. The only reason this is a live issue in the US is because of decades of blatant judicial activism by the Supreme Court to drive this money = speech madness.

271 3eff Jeff  Jun 3, 2014 8:25:59pm

re: #255 HappyWarrior

Right,. That scares me and DF’s one of their more sane ones.

That’s the narrative he presents (Yes, DF, I know you’re reading this), but as far as I can tell, that’s as far as it goes. I stopped counting him in that column a while back.

272 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:26:15pm

re: #269 jaunte

That’s the issue.

As is the wealthy individual in question using his influence to urge the cutting of things like education, infrastructure, etc. I think that’s the big concern here and given what we’ve seen, it’s a legitimate one.

273 danarchy  Jun 3, 2014 8:26:21pm

re: #231 klys

Dark, just so we’re clear: the shorter version of what you just said is “one dollar = one vote.”

I kind of agree with Dark on this one. Especially on the self financing part. We get the government we deserve and if people are dumb enough to vote for the guy with more market saturation, then that is our fault. There is still only one vote per person and all the stupid ads in the world won’t make me vote for someone whose policies I disagree with. The problem is people can’t be bothered to do a little research beyond what Ads they saw during the commercials on Dancing with the Stars, so we get the drek we deserve in office.

274 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 8:26:30pm

Dark_Falcon has literally described himself as “anti egalitarian.” This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody, he doesn’t see poor people as actually deserving equal representation under the law.

275 blueraven  Jun 3, 2014 8:27:24pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

Why don’t we just restrict voting to landowners and millionaires?

smh

276 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 8:27:35pm

re: #256 Dark_Falcon

Yes.

When it comes to dealing with government officials, there should be restrictions on what interactions they have with people specifically because they are representatives of all people.

I don’t give a shit where that rich man goes in his own private dealings. But talking to the government, giving money to an electect official is not a private dealing. Period. It is dealing with an elected representative, and the representative has restrictions on what he can and cannot do, which translates to what he can and cannot do with constituents.

It’s very much like where I work as a government contractor. There are a million rules about how I interact with government people - like I cannot buy them lunch, and if I offer catering they have to pay their part - in order to prevent even the appearance of attempting to buy influence.

Hell, I personally would go so far as to say that any meeting with a government official in any kind of official capacity is to be considered in the public interest, and public has the right to know what goes on in those meetings, national security exempted.

277 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 8:27:47pm

re: #270 EPR-radar

Expenditures and contributions damn well should be limited when it comes to political activities. This is self evident. The only reason this is a live issue in the US is because of decades of blatant judicial activism by the Supreme Court to drive this money = speech madness.

If money becomes the sole determining factor in an election, it’s *not* democracy.

278 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:28:28pm

re: #277 BongCrodny

If money becomes the sole determining factor in an election, it’s *not* democracy.

This times a 1000.

279 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:29:44pm

re: #271 3eff Jeff

That’s the narrative he presents (Yes, DF, I know you’re reading this), but as far as I can tell, that’s as far as it goes. I stopped counting him in that column a while back.

Agreed. I think its safe to say DF is not a birther, young earth creationist, or a confederate, so by that measure he’s a relatively sane Republican.

But this open support for an oligarchy really has me wondering. Flat taxes? Total deregulation of business? An end to all forms of welfare? There are all manner of extreme positions that could be held by a relatively sane Republican.

280 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 8:30:06pm

re: #265 calochortus

I think the idea is that he shouldn’t be able to use his influence to reduce the rights of other people.

Exactly this. And it’s not just explicit actions. The representative himself should not set himself up to be perceived as receiving one person’s influence as more important than anyone else they represent.

281 blueraven  Jun 3, 2014 8:31:08pm

re: #273 danarchy

I kind of agree with Dark on this one. Especially on the self financing part. We get the government we deserve and if people are dumb enough to vote for the guy with more market saturation, then that is our fault. There is still only one vote per person and all the stupid adds in the world won’t make me vote for someone whose policies I disagree with. The problem is people can’t be bothered to do a little research beyond what Ads they saw during the commercials on Dancing with the Stars, so we get the drek we deserve in office.

And if a few wealthy people own 90% of newspapers, radio stations, and TV networks, how are the little people to be heard?

This is evil talk.

282 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:31:24pm
283 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 8:31:25pm
The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him.

