Mad Magazine Goes Full Metal Wingnut
And it’s not even funny. At all. No humor in evidence.
I really hope this kind of crude, humorless pandering isn’t what we can expect from Mad Magazine, going forward. And I say that as a life-long fan.
And it’s not even funny. At all. No humor in evidence.
I really hope this kind of crude, humorless pandering isn’t what we can expect from Mad Magazine, going forward. And I say that as a life-long fan.
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 |
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.
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.”
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.
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:
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 |
Conservative media keep suggesting that Obama be impeached over rescue of POW: http://t.co/fm0igMemzR— Media Matters (@mmfa) June 4, 2014
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.
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, 2002POTRZEBIE, 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.
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 |
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?
34 | Charles Johnson Jun 3, 2014 6:23:10pm |
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!
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?
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?
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.
UNBELEIVABLE #DontRepeal1A - 42 Democrats today voted to repeal the 1st Amendment. I guess ALL Democrats want to retire in 2014…
— Keep it going2 (@OKiAMlearning2) June 4, 2014
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…
60 | Kid A Jun 3, 2014 6:34:16pm |
@AbbarnoGirl @TPM You're aware of how the amendment process works, right?
— Eric Christian Smith (@ericphototx) June 4, 2014
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 |
@amandacarpenter Repeal of the first amendment requires 2/3 Congress; 3/4 states to ratify. In other words: impossible. #wingnutdelusions
— Eric Christian Smith (@ericphototx) June 4, 2014
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 |
They're going to repeal the 1st the same day they come for the guns and send people to FEMA camps @ericphototx @amandacarpenter— Kragar (@Kragar_LGF) June 4, 2014
69 | Shazam Jun 3, 2014 6:41:18pm |
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?
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.
77 | blueraven Jun 3, 2014 6:45:17pm |
wow Mississippi Senate primary w/32% of vote
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.
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.
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
Thad Cochran (Inc.) 37,230 50%
Chris McDaniel 36,624 49%
Damn Cochran holding over 50%, if Neo-Confederate nursing home raider can't win in Mississippi, seriously, where can they?
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) June 4, 2014
90 | Decatur Deb Jun 3, 2014 6:58:07pm |
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 getdidn’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:
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:
New York Times headline: “MEXICAN FAMILY GO INSANE.; Five Said to Have Been Stricken by Eating Marihuana” http://t.co/Hp5Ukroflh
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 4, 2014
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 |
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 |
Just drank a beer, but it doesn't seem to have done anything. So I'm now drinking the whole case. We'll see!
— Philip Bump (@pbump) June 4, 2014
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 |
MoDo was somewhere around Barstow at the edge of the desert when the drugs kicked in. Suddenly, the sky was filled with Barry Obama….
— Jeff Fecke (@jkfecke) June 4, 2014
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 |
Awesome patriotic Idaho beard not at all Talibanish pic.twitter.com/VQLoK8Ci0O— David Waldman (@KagroX) June 4, 2014
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
Next Maureen Dowd column: pic.twitter.com/c7rHwYxldL— pourmecoffee (@pourmecoffee) June 4, 2014
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 |
Works well: “Leave no one behind” Doesn’t work well: Armchair national security experts determine who gets left behind and who doesn’t— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) June 3, 2014
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:
Fox Host: Bob Bergdahl looks “like a member of the Taliban” (VIDEO) http://t.co/CVQWOAUrc9 pic.twitter.com/UOoNgAqpRm— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 3, 2014
121 | Lidane Jun 3, 2014 7:27:43pm |
More context:
O'Reilly bashes Bergdahl's dad: He “looks like a Muslim” (VIDEO) http://t.co/egqnxjlent— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 3, 2014
122 | teleskiguy Jun 3, 2014 7:28:38pm |
They should put all the NYT op-ed columnists up in a big suite in Denver and have them all get high together.— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 4, 2014
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.
124 | Dark_Falcon Jun 3, 2014 7:31:32pm |
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 |
If @NYTDowd drank a handle of whiskey and ended up in the ER, would anyone consider a column blaming Jack Daniels credible?
— Taylor West (@Taylor_West) June 4, 2014
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 |
“If you think about it, we're ALL strapped to the roof of Mitt Romney's car, in a way.” — high Gail Collins
— Dan Amira (@DanAmira) June 4, 2014
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:
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 |
So what have we learned here? Long beard, marryin' underage girls and dissing gays and black people? Christian goodness…— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) June 4, 2014
Long beard and learning foreign languages including Pashto in support of Army sergeant son? Taliban. Got it?— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) June 4, 2014
135 | Decatur Deb Jun 3, 2014 7:37:04pm |
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 |
Pretty sure Obama didn't negotiate Bowe Bergdahl's release so Maureen Dowd could go on a Magical Mystery Tour in a drugs motel. #420NO— rob delaney (@robdelaney) June 4, 2014
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 |
148 | Gus Jun 3, 2014 7:41:08pm |
First they were mad Obama didn't rescue our guys, then they're mad Obama rescued a guy. It's like they're just mad. Or nuts. Or mad nuts— Jim Wright (@Stonekettle) June 3, 2014
My hate-mail is AMAZING. It appears I have enraged every @BarackObama hater in the world. So, good day all around. Woohoo!— Jim Wright (@Stonekettle) June 3, 2014
149 | jaunte Jun 3, 2014 7:42:29pm |
Cochran at 50.4% w 74% of vote in. He needs to break 50% to avoid run-off. #mssen #allcomesdowntoturnout
— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) June 4, 2014
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.