-President Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union (December 3, 1906)

Republicans used to understand that rich people wouldn’t fare well under anarchy. It took about 220 years for the lessons of the French Revolution to wear off.

284 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:31:27pm

Honestly allowing tons of money in the system makes it more susceptible to corruption. That also goes with why repealing the direction election of senators is an oligarhical sham too.

285 Hercules Grytpype-Thynneghazi  Jun 3, 2014 8:32:24pm

Terrorist?

286 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 8:32:27pm
287 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 8:32:40pm

Orly Taitz got 38,000 votes.

288 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:32:43pm

re: #277 BongCrodny

If money becomes the sole determining factor in an election, it’s *not* democracy.

The self-funding of campaigns is slightly less obviously anti-democratic. There have been a number of rich people who have discovered that they can’t actually buy elective office.
Nonetheless, it is something deserving of careful scrutiny.

289 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:33:09pm

re: #287 jaunte

Orly Taitz got 38,000 votes.

That’s really sad. That’s 37,999 too many votes.

290 palomino  Jun 3, 2014 8:33:29pm

re: #101 Dark_Falcon

How do you figure? Because from where I sit, restricting political spending could easily be read restricting a news corporation, since American law doesn’t make fundamental distinctions between those and other corps.

Here’s how I figure. The proposed limitation would be on campaign spending, it would basically reinstate McCain-Feingold. Were news corporations severely hampered by Mc-Fein? Did it cause the death of the 1st Amendment? Not that I remember.

Now you tell me how you figure unlimited campaign contributions don’t have a corrupting influence on our democratic system. Explain how the problem with our current politics is that there’s not enough money injected into it.

We need more lobbyists and huge donors to promote democracy? Not in this country, not on this planet.

291 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 8:33:35pm

re: #273 danarchy

I kind of agree with Dark on this one. Especially on the self financing part. We get the government we deserve and if people are dumb enough to vote for the guy with more market saturation, then that is our fault.

I don’t agree with him at all, but there is a law of diminishing returns, as evidenced by Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. It’s still deeply fucked up to allow ideas that can’t compete equally on their own merits to try and outshout those that can.

292 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:33:48pm

re: #284 HappyWarrior

Honestly allowing tons of money in the system makes it more susceptible to corruption. That also goes with why repealing the direction election of senators is an oligarhical sham too.

Repealing the 17th amendment is simply a cost cutting measure. It is cheaper and more certain for oligarchs to bribe state legislatures to select Senators than to go to the trouble of influencing statewide elections.

We have literally been there and done that, and the 17th amendment was passed as a result of the visible abuses of that era.

293 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 8:33:53pm

re: #276 Belafon

Then you make my case in my eyes. Because if the rich guy is to be restricted from meeting with senators (not about polling places, but about a trade treaty of great import to his company) then how he effectively make his case? He may well need the megaphone his money can buy him because while the treaty might not effect most people that much, it might be the difference between growth and contraction for his business.

I’ll go you one better: What about a union whose workers work for that same business? The way that amendment would work, said union would have no rights save those extended to it by law. If the government wanted, it could dissolve the union and expropriate its local offices.

294 3eff Jeff  Jun 3, 2014 8:34:34pm

re: #287 jaunte

Orly Taitz got 38,000 votes.

Her entry in the voter guide was definitely the most entertaining. I lost count of how many times she used the word nullification.

295 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:34:54pm

re: #282 Gus

Gus! Tweet ZZ Top, Taliban?

296 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:34:58pm

re: #288 calochortus

The self-funding of campaigns is slightly less obviously anti-democratic. There have been a number of rich people who have discovered that they can’t actually buy elective office.
Nonetheless, it is something deserving of careful scrutiny.

Also very true. Too often you see wealthy businessmen or whatever who want a new game and they try their hand at politics and they’re not very good at actually governing but they’re great at electioneering because they’ve got tons of cash and connections due to their business background. The system as is favors an individual like that rather than the modest man or woman of modest means who simply wants to improve their community.

297 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 8:35:14pm

re: #293 Dark_Falcon

Tell me how a poor person would make his case.

ETA: Because, while the rich person may not be able to sleep under the bridge either, he doesn’t have to worry about choosing between feeding his kids and flying to DC.

298 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 8:36:03pm

re: #292 EPR-radar

Repealing the 17th amendment is simply a cost cutting measure. It is cheaper and more certain for oligarchs to bribe state legislatures to select Senators than to go to the trouble of influencing statewide elections.

We have literally been there and done that, and the 17th amendment was passed as a result of the visible abuses of that era.

To be very clear: I have never proposed, nor do I support, the repeal of the 17th Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution.

299 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:36:11pm

re: #292 EPR-radar

Repealing the 17th amendment is simply a cost cutting measure. It is cheaper and more certain for oligarchs to bribe state legislatures to select Senators than to go to the trouble of influencing statewide elections.

We have literally been there and done that, and the 17th amendment was passed as a result of the visible abuses of that era.

Yep.

300 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:36:51pm

re: #298 Dark_Falcon

To be very clear: I have never proposed, nor do I support, the repeal of the 17th Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution.

We’re not talking about you supporting that. We are talking though about how a great many self described conservatives do support doing that and that is a form of the oligarhical society that they seek we are criticizing.

301 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:37:14pm
302 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:38:19pm

re: #301 Gus

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

303 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 8:38:27pm

re: #293 Dark_Falcon

Then you make my case in my eyes. Because if the rich guy is to be restricted from meeting with senators (not about polling places, but about a trade treaty of great import to his company) then how he effectively make his case?

He can write to them. He can talk to them. He can have his lawyers and marketing people send research materials, etc. What he shouldn’t be able to do is give the politician more than what a middle class family can afford to spend on influencing legislation, let alone spending more than it costs that family to put four children through college.

304 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:38:30pm

re: #296 HappyWarrior

Also very true. Too often you see wealthy businessmen or whatever who want a new game and they try their hand at politics and they’re not very good at actually governing but they’re great at electioneering because they’ve got tons of cash and connections due to their business background. The system as is favors an individual like that rather than the modest man or woman of modest means who simply wants to improve their community.

A person of modest means would have to work their way up through political offices from dogcatcher on up. Excellent training for higher elective office. Money seems to allow one to shorten then path but not evade it entirely under most circumstances.

305 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:39:20pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

Rich people need to be obliged to make the economic system work well enough that government expropriation of their wealth is not a major political risk.

They are currently not doing an acceptable job of this, and facilitating their influence on elections with mountains of cash is profoundly unhelpful. This only facilitates further economic distortion and increases the risk of a revolution where everyone loses.

306 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:39:57pm

re: #301 Gus

How about a picture of Jesus? Taliban?

307 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:40:00pm

re: #304 calochortus

A person of modest means would have to work their way up through political offices from dogcatcher on up. Excellent training for higher elective office. Money seems to allow one to shorten then path but not evade it entirely under most circumstances.

Right, this is my point. The post Citizens United world favors that wealthy businessman who sees politics more as a leisurely activity because he wants something new in his life outside running a business more so than the person genuinely interested in making their district, state, etc a better place for the average person.

308 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:40:24pm

re: #301 Gus

[Embedded content]

I always loved how ZZ Top has a member with the surname Beard who has never rocked the beard.

309 TedStriker  Jun 3, 2014 8:40:42pm

re: #279 EPR-radar

Agreed. I think its safe to say DF is not a birther, young earth creationist, or a confederate, so by that measure he’s a relatively sane Republican.

But this open support for an oligarchy really has me wondering. Flat taxes? Total deregulation of business? An end to all forms of welfare? There are all manner of extreme positions that could be held by a relatively sane Republican.

The GOP is really, really good at getting willfully ignorant dullards their “core” voters to repeatedly vote against their own self-interests and continue to vote that way for life.

Thing is, IIRC, Dark’s not even close to rich; he, like many of us, is a poor schlub a couple of missed paychecks away from disaster.

310 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:40:45pm

re: #298 Dark_Falcon

To be very clear: I have never proposed, nor do I support, the repeal of the 17th Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Bravo. What do you plan to do about it when repeal of the 17th amendment becomes part of the GOP platform, as seems inevitable?

311 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:40:52pm

re: #293 Dark_Falcon

Then you make my case in my eyes. Because if the rich guy is to be restricted from meeting with senators (not about polling places, but about a trade treaty of great import to his company) then how he effectively make his case? He may well need the megaphone his money can buy him because while the treaty might not effect most people that much, it might be the difference between growth and contraction for his business.