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 |
Commentary has lifted its pay wall. You can read for free my article against legalizing the pot Maureen Dowd ingested http://t.co/Oz5DNKeqUD— David Frum (@davidfrum) June 4, 2014
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.
What the fuck is in the water down there, anyway?
158 | Backwoods_Sleuth Jun 3, 2014 7:45:35pm |
In Iowa tonight:
Yes, seriously. A floating car in #CouncilBluffs, as sent in by @melaniexyz and others. #IAwx http://t.co/eH82pW5am3 pic.twitter.com/ubzxAcEHgm
— Daily Nonpareil (@nonpareilonline) June 4, 2014
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 |
Terrorist? pic.twitter.com/7OfWexyAm1— Gus (@Gus_802) June 4, 2014
162 | HappyWarrior Jun 3, 2014 7:47:05pm |
re: #157 BongCrodny
Ooh, he’s a neo-Confederate, too?
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 |
2009: Krakauer Explores Pat Tillman's Death And Cover-Up http://t.co/gJrMc8TueM— Gus (@Gus_802) June 4, 2014
165 | BongCrodny Jun 3, 2014 7:47:48pm |
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.
167 | Charles Johnson Jun 3, 2014 7:48:45pm |
Commentary has lifted its pay wall. You can read for free my article against legalizing the pot Maureen Dowd ingested http://t.co/Oz5DNKeqUD— David Frum (@davidfrum) June 4, 2014
Triple facepalm.
168 | thedopefishlives Jun 3, 2014 7:48:50pm |
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
175 | Charles Johnson Jun 3, 2014 7:50:07pm |
@D_v_E @QuadCityPat @Green_Footballs or maybe some of us have kids who read our twitter account or take complaints abt bad language srsly.— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) June 4, 2014
@D_v_E @QuadCityPat @Green_Footballs but don't let me get in the way of you guys giggling like 12 year olds about how cool you are— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) June 4, 2014
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%
178 | Gus Jun 3, 2014 7:50:54pm |
179 | Kragar Jun 3, 2014 7:51:08pm |
Texas ‘open carry’ advocate can’t admit that people with assault rifles might be scary http://t.co/exTfBK7iCT— Kragar (@Kragar_LGF) June 4, 2014
180 | Skip Intro Jun 3, 2014 7:51:08pm |
re: #166 HappyWarrior
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 |
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.
According to @WoodhouseAuto, 4500 vehicles pummeled by hail in Blair, NE. Over $152 million dollars of inventory. pic.twitter.com/oDsIdsoS0K
— SevereStudios (@severestudios) June 4, 2014
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 |
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.
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 |
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?!
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.
209 | Backwoods_Sleuth Jun 3, 2014 8:04:26pm |
My cat is sad because he is stardust, he is golden, and he's got to get himself back to the garden. pic.twitter.com/jmqzWKoKgK
— WHY MY CAT IS SAD (@MYSADCAT) June 3, 2014
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
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.”
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.
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!
230 | HappyWarrior Jun 3, 2014 8:12:19pm |
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 |
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.
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 |
239 | Gus Jun 3, 2014 8:15:58pm |
Taliban? pic.twitter.com/qjg7fr0Fo5— Gus (@Gus_802) June 4, 2014
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 |
Taliban? pic.twitter.com/U6mGQzxW1m— Gus (@Gus_802) June 4, 2014
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 |
248 | Kid A Jun 3, 2014 8:17:33pm |
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 |
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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 |
Taliban? pic.twitter.com/UzIimv4Ccd— Gus (@Gus_802) June 4, 2014
269 | jaunte Jun 3, 2014 8:25:00pm |
re: #265 calochortus
if the guy convinces senators that it’s just too expensive to have
extraenough 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 |
Taliban? pic.twitter.com/qMvAE4kqyF— Gus (@Gus_802) June 4, 2014
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.
286 | Backwoods_Sleuth Jun 3, 2014 8:32:27pm |
Historic confirmation today: Keith Harper will be US Rep. to @UN Human Rights Council & the 1st Native American to serve as a US Ambassador.
— Samantha Power (@AmbassadorPower) June 4, 2014
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 |
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.
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 |
Taliban? pic.twitter.com/rw0QntbAWW— Gus (@Gus_802) June 4, 2014
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.
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 |
313 | jaunte Jun 3, 2014 8:41:18pm |
The exceptionally ugly MS R Senate race may not be over. Cochran & McDaniel both below 50%. Runoff could be required. Prediction: Uglier.
— John Nichols (@NicholsUprising) June 4, 2014
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?
“Find the Muslim Sympathizer” - Play the home version of the hot new Republican game show! #BoweBergdahl pic.twitter.com/Sfil2DlqNC
— clydetheslyde (@clydetheslyde) June 4, 2014
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 |
@Gus_802 Taliban? pic.twitter.com/jRCBrgeGgH— Eric Christian Smith (@ericphototx) June 4, 2014
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.
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.
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.
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.
#MISSISSIPPI MT @EWagsterPettus: 0 precincts reporting from Covington Co. Election commissioner is home in bed & can't give us numbers.
— Molly Ball (@mollyesque) June 4, 2014
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.