I’ll go you one better: What about a union whose workers work for that same business? The way that amendment would work, said union would have no rights save those extended to it by law. If the government wanted, it could dissolve the union and expropriate its local offices.

And people who aren’t rich don’t have interests and needs? How will they make their case? Something that might impact their family and community for generations to come.

312 Gus  Jun 3, 2014 8:40:55pm

re: #306 Kid A

How about a picture of Jesus? Taliban?

I dunno. Jesus and religion and all that.

313 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 8:41:18pm

It still seems weird that MS has 1.5 million fewer people than my county.

314 klys  Jun 3, 2014 8:42:27pm

re: #293 Dark_Falcon

Then you make my case in my eyes. Because if the rich guy is to be restricted from meeting with senators (not about polling places, but about a trade treaty of great import to his company) then how he effectively make his case? He may well need the megaphone his money can buy him because while the treaty might not effect most people that much, it might be the difference between growth and contraction for his business.

I’ll go you one better: What about a union whose workers work for that same business? The way that amendment would work, said union would have no rights save those extended to it by law. If the government wanted, it could dissolve the union and expropriate its local offices.

LOL.

315 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:42:27pm

re: #313 jaunte

[Embedded content]

It still seems weird that MS has 1.5 million fewer people than my county.

Now you know how I felt when Sarah Palin who governed a state smaller population wise than my home county for a mere year plus was touted as more experienced than a Senator who was first elected in the early 70’s.

316 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 8:42:43pm

re: #306 Kid A

How about a picture of Jesus? Taliban?

317 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:43:24pm

re: #311 calochortus

And people who aren’t rich don’t have interests and needs? How will they make their case? Something that might impact their family and community for generations to come.

Oh, and what if the CEO meeting with his senator wants to reduce regulations that will have a negative impact on local health or employment or whatever. Is that OK too?

318 Kid A  Jun 3, 2014 8:43:29pm
319 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 8:43:34pm

re: #293 Dark_Falcon

I’ll go you one better: What about a union whose workers work for that same business? The way that amendment would work, said union would have no rights save those extended to it by law. If the government wanted, it could dissolve the union and expropriate its local offices.

They can do that now, if the Union’s leadership is found to be endemically criminal. Same as any corporation unions can be prosecuted under RICO statues. There’s nothing in the amendment that would allow the government to capriciously dissolve a corporation without cause, as in a bill of attainder, because its constituent members and shareholders would still hold individual rights to free association and equal protection under the law. Your reading is flat wrong.

320 jaunte  Jun 3, 2014 8:44:02pm

re: #318 Kid A

No one with a nose light could be Taliban.

321 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:45:34pm

re: #303 goddamnedfrank

He can write to them. He can talk to them. He can have his lawyers and marketing people send research materials, etc. What he shouldn’t be able to do is give the politician more than what a middle class family can afford to spend on influencing legislation, let alone spending more than it costs that family to put four children through college.

A rich guy can send off a contribution to an issues PAC that is more in a single donation than most people can hope to accumulate in an entire lifetime. This same contribution can easily be a completely insignificant fraction of the rich guy’s wealth.

I have a big problem with this scenario.

I can barely accept the existence of such levels of wealth disparity. I totally refuse to accept that these differences in power should be brought to bear on politics without significant restriction.

322 klys  Jun 3, 2014 8:46:51pm

re: #321 EPR-radar

A rich guy can send off a contribution to an issues PAC that is more in a single donation than most people can hope to accumulate in an entire lifetime. This same contribution can easily be a completely insignificant fraction of the rich guy’s wealth.

I have a big problem with this scenario.

I can barely accept the existence of such levels of wealth disparity. I totally refuse to accept that these differences in power should be brought to bear on politics without significant restriction.

Yes, we must all remember the poor oppressed lot of the rich person under the previous campaign finance laws, where they had zero influence and we were one step short of the communist utopia.

//

323 Renaissance_Man  Jun 3, 2014 8:47:06pm

re: #293 Dark_Falcon

Then you make my case in my eyes. Because if the rich guy is to be restricted from meeting with senators (not about polling places, but about a trade treaty of great import to his company) then how he effectively make his case? He may well need the megaphone his money can buy him because while the treaty might not effect most people that much, it might be the difference between growth and contraction for his business.

So what happens when his business is illegal, immoral, predatory, or against the best interests of the public or the nation? What happens when the rich guy uses the megaphone his money buys him to subvert the national interest and harm the public to enrich himself?

That’s the natural consequence of an oligarchy - a governmental system that benefits only the powerful few and harms the nation and the people as a whole. It is contrary to the very idea of democracy, and contrary to the founding ideals of the United States. It is the same sort of feudalism that people once came to the USA to free themselves from.

You seem to inexplicably believe that the wealthy need to be protected from some rapacious government, that it is they who are most vulnerable. If they were vulnerable or weak, they would not be wealthy and powerful. Wealth already buys access to power. Decisions like Citizens United only gives wealth even more power. The wealthy and powerful do not need your sympathy and protection.

I used to think that you simply did not consider the consequences of the sophomoric political and intellectual positions you pretend to have, that you were simply rationalising in order to support your team. I am not so sure any more.

324 TedStriker  Jun 3, 2014 8:47:50pm

re: #322 klys

Yes, we must all remember the poor oppressed lot of the rich person under the previous campaign finance laws, where they had zero influence and we were one step short of the communist utopia.

//

“It was…that close!”

///

325 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:48:27pm

re: #321 EPR-radar

A rich guy can send off a contribution to an issues PAC that is more in a single donation than most people can hope to accumulate in an entire lifetime. This same contribution can easily be a completely insignificant fraction of the rich guy’s wealth.

I have a big problem with this scenario.

I can barely accept the existence of such levels of wealth disparity. I totally refuse to accept that these differences in power should be brought to bear on politics without significant restriction.

This is my problem too. it just rubs me the wrong way that someone can donate about if not more than what I’ll make in a lifetime to an issue PAC. And like yourself, the wealth disparity is something that is hard enough as to swallow. I mean to me the way these decisions are written, it blatantly favors those with more money than those who don’t and I don’t think that’s democratic at all.

326 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:48:41pm

re: #324 TedStriker

I can almost see the tear in your eye.
//

327 Romantic Heretic  Jun 3, 2014 8:49:21pm

re: #291 goddamnedfrank

I don’t agree with him at all, but there is a law of diminishing returns, as evidenced by Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. It’s still deeply fucked up to allow ideas that can’t compete equally on their own merits to try and outshout those that can.

That’s what being able to pour money into politics is, shouting people down.

Just like the Fascists and Communists did at political gatherings at before WWII.

328 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 8:49:35pm

The thing is that if the party roles were reversed, if Democrats were the smaller party with wealthy backers facing demographic extinction and Republicans actually were a “big tent,” then D_F’s position would be reversed. There’s absolutely zero principal behind his stance. It’s pure cynical gamesmanship demanded by his gang loyalty to the GOP as a brand, small d democracy be damned.

329 Belafon  Jun 3, 2014 8:51:32pm

re: #314 klys

Yep. As compared to businesses that undermine unions because they have way more power than employees

330 GeneJockey  Jun 3, 2014 8:51:37pm

re: #328 goddamnedfrank

The thing is that if the party roles were reverse, if Democrats were the smaller party with wealth backers facing demographic extinction and Republicans actually were a “big tent,” then D_F’s position would be reverse. There’s absolutely zero principal behind his stance. It’s pure cynical gamesmanship demanded by his gang loyalty to the GOP as a brand, small d democracy be damned.

Indeed. I figure the quickest way to get the GOP behind this Amendment is for a couple Democratic billionaires to start slinging cash like the Kochs and Adelsons. Think their reaction to Soros, but times about 10-100.

331 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 8:51:46pm

re: #298 Dark_Falcon

To be very clear: I have never proposed, nor do I support, the repeal of the 17th Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution.

While we’re dealing with basic questions, lets go to the starting point of conservatism as a political concept:

Is the basis for your worldview a complete repudiation of the French Revolution and everything it stood for?

332 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:53:45pm

re: #330 GeneJockey

Indeed. I figure the quickest way to get the GOP behind this Amendment is for a couple Democratic billionaires to start slinging cash like the Kochs and Adelsons. Think their reaction to Soros, but times about 10-100.

If that happened, the Republicans would be the first in line demanding campaign finance reform. I was thinking similar to Frank when i wondered aloud about the unions having hypothetically the amount of influence and money they did in the past in the present.

333 palomino  Jun 3, 2014 8:55:14pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

You may think you believe in democracy but you don’t.

And you’re a tool for people who don’t give a shit about you, even if you do vote for their party. You actually think that rich people should have more say than you do?

Well, then maybe you should start agreeing with all my posts, or at least defering more to my wisdom, because I’m fairly sure I’ve got a lot more money than you do. Remember from now on: palomino is your better, your superior because he has a bigger portfolio than you do. By comparison to me, you’re a peasant and don’t count. Remember your place.

334 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 8:55:23pm

This is going to be the last thing I say on this issue tonight:

I’d actually be fine with a Constitutional Amendment that effectively stated:

“Corporations, unions, voluntary organizations, etc are not persons, but because the investments, dues, and donations that create them are the property of persons and because they thus represent the interests of persons they therefore have some rights regarding property and speech.”

Obviously, we’d need to figure out how to state what those rights were and where they differed from the rights of persons, but that sort of amendment would in my opinion protect everyone’s interests best.

335 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 8:55:50pm

re: #311 calochortus

And people who aren’t rich don’t have interests and needs? How will they make their case? Something that might impact their family and community for generations to come.

Poor people are small, with small problems. That’s the mentality. The fact that life and death very literally hang in their budgetary calculus is immaterial. If they were worth more they’d be worth more.

Greed is good. Abject selfism of the ruling class trumps petty, plebeian concerns.

336 The Ghost of a Flea  Jun 3, 2014 8:56:35pm

Yeah.

Let’s not neglect that corporations and the wealthy solicit politicians to buy access to larger opportunities via tax breaks/grants/loans/government contracts, and/or to nationalize losses—environmental cleanup, bailouts.

Oh yeah, and to keep common wealth—air quality, water quality—devalued.

The “views” of the wealthy are not magically revenue neutral deeply-felt convictions. They’re trying to maximize value derived from the government, not just keep their own money. They pay millions to be heard, obtain billions from deals made, and often…in the case of drilling rights, grazing rights, timber rights, etc. leave a giant fucking mess that others have to pay to mop up.

And yet anyone else trying to profit from government institutions: the poor, the union laborers, it’s communism.

337 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 8:57:52pm

re: #335 goddamnedfrank

Poor people are small, with small problems. That’s the mentality. The fact that life and death very literally hang in their budgetary calculus is immaterial. If they were worth more they’d be worth more.

Greed is good. Abject selfism of the ruling class trumps petty, plebeian concerns.

And yet, if the inequality is too great, everyone suffers. Even the wealthy don’t have the same quality of life they would in a more democratic country.
Unless, of course, having others suffering somehow improves your life.

338 GeneJockey  Jun 3, 2014 8:59:15pm

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

I have a major problem with that. I don’t see a rich person having more influence as being problem, in fact I see it as a good thing. Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Moreover, if someone is willing to self-finance their political campaign, then in my opinion they should be able to do so to the extent that they are willing and able. If the less well-funded candidate gets snowed under as a result, then too darn bad. I don’t think that person has a right to have the law hobble a wealthy opponent for him just because he hasn’t got as much money.

This has to be one of the most elitist, least democratic, most anti-liberty things it has ever been my distinct DISpleasure to read. It is nothing more or less than a call for Plutocracy.

339 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 8:59:17pm

Hell if you ask me, the ideal conservative society is basically making a devout Communist’s arguments for him.

340 BongCrodny  Jun 3, 2014 9:00:45pm

Cochran-McDaniel is still neck and neck — 95% in and only about 1,000 votes separating the two.

341 klys  Jun 3, 2014 9:01:55pm

re: #334 Dark_Falcon

This is going to be the last thing I say on this issue tonight:

I’d actually be fine with a Constitutional Amendment that effectively stated:

“Corporations, unions, voluntary organizations, etc are not persons, but because the investments, dues, and donations that create them are the property of persons and because they thus represent the interests of persons they therefore have some rights regarding property and speech.”

Obviously, we’d need to figure out how to state what those rights were and where they differed from the rights of persons, but that sort of amendment would in my opinion protect everyone’s interests best.

You won’t answer it, of course, but I’m curious how things were deficient before Citizens United, in your eyes.

342 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 9:02:12pm

re: #338 GeneJockey

This has to be one of the most elitist, least democratic, most anti-liberty things it has ever been my distinct DISpleasure to read. It is nothing more or less than a call for Plutocracy.

It is refreshing in its honesty. Scrape away the irrational bullshit and mindless slogans of today’s GOP and one is left with the distilled essence of evil that is naked Plutocracy.

It is precisely for this reason that the GOP engages in its culture war bullshit, because there are very few non-Plutocrats who will vote for this obscenity.

343 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 9:03:32pm

re: #337 calochortus

And yet, if the inequality is too great, everyone suffers. Even the wealthy don’t have the same quality of life they would in a more democratic country.
Unless, of course, having others suffering somehow improves your life.

France. 1789. ‘nuff said.

344 calochortus  Jun 3, 2014 9:05:22pm

Good night, all. Hasta mañana.

345 GeneJockey  Jun 3, 2014 9:05:40pm

Here’s the thing - Money will ALWAYS be Power. The goal of a Republic is, where the authority of the Government derives from the consent of the GOVERNED, is to continually guard against the inevitable accrual of power and wealth, because NEITHER is good for the country as a whole.
.

346 Backwoods_Sleuth  Jun 3, 2014 9:06:08pm

re: #340 BongCrodny

Cochran-McDaniel is still neck and neck — 95% in and only about 1,000 votes separating the two.

347 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 9:06:28pm

re: #341 klys

You won’t answer it, of course, but I’m curious how things were deficient before Citizens United, in your eyes.

Citizens United is the bestest Supreme Court decision ever! It pisses off liberals!!

348 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 9:09:29pm

D_F’s entire political philosophy is the result of his father and most of his father’s family being Republican, he’s admitted this. There’s zero real independent thought or analysis going on because in his mind to rebel against the GOP allegiance is to reject the closest people to him. It’s pure local sport’s team / gang mentality, it’s Hatfield / McCoy, Montague / Capulet. Rejecting what the GOP has become would literally be viewed as a family betrayal.

349 Dark_Falcon  Jun 3, 2014 9:09:53pm

re: #331 EPR-radar

While we’re dealing with basic questions, lets go to the starting point of conservatism as a political concept:

Is the basis for your worldview a complete repudiation of the French Revolution and everything it stood for?

Short Answer: No. If you’re referring to Edmund Burke, that wasn’t his worldview either. He favored the non-absolutist British system, where people had rights the government had to respect, rather than the absolutist French monarchy.

But that’s it on the French Revolution for now. We could easily spend half a day discussing if it really stood for everything it claimed to stand for, about the reactions to it in other nations, and about how modern ideologies relate to the French Revolution and the responses to it.

350 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 9:10:13pm

re: #348 goddamnedfrank

D_F’s entire political philosophy is the result of his father and most of his father’s family being a Republican, he’s admitted this. There’s zero real independent thought or analysis going on because in his mind to rebel against the GOP allegiance is to reject the closest people to him. It’s pure local sport’s team / gang mentality, it’s Hatfield / McCoy, Montague / Capulet. Rejecting what the GOP has become would literally be viewed as a family betrayal.

Silliest damn thing I ever heard of.

351 goddamnedfrank  Jun 3, 2014 9:12:59pm

re: #341 klys

You won’t answer it, of course, but I’m curious how things were deficient before Citizens United, in your eyes.

It’s wasn’t an issue because Robert’s Court hadn’t yet cooked it up out of whole cloth. The ruling is a defensive adaptation, the Republican Party evolving to try and compete in a modern world where their hateful, bigoted, revanchist bullshit no longer sold well. They don’t change the horrible ideologies that are the problem, but instead just try to find ways to game the system for as long as possible.

352 EPR-radar  Jun 3, 2014 9:15:36pm

re: #351 goddamnedfrank

It’s wasn’t an issue because Robert’s Court hadn’t yet cooked it up out of whole cloth. The ruling is a defensive adaptation, the Republican Party evolving to try and compete in a modern world where their hateful, bigoted, revanchist bullshit no longer sold well. They don’t change the horrible ideologies that are the problem, but instead just try to find ways to game the system for as long as possible.

For example, I fully expect to see any swing states or blue states whose voters are stupid enough to let the GOP retain power at the state level in the 2014 midterms to find ways to give the GOP candidate in 2016 electoral votes.

It will be interesting to see how apologists and hacks at NRO and elsewhere try to spin that abomination.

353 GeneJockey  Jun 3, 2014 9:20:42pm

re: #352 EPR-radar

For example, I fully expect to see any swing states or blue states whose voters are stupid enough to let the GOP retain power at the state level in the 2014 midterms to find ways to give the GOP candidate in 2016 electoral votes.

It will be interesting to see how apologists and hacks at NRO and elsewhere try to spin that abomination.

In 2000, when it looked like Gore might lose the popular vote but win the EC, there were calls on the right to get rid of that antiquated hangover from the past. When the exact opposite happened, suddenly it became a revered institution willed to us by those incredibly wise Founding Fathers.

It really is all about power. All their talk of principles is just to fool themselves and, with luck, others.

354 palomino  Jun 3, 2014 9:23:22pm

re: #338 GeneJockey

This has to be one of the most elitist, least democratic, most anti-liberty things it has ever been my distinct DISpleasure to read. It is nothing more or less than a call for Plutocracy.

True, it’s a deeply distubing sentiment from someone who claims to believe in democracy. Just a repugnant statement on its face. Like Romney’s 47% comments on steroids.

I don’t know how you square the modern conception of democracy with a philosophy of “some of us are more equal than others.”

355 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 9:23:35pm

re: #353 GeneJockey

In 2000, when it looked like Gore might lose the popular vote but win the EC, there were calls on the right to get rid of that antiquated hangover from the past. When the exact opposite happened, suddenly it became a revered institution willed to us by those incredibly wise Founding Fathers.

It really is all about power. All their talk of principles is just to fool themselves and, with luck, others.

I do remember that. Another example of that is how so many of them loved the idea of term limits on the presidency after FDR kicked their asses four times in a row but the second that Reagan was about to leave office, it was time to consider repealing that amendment. I guess this gets back to my age old struggle with the chicken/egg question of politics about who being worse the sincere true believing nut or the opportunist and I’ve come to believe that the latter, the power seeking opportunist is the worst which is why ultimately I have more disdain politically speaking for John McCain than I do a Ted Cruz though of course Cruz himself is also an opportunist.

356 Single-handed sailor  Jun 3, 2014 9:34:15pm

re: #355 HappyWarrior

.. and repeal natural citizenship requirement for President when Ahnold won CA Governor.

357 HappyWarrior  Jun 3, 2014 9:36:26pm

re: #356 Single-handed sailor

.. and repeal natural citizenship requirement for President when Ahnold won CA Governor.

Good memory, yes. I do recall Novak pushing that.

358 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Jun 4, 2014 3:06:53am

re: #349 Dark_Falcon

Short Answer: No. If you’re referring to Edmund Burke, that wasn’t his worldview either. He favored the non-absolutist British system, where people had rights the government had to respect, rather than the absolutist French monarchy.

But that’s it on the French Revolution for now. We could easily spend half a day discussing if it really stood for everything it claimed to stand for, about the reactions to it in other nations, and about how modern ideologies relate to the French Revolution and the responses to it.

Burke would have thought the modern GOP was horrifyingly insane, especially for the government shutdown.

359 Ding-an-sich Wannabe  Jun 4, 2014 8:33:42am

re: #205 Dark_Falcon

Rich people need more influence in order to keep others from using the government to expropriate their wealth.

Commies would love your caricature view of capitalism.

360 funky chicken  Jun 4, 2014 11:25:34am

re: #6 jaunte

Mad has been struggling for years.
(From 2001)

For Mad, a Reason to Worry; Struggling for Relevance in Sarcastic World

I didn’t know it still existed. Now I can forget about it again.

361 funky chicken  Jun 4, 2014 11:31:33am

re: #214 HappyWarrior

Is there at least a decent Dem running in Mississippi? Haven’t heard as much about that unlike Kentucky where Grimes has gotten a lot of talk.

Excellent question. I hope the dems nominate somebody … Sane. One hopes that’s all it would take.

362 funky chicken  Jun 4, 2014 11:41:08am

re: #169 goddamnedfrank

Why would anybody want something that Maureen Dowd has ingested?

Every imaginable variation of how that would work is disgusting.

Well some people pay extra for this coffee.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh