A Choke Hold on Justice

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report of a statement from Justice Prosser denying the allegations, followed by a report that Justice Bradley has affirmed that a physical altercation took place and disputed the assertions of others that the contact was incidental.

http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2011/06/25/prosser-allegedly-grabbed-fellow-justice-by-the-neck/

Justice David Prosser has a history of gynophobia.

David Prosser exploded at Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson behind closed doors, calling her a "bitch" and threatening to "destroy" her.

He even went so far to correct his name calling. He said -- "I said, 'You are a total bitch."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/wis-justice-prosser-i-called-chief-justice-a-bitch-but-i-think-it-was-entirely-warranted.php

Worse, Greta Van Sustern says Justice Ann Walsh Bradley should step down.

And while I have no idea who is off the wall (Justice Prosser or Justice Walsh or both), I do know one thing, CHIEF JUSTICE SHIRLEY ABRAHAMSON sure is not doing her job to lead the court and to give confidence to the people of Wisconsin. She needs to step aside and let someone else attempt to run that zoo. (And by the way, this is not the first instance of weird behavior…they have verbally insulted each other…snitched to the media in secret emails…oh brother, it is so weird! Who is running that court????!!!)

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/quote/he-put-his-hands-around-my-neck-in-anger/

Yup, Fox deceives 24/7 for the people to believe!!!

Mind you, Wisconsin is the state which illegally jammed a procedure through without all Assembly members present.

The Gop/T-baggers will do anything to stifle democracy withe aiding and abating of FOX NOISE and Koch money.

It is a shame the Gop/T-baggers are holding America hostage because they want tax cuts for the rich.

Well, what a shocker: another Democrook Illinois governor is relocating his residence to a federal prison cell. That makes four Illinois governor’s in the last 40 years to end up in a federal penitentiary (three Dems, one Rep). Is there something in the water that causes criminal behavior by Illinois politicians?? From a 2008 MSNBC.com article on Illinois corruption:

Its persistence was documented in Sept. 7, 2006 by the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported that at least 79 current or former Illinois, Chicago or Cook County elected officials had been found guilty of a crime by judges, juries or their own pleas since 1972. The paper provided this tally of the tarnished: three governors, two other state officials, 15 state legislators, two congressmen, one mayor, three other city officials, 27 aldermen, 19 Cook County judges and seven other Cook County officials.

The article noted that so many aldermen had been jailed that the newspaper ran a front-page-story in 1991 when the year passed with none being indicted or convicted.

Dem political corruption: It’s the Chicago way.

Keep it Real Michelle Bachman is "flaky."

The democratic underground reports--Tom Petty may be taking legal action to make sure Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann to stop using his song ‘American Girl’ to kick off her campaign.

"Under Barack Obama the last two years, the number of federal limousines for bureaucrats has increased 73 percent."

"If you threw a barbecue yesterday for the Memorial weekend, it was 29 percent more expensive than last year because Barack Obama's policies have led to groceries going up 29 percent."

"The president released all of the oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve."

Then-Sen. Barack Obama "refused to raise the debt ceiling because he said President Bush had failed in leadership."

"The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs."

"The top 1 percent of income-earners pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government."

"One. That's the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office."

"Secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress, over $105 billion was hidden in the Obamacare legislation."

The government will "go out and buy my breast pump for my babies."

While the government grew, we lost more than 2 million jobs.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/statements/

There were 20 false claims and only one was true. I like to see her cease and resist LYING!

From the you just can't make this up files:

ThinkProgress reported earlier today that Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) would be signing his budget bill at the business of a man convicted on felony charges of tax evasion. Shortly after our report was published, a Walker spokesperson was asked about it and said, “I know nothing about that

Walker aide Cullen Werwie said his office would be announcing a new location soon for the budget ceremony on Sunday. The announcement came less than an hour after the Journal Sentinel contacted the governor’s office to ask about the executive’s criminal history.

Werwie acknowledged that Walker’s advance team had erred by not conducting a thorough background check on Gregory A. DeCaster, chief executive officer of Badger Sheet Metal Works.

Werwie described the situation as a “breakdown” by the governor’s staff.

DeCaster was convicted on six felony counts for not paying income taxes and sentenced to three months behind bars, plus two years of supervised released, and a $10,000 fine. DeCaster said he was a supporter of Walker’s campaign, but did not contribute.

It is all about Power and Control.

Amen Navy!

It's ALL about governing a women's uterus!

FR: *** Debt debate continues on the Hill: The politics of the debt ceiling continue to top the agenda on the Hill. Democrats and Republicans are playing chicken on the debt ceiling and Medicare.

And Obama continues to ignore it all so he can fund raise and campaign. The man is out to lunch on the entire process. Just like he dithered the time away on sending troops to Afghanistan, just as he left the Bush, and now his tax cuts, until the last minute last December, Obama is now too wasting time as the clock counts down to the debt ceiling crisis. Obama will once again have to compromise everything at the last minute, get a few token concessions to closing some so-called tax loopholes so the idiots in his base can claim some warped kind of victory. The rest of the deal will be the cuts the Republicans want. The Republicans are just toying with Obama.

Good morning, Feisty

Once all the dirt gets uncovered, I hope that Walker will be the next Governor to go to jail.

FEBRUARY 2011/JOSH KOSMAN

ROMNEY’S PAST IS MORE A WORKING CLASS ZERO

NY POST

“While I have not investigated all of Romney's Bain investments and there may be cases where he made money and improved businesses, there's little question he made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy.

Mitt Romney, through his spokesman, did not return calls. Bain declined comment.”

Romney’s private equity firm chief's fortune -- which has funded his political ambitions from the Massachusetts statehouse to his unsuccessful run for the White House in 2008 -- was made on the backs of companies that ultimately collapsed, putting thousands of ordinary Americans out on the street. That truth if it becomes widely known could become costly to Romney, who, while making the media rounds recently, told CNN's Piers Morgan that "People in America want to know who can get 15 million people back to work," implying he was that person.

Romney owned a controlling interest in Bain Capital when it took payments from five companies that later failed. Made fortunes by bankrupting five profitable businesses that ended up firing thousands of workers.

______________________________________

And then we have Michele Bachmann who is a #1 fan of social programs, when is affects her own family, of course. Big money sent her way. BIG BIG MONEY. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS.

And Gov. Christie of NJ - My oh my. I had Lawrence's program on but we were all sitting around talking amongst ourselves. All of a sudden we hear Gov. Christie tell a constituent of his that it was none of her business where he sent his children to be educated.

Everybody looked up all at once and said - whoa, who was that? I told him. Even the kids stopped what they were doing and watched Lawrence's Rewrite segment on Christie. And Lawrence replayed the part where Christie tells his constituent - it's none of your business...

Yet he was more than happy to talk to the media about where he sends his children to school. Private schools. For religion.

Religion. Isn't that why you go to Church?

So now we screw the public schools.

Don't you just love these religious folk who hate everybody?

It was unbelievable.

That's what the media is supposed to do.

"Well, what a shocker: another Democrook Illinois governor is relocating his residence to a federal prison cell."

Boy, I'll say.

Hey, Joe- any comments about the points raised by 'Navy', above?

At least the Democrats are starting to now do something in the Senate. Looks like they're ramping up again to try and push the DREAM Act through. The deficit? The Senate couldn't care less. Entitlements? To the Democrats, they're fine, no problems to be seen. The debt ceiling? It's not clear the Democrats even understand what that is. By the DREAM Act! Now that's votes for the Democrats. That they understand.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/27/dems-push-ahead-with-dream-act-as-ice-offers-new-guidelines-for-illegal/?test=latestnews

Pat - then Governor Crispy Creme doubled down on this rude behavior...

Christie Says He Was ‘Damn Right’ To Treat Constituent Rudely | Earlier this month, a constituent asked New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) why, if he sends his kids to private school, he thinks it’s fair to cut funding for public schools. Christie made headlines when he rudely told her it was “none of your business.” While on Meet the Press today, Christie was asked if this was an appropriate way to respond to a constituent. Christie said that it “damn right” was. Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/26/254281/christie-damn-right-rude/

For those of you who might of missed his orignal outburst here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UivEph7V0xs

Someone needs to make him a 'knuckle sandwich' - from the looks of him, he never passes up a meal! lol

Joe in Albany

Well, what a shocker: another Democrook Illinois governor is relocating his residence to a federal prison cell. That makes four Illinois governor’s in the last 40 years to end up in a federal penitentiary (three Dems, one Rep). Is there something in the water that causes criminal behavior by Illinois politicians?? From a 2008 MSNBC.com article on Illinois corruption:

Joe first all we have 1 republican governor in jail and now thank got a very stupid democratic one, but i must say this, the Democrat will be jailed because he was greedy, but in his case no one was killed. in Ryans case 6 kids were killed because when that goof was SS of state he sold licences for bribes, a system he a republican used to raise money for his party, the republicans.

I'm thankful that the feds are here keeping the politicians as honest as possible here, i wonder why we have not heard this from new York, is it because politicians their are staying 2 stepts ahead of the law, lets not forget your former governor was caught diddling with women of the world oldest profession, cumno's father Mario was linked to the mob, every body knew that, so I'm happy blago is going down he was a dumb A&S, Ryanis in still in jail, even though his wife a dying, he asked former president bush to pardon him, he has asked Obama to do the same, both said NO!!!

Last Joe, i will say this again and again, if a politician here in Illinois is stupid enough to break the law, knowing the feds are all over the place here for years, he or she needs to go down. do you feel the same about yours. we all know Albany is just a baskin of honesty.

the stats you showed about the corrupt politicians here makes me thankful the feds are doing their job here, again what about new york, Oha i forgot new york politicians are all clean even Wiener!!!!! currupt politicans are all over the place, sorry to say we here have some that are dumb asses, republican and democratic.

JoAnn,

You should get your facts straight. For one, in all cases the Sec. of the Treasury normally notifies the President that a debt ceiling raise is needed and the President then notifies Congress. That is the way it has always been done and in this case the President has made the required notification.

However, in this case the Republican Congress is now holding the American People and the Government as hostage, in playing their blame game.

In this case we are not going to let these Republican Government Killers get away with their bull and we are calling them out.

So, in this case, please get your facts straight, and stop presenting your opinion as facts, because you are 100% wrong.

The pattern here just couldn't be more clear. Conservative Republican leaders feel entitled to be as rude as they wish, to lie with impunity, to impose whatever decisions their ideology dictates upon the populace, and to hell with THE PEOPLE who disagree with them.

Joe in Albany

Well, what a shocker: another Democrook Illinois governor is relocating his residence to a federal prison cell.

Blago's immediate predecessor as governor was a Republican who also went to the slammer. That a shock, too? I don't see why, since the ratios of crooked Democrats and crooked Republicans seems to be about 1-to-1.

Feisty, Christie is just the latest GOP politician that the media is attempting to push out there in the forefront. Another jackass in a long line of jackasses who the media love until other media do their jobs and expose them for what they truly are.

Phony hateful not really religious irresponsible politicians.

I always thought public schools were the best place to get a good education. These religious schools don't teach the full scoop on much of anything.

Especially love and tolerance. Quite the opposite actually.

Besides, the kids in my neighborhood who went to religious schools were out there night after night smoking pot and drinking, just like the public school kids.

Of course no one will admit that. But we all saw the hypocrisy. Even their parents were drinking and smoking pot and gambling and cheating on their spouses. And looking down on everybody because well, they just thought they were better than non-religious folks. Just like Congress with all those phony religious fools.

What a joke Christie is. Glad Lawrence nailed him.

It is not often that I find something to disagree with you on, JS1, but today, I must take issue with your characterization of Obama's absence on the debt talks.

Surely, you heard about his meeting with Reid and Biden yesterday? He even gave out a statement- said that the meeting encouraged him that there would be a bipartisan agreement forthcoming.

I have no idea if that means that he does not know that both of those men belong to HIS party, or if he does not know the meaning of the word bipartisan. My money is on the latter- he does not know the meaning of the word "posthumous", either.

I AM wondering what he is telling his people- and if they have caught on to the pesky details inherent in all his statements.

He told members of congress, worried what passing his HCR would do to their re election chances, "the difference between 1994 and now is, this time, you've got me."

That turned out to be true- the losses were far greater in 2010 than in 1994- but, somehow, I think his party members were inferring something altogether different. If not, why did they march so merrily off a cliff?

He claims his stimulus created 3million jobs. There is, actually, some evidence to back that up. The problem is, he never finishes the story- those jobs were created in CHINA, by recipients of stimulus dollars using those funds to open plants THERE.

Obama's aversion to details is well known. I am beginning to believe that he has heard that "the Devil is in the details"- thus, his avoidance of them is a religious quirk.

Or, maybe, he is just a skilled liar.

Job1: However, in this case the Republican Congress is now holding the American People and the Government as hostage

Nobody is holding anyone hostage Job, and frankly that argument is getting a wee bit stale. The Republicans have set their agenda and passed their legislation addressing the issues of the budget, the debt ceiling, and the entitlement reform. The Democrats have done nothing but be critical of the Republican plan.

The Democrats at some point need to stop making speeches and get to work. The need to come up their plans for the problems that face the country. The Democrats keep saying they want to raise taxes. Okay, by how much, and on who? Put it in a bill in the Senate and vote on it. The Democrats also want to cut defense spending. Okay, but how much? Lets see that the Democrats are serious on passing what they preach.

Why should Governor Christie tell a call in questioner where his kids go to school? Her question implied that because he does not use the public school system, his motives were suspect when asking teachers to actually pay for their health care and pension. He pointed out that he pays $38,000 in property taxes for a public school system that he CHOOSES not to use (this part of course was conveniently edited from the MSNBC clip you chose to post). He is a Catholic and he CHOOSES to pay to send his kids to a Catholic school, while at the same time paying his FAIR share of taxes for the public school system. When he signs the new budget bill that raises the cost of health care for public workers in NJ from 1.5% to a percentage of the plan's premium, a plan that they get to choose, and makes them pay more into their pension, he has actually saved these workers benefits.

BTW When President Obama asks for teacher testing through Arnie Duncan, to root out the bad public school teachers, are his motives suspect because he CHOOSES to send his kids to private school?

I always thought public schools were the best place to get a good education. These religious schools don't teach the full scoop on much of anything.

You are ignorant as you do not even know the schools in question. DelBarton, DonBsco and Bergen Catholic are among the best schools in the country. They offer a large number of scholarships to minority kids. I am not even catholic so I am no supporter of parochial education but I don't spout ignorant statements that have no basis in fact.

Hey, Joe- any comments about the points raised by 'Navy', above?

________________________________________________

No. I don't read Navy's posts because I have them memorized:

Same old, same old,

What I said last week, month, year.......

Same old, same old,

thinkprogress cut and paste

Same old, same old,

What I said last week, month, year.......

Same old, same old,

thinkprogress cut and paste

Can you Navy, Fiesty, Bev or any of the other FR followers tell me what political organization put this out???

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand:... an end to the power of the financial interests (Dodd Frank). We demand profit sharing in big business (any Union). We demand a broad extension of care for the aged (Medicare/Medicade/ Health Reform Law). We demand... the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education... We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents (Pell Grants)... The government must undertake the improvement of public health—by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor... by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the... materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good.

It was the Nazi Party, Munich, February 1920 the items is ( ) are mine

Navy, it so useful to point out the LIES. As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned it is such an assault on a healthy America by greedy, manipulative, stupid, GOPers and T-baggers.

Planned Parenthood has many health issues that affect men too as weal as it focuses on STD’S and Aids

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/men-4285.htm

JAS1, i should think you are running for the flakiest tittle with Bachmann. They lie vertually about everything........i guess it's ok for one to say you both drink from the same tea cup. JAS1, i hope you take that lesson from Job1 which i doubt.

What are GOPers thinking? Ruin the economy because of some pledge to Norquist or some very irrational Ideological belief?. we seeing that they oppose everything even when they were for it just stall the economy. They simply don't care. all republicants proposal amounts to shrinking the economy. where's that growth sense?

Why should Governor Christie tell a call in questioner where his kids go to school?

Why shouldn't he?

I realize this guy thinks he's Tony Soprano which, is another EPIC fail for him...

At least Tony was 'sexy' in his own strange kinda way...

Christie, not so much, unless of course, OBESE THUGS are your 'thing'! ;o)

Blago's immediate predecessor as governor was a Republican who also went to the slammer. That a shock, too? I don't see why, since the ratios of crooked Democrats and crooked Republicans seems to be about 1-to-1.

_________________________________________________

Not very skilled in finer points of math, are you, Houston. Go back and re-read the 2008 MSNBC.com article were the ratio is 78 Dem to 1 Republican in 2008. With Blago, its at least 79 Dem to 1 Republican now.

Hi Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Pat - then Governor Crispy Creme doubled down on this rude behavior...

Girls Governor Crispy Creme thinks New Jersey is Soprano land.

Someone needs to make him a 'knuckle sandwich' - from the looks of him, he never passes up a meal! lol

You got that right and never toucheed an exercise bike. Judging from the way that helicopter went down when he put his butt in it, forget about it a bike. He'd break it.

PEN: What are GOPers thinking

They're thinking about putting the country's fiscal house in order.

What are the Democrats thinking? They got a plan yet?

PEN: They simply don't care. all republicants proposal amounts to shrinking the economy. where's that growth sense?

Obama and the Democrats have spent $4+ trillion in deficit spending in 29 months, and want to spend another $2 trillion in deficit spending over the next 19 months. That spending hasn't grown the economy, why do you want to continue those failed economic policies?

Why should Governor Christie tell a call in questioner where his kids go to school?

What school does President Obama's kids attend? Why do they not attend public school? Should he and his wife be allowed to make this decision as the he is the highest public servant in the land, responsible for the public school system, and therefore should send his kids to the public school system

a) to show support for the system

b) because it has the best schools

c) because it has the best teachers

d) the best curriculum

e) the best record of success

Or should the President and First Lady be allowed to CHOOSE the school that they think is the best for their daughters. For example a single gender school or a parochial school.

Christie has not tried to introduce vouchers or defund the public school system. He is trying to resolve a budget mess created by previous administrations, one Republican (Todd-Whitman), and three Democratic. (Florio, McGreevy, Corzine).

Alan, NJ

No response to my post, i guess that proves my point that NY lawmakers are i stept ahead of the law, and don't get caught.

You got that right and never toucheed an exercise bike. Judging from the way that helicopter went down when he put his butt in it, forget about it a bike. He'd break it.

..and what about the Secret Service guy that's assigned to hold the President on the ground during a high wind?

Jeff-1541632

Alan, NJ

No response to my post, i guess that proves my point that NY lawmakers are i stept ahead of the law, and don't get caught.

Why should I respond to your post concerning NY lawmakers?

Think Progress:

Straight out of the gate in the 2012 presidential race, self-described “scholarly” candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has tripped over basic facts. Yesterday, she accidentally heralded a serial killer. Today, on ABC’s Good Morning America, she defended her “pants on fire” statement that the “Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery” (they didn’t) by insisting that John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father (he wasn’t). After host George Stephanopoulos pointed out that John Quincy Adams — the son of John Adams — did fight against slavery “decades later,” Bachmann stood by her historical interpretation.

Steve Benen writes, “I hate to be a stickler for reality, but when the Declaration of Independence was signed, John Quincy Adams was a nine-year-old boy.”

_______________________________________________

Michelle Bachmann is reminding me of GW Bush, who had zero interest in learning about US or world history.

Not good.

In honor of the Fouth of July, here are some cool pictures of the Adams Family homes in Quincy MA:

http://www.nps.gov/adam/historyculture/places.htm

And John Hancock's house, on the site which is now the State House up on Beacon Hill. Hancock hung out in the Boston Common and donated his land on Beacon Hill to build the State House. The dome came from Paul Revere's shop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancock_Manor

I'm having a dickens of a time trying to find Sam Adams house. I found the location of one, where he lived later in life. But in his younger years his house was across the street from my office. But I can't find the exact location.

"Let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing." John Adams, 1765.

Joe in Albany

Not very skilled in finer points of math, are you, Houston. Go back and re-read the 2008 MSNBC.com article were the ratio is 78 Dem to 1 Republican in 2008. With Blago, its at least 79 Dem to 1 Republican now.

Not very good at citing references to back up your assertions like a normal person would, are you? Why do you think anyone should accept numbers pull out of your behind?

Alan, NJ

Why should Governor Christie tell a call in questioner where his kids go to school?

What school does President Obama's kids attend? Why do they not attend public school? Should he and his wife be allowed to make this decision as the he is the highest public servant in the land, responsible for the public school system, and therefore should send his kids to the public school system

Joe your a idiot, your saying this because he is black. your an idiot!!!!

no presidents kids has ever went to public school don't be mad that the Obama have the money to send their kids to any school they want, remember just because your black does not mean your kids must go to pubilc school, mine went to Catholic grammer school, most of the kids i grew up with went to private, Catholic, or Lutheran school. Please show us your not ignorant please.

the bush twins, Chelsie Clinton, did you ask this question when there father was president. NO!!! cause there white and whites president don't send there kids to public school.

I thought Christie telling off that rude questioner was great. I haven't really done much looking into him but that made me stand up and notice. He should have gone further and explained to her that he sends his kids to private school because liberals like her have screwed up the public schools and that's what he's trying to fix.

Reminds me of when Ventura was governor of Minnesota. Some girl at a townhall meeting asked him if he planned to keep the special programs designed to help single mothers go to college and what would he be doing, as governor to help single mothers in general. Ventura said "why should I do anything?" "Why should the taxpayer of Minnesota reward you for choosing a bum for a boyfriend and being irresponsible?"

@Jeff-1541632

Alan, NJ

Why should Governor Christie tell a call in questioner where his kids go to school?

What school does President Obama's kids attend? Why do they not attend public school? Should he and his wife be allowed to make this decision as the he is the highest public servant in the land, responsible for the public school system, and therefore should send his kids to the public school system

Joe your a idiot, your saying this because he is black. your an idiot!!!!

no presidents kids has ever went to public school don't be mad that the Obama have the money to send their kids to any school they want, remember just because your black does not mean your kids must go to pubilc school, mine went to Catholic grammer school, most of the kids i grew up with went to private, Catholic, or Lutheran school. Please show us your not ignorant please.

the bush twins, Chelsie Clinton, did you ask this question when there father was president. NO!!! cause there white and whites president don't send there kids to public school.

So let me get this straight. Because I use President Obama and Governor Christie as two examples of public officials who have the right to CHOOSE to send their kids to whatever school they want, I am using the President's example because I don't think he should be allowed to choose because he is black? If I've go this wrong in some way please clarify.

BTW I am Alan, NJ not Joe, Albany. Two different people from two different states.

Not very good at citing references to back up your assertions like a normal person would, are you? Why do you think anyone should accept numbers pull out of your behind?

_________________________________________

Houston: The link is posted below. Now tell me that if YOU add 2+2, you understand the answer isn't 22. LMAO!!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28141995/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/illinois-has-long-legacy-public-corruption/

Illinois has long legacy of public corruption

At least 79 elected officials have been convicted of wrongdoing since 1972

msnbc.com staff and news service reports

updated 12/9/2008 2:36:33 PM ET 2008-12-09T19:36:33

msnbc.com staff and news service reports

Jeff - are you sure YOU went to school?

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

I dont know about any other Independents.....I I personally have had no thoughts or visions on any of the liberal women on this sites Uterus, Vagina, Labia or any other part of their reproductive system....God I got the shivers just saying that! On the other hand I do find the conservative women on this site intellectually stimulating! On another note the former Mayor of our fine city of Detroit is going to be let out of federal prison in July. So he will have about 2 months of sunshine until his federal racketeering trial comes up. At least he wont be alone this time...... His entire family has been indited also. Well not all his 2 children have been spared. For now!

No. I don't read Navy's posts because I have them memorized

Same old, same old,

thinkprogress cut and paste

I might point out that he's also a misinformed lying twit -- to borrow one of his ill-focused phrases. But that might be piling on. After all, those of us with brains should show compassion to those without.

MOBS of youths invaded and robbed mass quantities of merchandise from a Walmart in Chicago and a Sears in Philadelphia just in the past few days

Is Obama PROMOTING 40 % black unemployment so they DIRECTLY can "spread the wealth around?"

WHERE is the CRITICISM from OBAMA? Were these rioters sanctioned by Eric Holder as a "protected class?"

All these VERY REAL PROBLEMS need to be addressed in Iowa, TAKE A LOOK AT Philadelphia and Chicago and ASK YOURSELF how well has THREE GENERATIONS OF DEMOCRAT RULE helped out those cities SHOULD THEY BE the MODEL for the whole USA like OBAMA WANTS?

Joe in Albany

Houston: The link is posted below. Now tell me that if YOU add 2+2, you understand the answer isn't 22. LMAO!!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28141995/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/illinois-has-long-legacy-public-corruption/

You idiot! The article says only:

Its persistence was documented in Sept. 7, 2006 by the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported that at least 79 current or former Illinois, Chicago or Cook County elected officials had been found guilty of a crime by judges, juries or their own pleas since 1972.

It doesn't break the number down by party affiliation. Of course the number of Democrats involved in corruption is going to be greater than the number of Republicans in Cook County because it is dominated by the Democrats. Downstate, where Republicans dominate local politics, it's the Republicans who have historically been corrupt. That's why Nixon didn't contest his narrow election loss in Illinois to JFK. Investigations would have involved looking at Republican vote stealing downstate as well as Democratic vote-stealing in Chicago

I was speaking IN GENERAL about corruption and criminality being pretty much spread evenly between the two parties. Or are you claiming the Republicans are morally superior, despite the fact that it is the party of Richard Nixon, Scooter Libby, and Big Bill Thompson (a crooked Republican Illinois governor in cahoots with Al Capone that you somehow failed to notice was mentioned in the article you linked to)?

I was speaking IN GENERAL about corruption and criminality being pretty much spread evenly between the two parties.

__________________________________________________________

Now who is:

"Not very good at citing references to back up your assertions like a normal person would, are you? Why do you think anyone should accept numbers pull out of your behind?"

Apparently you do not hold yourself to the the standards you want to hold me to.

How extremely liberal of you.

BTW, I could be wrong, but, I believe "Big Bill Thompson (a crooked Republican Illinois governor....." was never convicted of a crime and never went to federal prison. Unlike three Dem Illinois governors during my lifetime.

Also, you haven't confirmed that you know that 2+2 does not equal 22.

Really, trust me, it doesn't.

Feisty, I happen to like Gov. Christie and I enjoy his blunt responses. I find it refreshing that he speaks his mind. I actually listened to the debate on pensions and benefits on NPR. The bill passed with bi-partisan support. You may think he's a thug but you don't live here. As for the polls that show the his numbers are slipping every one I talk to thinks he is doing the right thing. But doing the right thing is a little like pulling off a band-aide it hurts at first

Now who is:

"Not very good at citing references to back up your assertions like a normal person would, are you? Why do you think anyone should accept numbers pull out of your behind?"

Apparently you do not hold yourself to the the standards you want to hold me to.

How extremely liberal of you.

I was stating an opinion, not making a bogus claim like you did. The article you quoted didn't say what you claimed it did.

Gee, I can't believe that you're so hyper partisan that you actually started an argument over an innocuous statement that corruption scandals are a problem with politicians in general.

Also, you haven't confirmed that you know that 2+2 does not equal 22.

You haven't confirmed that you have a brain.

Navy, Fiesty, Bev Lets discuss Navy's premise that the bad old republicans are attacking women and some of his statements. First, instead of citing a few provisions within an entire bill lets talk about social services including for women in general. Lets go back to 2000 and go to each service and tell me what the growth in the budgets for each of these services has been until 2011. Then compare that to either the growth of inflation or the growth in revenue for the country. Then explain to me how anyone can make any rational argument that either the republicans or the democrats have cut anything. So after looking at that, nobody can reasonably conclude on the basic facts that there has been any cut period in services for women and that the budgets for all of these services have grown much faster than the government has the money to spend. Now that we are attempting to get our fiscal house in order, we need to come up with a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts to be able to prevent leaving our children and grandchildren in a world of mess. Put aside snide partisan politics and lets discuss where those spending cuts should come from. We can discuss revenue increases later on. If we assume we have a finite number of dollars and we are attempting to reduce future borrowings and I think everyone is on the same page for that right? then we must be cutting somewhere or somewhat across all budgets. So lets assume everyone can make a great arguement that these women social services are necessary, that means we need to cut more from lets say entitlements to the elderly so does that mean democrats hate old people? or lets see we need to cut from retiree pension obligations, so does that mean democrats hate union employees? or lets see lets cut defense spending--does that mean democrats arent for national defense? No you cant make generalizations when everyone must make tough budgetary decisions that require cuts across the board. If you dont cut one budget you must cut another which doesnt mean that party hates that group such as women. I would bet that after cutting the budgets Navy mentions aboveproposed by republicans, the growth in all those budgets exceeds the rate of inflation or revenue growth since 2000 so how can you defend that as some hatred towards women.

Navy, you do realize that when mandating certain medical expenditures within medical insurance plans that the people who pay for that additional cost are the employees or all of us through higher insurance premiums, co pays etc. And when you make flat generalizations like that, its easy for me to assume that since the democrats wont push for state law changes that require medical coverage for experimental coverage on cancer treatment for children, then they must hate children right? Sometimes its not about hating women but mandating additional taxes or costs on the rest of us by legislative mandate is always a matter of why should I pay more for a woman to have free birth control when if she wants birth control she can buy it herself. Why should I pay more for mandatory Viagra coverage when if a guy needs it he can buy it himself? So its not a zero sum game Navy.

As for Planned Parenthood, please explain to me how their budget works just so I understand why you think fed funds arent used for abortion? By the way, I am not advocating any position one way or another and I am not saying I am against fed funds being used for abortion but I think we should all understand how cash works and is fungible. Do you understand that its just a matter of allocating private donations versus fed funds but it all comes out of the same planned parenthood pockets? Its no different than if you make a donation to your college and say I dont want it to go to athletics, all they do is reallocate some other donation towards athletics but its just a budgetary gimmick. Second, why is planned parenthood any different than any other charitable organization that does great things for our society? Why is the federal government providing any funding? Why isnt it all private donations? Why are my tax dollars paying for that when I would prefer my money to go to AIDS relief in Africa? So you see that making cash expense judgements isnt a matter of hating one gender versus another.

Kirk,

I can't help you with much, cuz' I am busy at work; but as a person who volunteers a lot for non profits who receive Federal, State and Local Grant money,...Those funds are essentially treated as 'restricted'. So we manage a separate Reconciliation or Schedule showing the funds and then the programs and costs associated with those programs. If the Federal Government grants $200,000 for Mammogram screening, then you would see the $200,000 (restricted) and then associated costs (film, machine rental/leaseback, film expenses, evaluation of results fees (provider charges), etc. etc.

Anytime donations are received that are marked Unrestricted - those are used for "Other" services. At no time do the Federal funds or any restricted funds get earmarked or used for "other" services. And trust me, as a former auditor, we check these schedules pretty closely. It is a giant Red Herring that the Hyde Amendment is ignored. No one would jeopardize their non profit/Federal $'s in such a manner. If they did, it would be considered gross misconduct. There are VERY few instances of proven fraud in this regard. In fact, I am not personally aware of any; but I try to never say "never". Note I said 'try'.

The fact remains that for MANY women (and some men), Planned Parenthood provides an amazing array of low cost services that are simply NOT covered in the private sector. I remember when I worked for a privately held Catholic owned business and our insurance did not cover ANY contraception. I was able to purchase the contraception through PP much less expensively than paying full price at the pharmacy. The % of abortions performed by PP each year is NO WHERE near what John Kyl has alluded to. Recall that he 'walked' that back and said his claim was not intended to be a Factual Statement. Which reinforces my belief that a lot of Politicians lie with impugnity. And they get away with it.

Clara, I have no personal beef with Planned Parenthood and I assume they do great work. I certainly dont want to pick on them but they are always used as the poster child for these gender hatred arguments and I dont think pro life people hate women. Most if not almost all but the crazy violent types have strong held religious beliefs that underpin their position. Furthermore, if you have worked in these organizations as have I, I find religious people to make up the vast majority of volunteer work at least in the areas of the homeless, food banks and elderly care so my respect for people who are so mission driven even if I might disagree with their personal views on reproductive rights is pretty high. So I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt that their beliefs deal with their views on the sanctity of that type of life rather than any views toward women.

As for restricted, I understand that part but lets say all restricted funds are used for contraceptive education but there isnt enough, they just budget more from unallocated. Restricted funds will always be less than what they budget for nonabortion procedures so the fact that it gets budgeted around that is only a budgetary accounting issue not a cash issue because you cant truly allocate cash. The dollar you earn and the dollar gifted to you are exactly the same even if the person who gifted it to you said you must only use that dollar on food and not on buying clothes. All you will do as a person, is make sure you use the dollar you earned to purchase clothes. It doesnt really change the fact that the federal government is subsidizing planned parenthoods budget and cash is fungible so its irrelevant that its earmarked as restricted. I understand (not that I agree with) why pro life people have an issue with this and they have a valid argument.

Kirk

Feels like you are splitting hairs. Since 'bank fees' are a factor, most organizations only use ONE checking account. So saying the cash is co-mingled is an obvious statement. But the accountability comes in by the expenditure. If the Federal Government gives Restricted funds - you HAVE to account for those funds, usually by program, by disbursement. You simply CAN'T just say, well, I didn't get enough unrestricted funds to conduct business so I kept spending $ however I wanted. It just doesn't work that way. No matter how Kyl and others would have us believe. PS. I personally believe the Hyde Amendment is Unconstitutional. Since Abortion is LEGAL in this country,...any LEGAL use of Federal Funds should be the litmus test. I don't believe in WAR, yet I don't get to RESTRICT my tax dollars to only those programs I personally deem fit and refuse to pay my taxes as a 'conscientious objector'.

Now my extreme rant:

When the penalty for rape is castration, then I say the government can inject themselves into decisions about funding the important works of Planned Parenthood. No raped woman or child should be FORCED to carry that child to term. De-funding Planned Parenthood will DEFINITELY result in MORE unplanned pregnancies. It's not a theory, it's a fact. PS. Why didn't 'W' deal with this during his six years of unfettered control? Because it is toxic.

Clara, I am definitely not going to get into any arguement on specific benefits of planned parenthood nor debate you on your extreme rant ha. I actually have no problem with castration as a penalty for rape as I would have no problem with the death penalty for the sexual abuse of a child. I think the catholic church should have been charged with RICO conspiracy charges (entities can be charged along with individuals) for the abuse cover ups and scandals so you might get an extreme rant from me too that we could be on the same page on.

I was definitely splitting hairs and I realize that there are controls in place for the use of restricted funds but its also not accurate to say that cash isnt fungible. I also agree with you that if abortion is legal just get past where the cash comes from. My issue from the beginning is that just because there are proposed cuts in planned parenthood that doesnt make any fiscal conservative anti woman and I also dont see any reason why its treated any different than any private charity that needs money and we need to sit down and prioritize our finite spending priorities among all these clearly good options. Maybe Planned Parenthood should get more than inflation adjusted funds in its budget i really dont know.

Well, seems we have much to agree on. We are involved in a "new" Catholic scandal here in KC where a priest had child porn on his computer and the church was notified 2 years ago and they did nothing. CRAZEE! I have a fundamental issue with patriarchal systems.

Having said that, a disproportionately large number of corporations, and even government institutions are patriarchal. And yes, I believe the Republican Party seems to support Traditional Male Roles and Traditional Female Roles. And they don't seem to apologize when they paint with a broad brush. Why would anyone be against the Lily Ledbetter act? Women are predominantly Heads of Households and yet, keeping their pay at below men's pay for the same work economically disadvantages them. Which disadvantages the whole family. And that gets perpetuated.

Women Heads of Households are the primary beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood services. So you can see that it isn't a mysterious leap to say Republicans seem okay with keeping the status quo where women are concerned. Further constricting their ability to make decisions over their own bodies is a further Government Intervention into Women's Rights over their own bodies. It is a constant baragement of a singular message. Women are not entitled to the same rights as men. Or so many of us perceive it.

But hey, that's just my take on it. And I'm a screaming liberal (normally, screaming; occassionally conversational,... ;)

Clara, let me give you a different perspective on the Lily Ledbetter Act and some of its sponsors. I dont think most of us fiscal conservatives are against equal pay for equal work (my wife is an attorney who isnt working anymore for one of the reasons pay isnt equal). And we can have a separate discussion as to whether we even have an equal pay issue. Having had female bosses and had many many woman work for me, full time, part time and job sharing I feel I have a pretty good perspective as I truly believe woman make as much as men for the equivalent job with the equivalent experience and background. I think that either cultural and genetic gender differences create different job paths that lead to pay discrepancies that account for most if not all the pay difference. By the way most objective studies show this that havent been funded by NOW. However, that said, I do believe there are some legacy issues in law firms and commercial banks (not investment banks as merit seems to really win the day) where the sexual politics and lack of commercial flexibility still create issues. I would love to explore this further and dont get me wrong things arent perfect in the equal pay world but I dont believe a new specific ACT is needed.

That said, the real purpose behind the Ledbetter Act is to reward the Trial Lawyers. It has nothing to do with equal pay. There are already laws in every state and in the federal rules that allow anyone specific person to sue and get redress if there is discrimination against woman. Trust me there are millions of lawyers who would jump to take a case on a contingency fee basis if there were even the smell of discrimination. We dont need this new law to address equal pay. This law was to reward one of the largest donors to the democratic party the trial lawyers who block tort reform and push for expanded abilities to create class action claims. I am a former lawyer and my wife practiced as a litigator before quitting to raise our child. Class action is all about making tons of money for the lawyers and nothing for the claimants. Its one large scam and the bar knows it. I dont know if you saw the recent Best Buy case in which a class action suit was made based on systemic discrimation of women in the corporate policy. They just settled the case and 9 woman are going to receive in the aggregate $270 thousand and Best Buy will revise its corporate policies. The lawyers will receive $30 million in fees. Trust me that case had nothing to do with real discrimination. The ledbetter Act would allow law suits based on statistics rather than actual factual instances of discrimination and burden companies with tremendous record keeping just to avoid class action law suits. It would make corporations pay woman more in positions of equal stature than men just to balance out its statistics where many woman would have lower paying jobs because they wanted to work part time, flex time or the type of job naturally attracted more woman like secretarial work (its a truth whether we like it or not but culturally men wont apply for these jobs).

So I am against that law and not against the equal pay for women. I am surrounded by women, daughters, sisters, cats and dogs so this is an issue I hear the brunt of all the time and I think its too complicated to reduce to statistics especially without tort reform.

Kirk,

When a person is SYSTEMICALLY wronged - knowingly and deliberately - I personally feel the chips should fall where they may. PUNITIVE and COMPENSATORY are the only way to change the behavior. And I simply DO NOT agree with your assessment that it isn't as prevalent as I perceive it to be. During this economic downturn, more MEN were laid off and more WOMEN were asked to work harder. No doubt because the deepest cuts in labor came from canning the ones with the higher compensation. Or, specifically, they knew the women would get the work done - for cheaper overhead.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2009/02/until_i_heard_american_public.shtml

Maybe layoffs would be more proportionately neutral if women were compensated equally to begin with?

I cant speak for all industries but my wife was laid off at the beginning of the downturn (found another job) but it was all about economics and not gender. I do think there are definitely instances of age discrimination based on comp. Its much better for most employers to lay of the longer tenured employee than shorter term which generally brings higher compensation with it. There is no doubt that will impact woman more than men because women generally go backwards (in general not across the board) for a good 10 year period of their career because they need flexible time, part time or just plain leave the work force for 10 years and come back. That means they will have less compensation. Take a field I know well and had plenty of experience and thats finance and accounting. In this area, the first 10 years are the most important in terms of learning curve and experience and after that its just getting your job done. So if a 20 year experienced person who has gotten merit and normal bumps each year could be doing the exact same job as the woman sitting next to them with 10 years experience and a lot less pay. Do companies lay off the man instead of the woman in the economic downturn yes and I think that happens but not because he is a man and she is a woman although I do think corporations are very fearfull of law suits so would tend to keep the woman over the man for that reason.

In 25 years of working and have worked 20 of those years for two large public companies, I have never seen female discrimination and in fact I would say its been the opposite in that they bend over backwards to avoid discrimination of any kind. Do I think if they used statistics to determine whether men made more, they would find out its men but for reasons unrelated to discrimination. Women make up more than 60% of the financial people I hired but probably made up less than a third of senior management (not executive which was far less) because they wanted a much less stressful, time intensive work schedule. Thats a cultural issue not discrimination.

I completely agree with you that if a person is systemically wronged then lawsuits should be available and they are today. We dont need to reward class action lawyers and create more burdensome costs on our society where the remedy already exists. Plus, do you know how many false claims are made already just because its easier to settle a case for $35-50k a pop than litigate? Trust me the plantiff's lawyers know this and its a big business in of itself. Rewarding lawyers in the purported interest of equal pay is not for me. My guess is that substantively we agree

These are the folks who cannot deal with ideas that run counter to their dogma - The Collapse Holes - the people who actually believe the truth goes away if you close your eyes, plug your ears, and begin your chant - "la, la, la, la, la," or, "cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes." No facts, no references, absolutely nothing is going to alter their stance.

________________________________________________________

Sounds like you are talking about the Gang of 38 from the (formerly) secret chat room Libsrus. It has been reported here that they engaged in coordinated actions to collapse posts they disagreed with, going so far as to flag them for advertising when there was none in the full knowlwdge that advertising flags resulted in deleting the posts.

Many of my posts were likely collapsed/deleted over the years by this group of intolerant know-nothings. I can see why you despise them David Walker.

Aw, poor Joe...you need a hug?

Great post, David. I was with you til your last paragraph. I am not convinced that these people want to kill America. I agree that what they are doing could kill America but I believe that they love their country and have convinced themselves that they are correct and that the other side is so wrong that anything justifies their actions. They generally are not willing to make the same statement about the people who disagree with them. We often read them saying that the President hates America, that those of us who support him hate America, etc.

Don't know about a hug, but I think he (Joe) does need what that scarecrow in Wizzard of Oz needed....

it has also proved a haven for mindless haters, liars, and ideologues. That is a disappointment in and of itself - to me, anyway.

They are truly the enemy,

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes it has, and they sure can be...and the content of your harangue sadly indicates that you are one of them...

http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm

PS: People who disagree with you aren't always wrong and they aren't evil or stupid, so thinking that they are and expressing that sentiment is adolescent at best, and at worst the seeds of bigotry,,,"they're not like us" has been the excuse for denying rights to others throughout history.

I am sure you feel strongly about what you believe in, but disrespecting others' beliefs and/or saying that thieir beliefs are without value or wrong is not the basis for dialog it is the basis for...

Shia vs Sunni

Israelis vs Palestinians

Hatfields vs McCoys(lol)

They all believe that they own the truth the other side "isn't like us" and never let go of a grudge.

PS I have had a subscription to the NYT for 40 years...

Morning David. How are you? Hope all is fine with you and yours.

Have a great day!

David Walker-

You've called out, by name, some of the conservative bloggers at First Read whose comments you object to.

If you please-

Which of the liberal/progressive bloggers at First Read fits your own description?

"...a conservative is whatever they don't like."

Be specific, David.

Call THEM out, by name.

Or, are you just another example of a hypocrite engaging in the very behavior he admonishes?

No Da Noid, he needs a shrink. Joe's a little slow, everybody else has moved on from that story but Joe just keeps hanging on. Kinda like the Wiener story he wouldn't let go of for weeks after it was dead. Get some help Joe, you've become a laughing stock here.

How gracious of you, Steeler Fan, to concede that, in your opinion conservatives don't want to "kill America".

That might have been just a little over-the-top, eh Steeler Fan?

Anyway...kudos.

I didn't think you were capable of that degree of moderation.

Oh stop your nonsense dangerfield. I clearly identified ideologues, haters, and liars. Those people do not listen to reason. They are worthy of contempt and their dogma should be subjected so summary dismissal. Those people do not deserve respect. People who deliberately twist and conflate information deserve no respect. That shoe fits you in this instance.

No where did I even remotely suggest that people who disagree with me are wrong. In many cases however, they are. They are also on occasion correct, and I learn from them.

Joe in Albany:

Until your post, I had never heard of the Gang of 38. If indeed such a group exists, the members deserve no respect. However, it's pretty hard to despise someone or something about which you have no knowledge. Now you? I know about you.

Joe: Sounds like you are talking about the Gang of 38

Buzz: Don't know about a hug, but I think he (Joe) does need what that scarecrow in Wizzard of Oz needed....

Even with the collusion between the Lib-nitwits and the people that run this blog, it's amazing how ineffective and inept the tree-house clan is/was. They all tried to control the message, but they all failed miserably.

Mixed Bag:

I do not consider either No Joe or Jo Anna Smith to be conservative. They are purveyors of falsehoods and lies. Period.

If you wish to designate liberals and conservatives, do so. I am under no obligation to identify liars based on your arbitrary definition. I will however call them out when I note they are playing fast and loose with the truth.

I trust you understand there is a difference between wanton lying and genuine error, or am I wrong? I expect to be corrected when I err. As a matter of fact, I encourage it. I hate being wrong.

Great post, David. Looks like you struck a nerve with some people.

Yes, JoAnna-

The Libs R Us fiasco has proved so embarrassing (and revealing), that those involved are running from it like scalded dogs.

Why wouldn't they?

Until your post, I had never heard of the Gang of 38. If indeed such a group exists, the members deserve no respect.

________________________________________________

OUCH!!!!

Evasion, David.

You won't answer my question, will you?

No surprise there.

It would have been surprising had you responded honestly, though.

I'm also a bit concerned that you're unable to identify the bloggers you referenced as conservatives.

Please add think progress and politifact to those who can't be trusted and are filled with lies and fraud.

Good morning David Walker.

Excellent and thoughtful post as always. I could not agree more emphatically. I really appreciate you distinguishing between disagreements about debatable points and continuing to repeat a debunked lie.

Very important distinction.

P.S. The reference to the "Gang of 38" refers to a private chat group that was formed called Libs R Us. I am one of this "gang" as we have been dubbed. Somehow, the chats that have been private for over a year became public. And the private comments that were made about many of the same liars you have identified were made public. Needless to say, they were not pleased.

As you mention, there has been an issue since we went over to Newsvine of posts being collapsed for no clear violation. Several members of our group were often targeted, and as a result emails were sent to moderators and the reporters running this blog in an attempt to see if collapse abuse could be stopped. Alas, as you know, wanton collapsing continued, resulting in somewhat of a collapse war.

In closing, one of the things mentioned in the private chat was the fact that several members of the group had decided to meet each other this summer, and they invited Mr. Mark Murray to speak to the group. Mr. Murray graciously accepted.

However, for some nefarious reason, the folks who stole?/found? our private chat discussions, decided to come here to First Read and tell the lie that the members of our group (38 officially, but much fewer who engaged in actual discussion reguarly) were conspiring with First Read moderators/reporters to "silence" them. They claimed that we were paid posters, that Mark Murray was paying for the meeting and our air fare, that Feisty Redhead and myself were the same person, that we had some type of "three person" strategy.

Of course, all of these were bald faced lies. But many here, including Groucho and Dangerfield, without a shred of evidence, opted to run with it and libel us all. Mr. Mark Murray explained that he had no relationship with the members of our group, financial or otherwise, and that he speaks to groups all the time. He also encouraged posters here to develop a "thick skin" as political discussions often get heated and the moderators try to err on the side of free speech in most cases.

But no matter, the seed has been planted and the lie will continue to be watered from here on out. I have pretty much said all I intend to say on the matter, but wanted to give you, a poster I respect, a "gang of 38" perspective.

P.S. Over the weekend, there were several threats that the entire chat would be released to prove the above lies. There is a fragile truce between Groucho and US Navy. I think he and I have an "understanding", however seeing as how he has never actually apologized for his role in spreading misinformation about myself and others, I am giving him a wide berth. Several members of the "gang of 38" have encouraged the release of the chat material, as it does not say anything like what has been portrayed and we have grown weary of the veiled threats. So maybe one day you can read for yourself the private conversations, recipes, child and pet stories of several of the posters here . . . over 400 pages according to the blackmailers. . . .should be riveting stuff!

P.S.S. If you would like my more colorful (and heated) take on the matter, you can read last Friday's "Week Ahead" threads and this Saturday's "Palin" thread. Other than that, I have moved on.

David,

I'm not going to further engage in this. But speaking of deliberate lies and misinformation - Joe, Albany is clearly willing to be a 'spreader'.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/24/6933237-first-thoughts-eyeing-the-general-election?last=1309018168&threadId=3158945&commentId=55352949#c55300369

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course Palin Palooza is over. Republicans have a Brand New Bag: Michelle Bachman is beautiful, willing to work hard on message discipline and study up on the topics. It really is no contest between the two. And, I'll give her credit - she really did 'win' the debate last week. She may very well win the Republican nomination; but I don't think she has a snow ball's chance in hell of beating President Obama.

If mysoginist Edward numbers has anything to say about it,...she is RNC pinup material only. That should make Republican Women eager to defend her honor, no doubt.

I am sure she wishes there weren't so many hours of video of her undisciplined and unscripted. That's not going to help. But at least she seems willing to put in the work that Palin simply wasn't willing to do to APPEAR like a serious candidate.

Further, I'm not sure Chris Wallace made a gaffe and owed an apology. It is a legitimate question to address public perception that you are flaky. A simple laugh and a direct response would have been more appropriate. "People who say these things aren't serious about the issues. They want to detract from my policy positions because it's easier to tear me down than to deal with topics facing all Americans."

The Republicans seem to have a very hard time with 'direct' hits. (alas, so did Anthony Weiner). I mean the best way to deal with detractors is to use honesty to defuse their talking points.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MB,

Speaking of detractors,...was that really how you wanted to respond to Steeler Fan? Seemed petty and churlish to me. Steeler Fan is very moderate and pragmatic about these situations. In fact, she was disagreeing with her own side in making her comment.

Wow...so much feigned umbrage...it kinda reminds me of the classic exchange between Amanda and Wednesday in Addams Family Values:

Amanda: "I'll be the victim!"

Wednesday: "...all your life."

Just to clarify for the ignorant, the "38" is no gang, and we don't all think or act in concert. You'd know that if you REALLY read our comments.

As I said below, if all the conservatives left this site, so would I. And if conservatives out here had ever offered any real friendship, I might have taken them up on it, too. But you're all starting to show your real stripes, aren't you?

Et tu, Bag Boy? Be proud.

Of course, all of these were bald faced lies. But many here, including Groucho and Dangerfield, without a shred of evidence, opted to run with it and libel us all.

Libel?

Groucho? Are you guilty of LIBEL? You have just been publicly accused...

This just gets better and better doesn't it...:(

Mixed Bag:

Last time I checked, the "gang" members are all here and accounted for. So what are you basing that "running" comment on, wishful thinking?

Lastly, I find it quite refreshing that none of the named liars have a problem with being identified as what they are . . . honesty comes in the most unexpected places.

P.S. Don't think that I have forgotten your role in libeling me. Very disappointing but not surprising.

Clara-

Sorry you feel that way.

I'm afraid the climate established at First Read (in large part by the members of the "group" and their unmasked hatred of some of the conservatives posting here) made Steeler Fan's acknowledgement surprising to me, that's all.

But...

I know you don't want to discuss it, so...

David Walker

OUCH...... David. You've just stung the hell out of these bogus liars.

Nash-

Thanks oh-so-much for the sanitized, Orwellian "Ministry Of Truth" version of the Libs R Us story...but (almost) everyone knows what really happened, Nash.

They know.

As I said to Clara...they'll always know.

Proud to be a part of the gang of 38.

libel:

–noun
1.Law .
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

b. the act or crime of publishing it.

c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

When you make fantastic claims and are proven wrong, the honorable thing to do is acknowledge it.

dangerfield: This just gets better and better doesn't it...:(

The LibsRUs remnants must be down to their last salvos. Their last desperate attempt is to stand there and shout "LIARS!" to anyone they disagree with. If nothing else, it's amusing to watch.

DW- you are fairly new to this board, so I will overlook your stereotypical characterization of me this one time.

More than two years ago, I posted MY solution to the "gay marriage" debate. It was this:

Growing up, my grandmother always told me that HER parents had to be married in a civil ceremony thirty days before the Church wedding. Apparently, the Church was not deputized to perform the civil function in those days.

I thought that the solution- de-deputize churches from that function all together. Anyone wanting a state sanctioned union- with the attendant benefits- needed a civil ceremony. Those wanting a Church sanctioned union could choose that.

Problem solved.

Somewhere around the same time, I posted my views on the millions of illegal immigrants in this country- we cannot possibly deport all those people, and by living in the shadows, they are at risk of exploitation and crimes they fear to report. My solution was to give them worker cards- pink, blue, orange- any color but green. They could then work, take advantage of the protections that exist for everybody BUT them- but be denied the chance to attain citizenship until they returned to their home countries.

Again, problem solved.

I do not know from whence you concluded that I was a social conservative- I am, in fact, a fiscal conservative, but, socially, I am a lot more liberal than many liberals.

No where did I even remotely suggest that people who disagree with me are wrong. In many cases however, they are. They are also on occasion correct, and I learn from them.

Jesus, what an ego.

Mixed Bag:

I am still waiting for you to support your version of events with evidence. So far, all we get is dialog showing members of our group using the tools available to them to deal with harrassment on this here blog. Now, it is a great leap to go from that to stating that there is a collusion between a group of posters and the moderators/reporters here.

That is the lie that you helped perpetuate and that you are still standing by. Thus my comments.

'Nuff said.

You really should sue, Nash.

Perhaps Anna Molly could offer her views as to your prospects of a legal decision in your favor.

By the way...is repeatedly calling someone a liar a violation of the amorphous Newsvine Code?

Members of the "group" are best qualified to answer that question.

Having engaged in it, they know exactly what the parameters of Prohibited Conduct are.

l call 'em like I see 'em Mixed Bag.

People who tell lies are liars.

Perhaps you should concern yourself less with the label and more with the veracity of your comments.

AM: Just to clarify for the ignorant, the "38" is no gang, and we don't all think or act in concert.

If you don't want the stink of that gang/group/clan/whatever on you AM, be more careful next time who you associate with.

JoAnna:

... be more careful next time who you associate with.

I'm not unhappy with the choice I made to associate with those who offered friendship.

What were the other choices?

Bag Boy:

Perhaps Anna Molly could offer her views as to your prospects of a legal decision in your favor.

And perhaps not.

But I do know that I'm not a big fan of people who seem to think that when they pick up someone's private diary, which has accidentally been left unlocked, and not only read it, but spread it out for all the world to see, the person at fault is the one who wrote the diary.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/24/6935760-week-ahead-the-money-chase#comments

I stand by every word I wrote...

And everyone is invited to read the entire exchange.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant...

"Perhaps you should concern yourself less with the label and more with the veracity of your comments."

Lol, Nash.

Forest for the trees...

Heed your own counsel, Nash.

"...the tools available..."?

Really?

Oh my.

Have I mentioned how devastated I am that I haven't been contacted by Keith Olbermann... CBS... ABC... CNN...

After all, that was part of their idle threat! According to them they had the next 'WeinerGate'! LMAO

Why I'm crushed I tell you... crushed...

YO Keith - give me a call will ya?

Yes, everyone, please do read dangerfield's comments. Quite a contrast to the phony character he plays here weekly.

Anna Molly and Nashville..

Honest to God, I really can't believe you started this again.

First Nash, I have nothing to apologize for as what you attribute to what I said about Mark Murray is unfounded. All my posts argued about censorship, collapsing posts and having accounts suspended. I addressed my concerns to Mark in an open forum and he answered me in an open forum. No secret agenda or behind the back conversations, an open post to Mark. BTW, my posts today on David Walkers article were about censorship, read them again.

Libel and unfounded accusations? Again, I did not post a single page from the transcript, yet you attribute that to me.

Private info, it was on Google, a VERY public site. Privacy controls were set wrong, remember.

Well Anna and Nash, I'm not going to engage in this nonsense today. I am truly surprised you called me out as a liar and paranoid who committed libel...libel? Astonishing.

No apologies today or any day, except to AM whom I attributed a post incorrectly to today.

You guys have a great day.

Maybe we can talk more in home room...

Anna Molly-

A individual's personal diary in no way resembles a forum open to the public.

The first would appear to have the expectation of privacy...the second, not so much.

But then...I'm not an attorney.

AM: I'm not unhappy with the choice I made to associate with those who offered friendship

No question about it. Did you see the types of conversations that were taking place within the private group? Did you think collusion between the group and the writers of the articles for this blog was ethical? Did you notice the character of the people both in the writings internal to the private group and how there seems to be a different set of COH rules for that group that posted publicly here?

You had choices.

Do you love me nash?

did I hurt you somehow?

How many different things have you accused me of being nash? A paid poster, a conservative, a corporate person, now libelous? Maybe MB can remember the others from last week...

It is very, very, very important in your mind to discredit me for some reason.

Groucho:

You and I both know what happened. I'll leave it at that. Your posts over the weekend speak for themselves. As do mine.

@Clara -- actually a "pinup" comment should rally "all" women -- no matter of what party -- to her defense. To not just advocates sexism and hatred of women. Congresswoman Bachmann responded in the proper way. Being an old PR guy, you are never to use the term that others give you. You are to basically ignore such inappropriate rhetoric and stick to the topic at hand which would be why she is running for POTUS, her ideas and why she is qualified. Case in point --"I'm not a witch." That only added fuel to the ignorant and her advisers should have known. Any one can beat the current president. That's why he is running scared. Other than those points, your message was well thought out.

The Republican nominee should run this commercial idea during the campaign: The opening shot is Nero fiddling while Rome burns in the background. Then it fades to Obama playing golf while Washington/U.S. burns in the background.

David Walker:

Responding to these people is a waste of valuable time and effort. However, there really are folks who simply need a slightly different perspective to change their minds. They need nothing more than having a lie exposed. They need some little piece to complete their puzzle. Those are the people to whom we should be directing our efforts.

Why waste time with incorrigible and wanton liars? Really, time is running out for us, and the liars are willing to kill America. That's right, they're not passively standing by, they are actively seeking this country's destruction - and it matters not a whit that they don't know it. Indeed, that makes them even more dangerous. They are truly the enemy, the missionaries of madness. They must be stopped.

Good morning Mr Walker! A well written and reasoned post with which I wholeheartedly agree. I rarely

read and never respond to the posters you named as well others of the same ilk. We have to remain

diligent and focused of purpose.

No Joe,

I wanted to comment that your solutions above seem reasonable on those social issues. I've agreed with you on some occasions questioning Obama's foreign policy, probably not for the same reasons however.

I understand you are a fiscal conservative and that you and I will probably never agree on many economic domestic policies. The thing I think that some people fault in your comments is that you appear to honestly believe that Obama has an agenda to destroy America or that he is ambivalent to major problems. I will ask as simply as I know, do you think Obama and the democrats want the economy to fail?

Should David Walker decide to slink back to the thread, I hope he'll access the link provided by dangerfield.

Then perhaps he'll have the courage and decency to amend the remarks that started the ball rolling again, eh?

dangerfield:

Those words sound so familiar to me . . . I still remember when I wrote them to you this weekend . . . when you were ranting and raving and throwing around wild accusations.

I love you just as much now dangerfield as I always have. I just wish you hadn't jumped to conclusions and behaved so poorly. But hey, water under the bridge. Truly.

Mixed Bag:

But then...I'm not an attorney.

That's right, Bag Boy, you're not. A "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term that has nuanced boundaries. But I was talking more about honor, rather than legality. The person who picks up the diary -- and from some other posts out here, I understood that it actually took some effort to find it -- knows that it's meant to be private, and that the person who writes in it intends for it to stay that way. Reading it is one thing, but spreading it is another. That's the same thing that happened here, and you know it is.

JoAnna:

No question about it. Did you see the types of conversations that were taking place within the private group? Did you think collusion between the group and the writers of the articles for this blog was ethical? Did you notice the character of the people both in the writings internal to the private group and how there seems to be a different set of rules for that group that posted publicly here?

You had choices.

You're trying -- rather transparently, I must say -- to goad me into disavowing the group. But that's more like your side than ours. I won't do that. My choice was to stop there rarely, as apparently you already know. Your choice was to put down the diary and not read on, since you knew it was intended to be private. You elected not to do that. We BOTH had choices.

There were lots of other good things about that group, including real caring and support. I wasn't able to take as much advantage of that as I might have liked because of the fact I wasn't there much. But they welcomed me, which you have never done, and they helped me sometimes, including when I was attacked by YOU -- mostly by you -- and also by others. A kind word goes a long way.

And thanks for taking that little bit of solace away from me. "So shines a good deed in a naughty world." Shakespeare said that.

Did you think collusion between the group and the writers of the articles for this blog was ethical? -Joanna Smith

See how seemlessly JoAnna Smith makes an unsupported assertion? This is how a professional liar operates. Sad but impressive.

Fiesty...... he did call you, dont you remember the late sunday night call....heavy breathing and the famous question "What are you wearing"

Groucho:

Anna Molly and Nashville..

Honest to God, I really can't believe you started this again.

I didn't. I was responding to posts above me -- from Bag Boy and others -- once again accusing all of us of collusion and deception and God only knows what else. But this is exactly like you, Groucho, to pick on me for what someone else has done. And it's the second time today. You're either not very observant, or you are very ill-willed. You and JoAnna would make a lovely couple.

Once again, apologies are in order.

Groucho, to pick on me for what someone else -- on your side -- has done. And it's the second time today. You're either not very observant, your you are very ill-willed. You and JoAnna would make a lovely couple.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

See it isn't about political ideology at all...Neither Groucho nor I am conservatives by any definition of the term.

"Your side" refers to anyone who disagrees with the gang, or defends or supports anyone who disagrees with the gang. period. Now Groucho gets lumped in with JS1, not because of their politics, but because they are both "outsiders"...oh and you are Ill-witted too Groucho.

Welcome to the board!...

Anna Molly-

I'll ask you the same question I asked Nash.

Is repeatedly calling a blogger a "liar" a violation of the Newsvine Code Of Honor, as you read it?

Because, to this lay person...it clearly is.

What am I missing with regard to the behavior demanded by the Code?

Is the approved conduct as outlined in the Code so amorphous as to encompass the act of repeatedly and endlessly calling another blogger a "liar"?

Really, AM?

David, I agree with your post in concept but not in its application. I have no ability nor the inclination to go back and see if JoAnna Smith or No Joe are purveyors of falsehoods and lies but its clear to me that both Fiesty and Navy are no better. I have debated a few on here like John, Clara and others in which the passion might be strong, the conclusions reached might be a stretch but I wouldnt say they are falsehoods or lies. In most cases, people make conclusions based on false or stretched assumptions just like the more conservative members. However, where your post is completely off base, is that many liberal posters here like Fiesty and Navy embellish the facts, use misleading Soros provided links or facts to make a point to allow them to attack someone personally. Its not the lies or falsehoods that are repulsive from some liberals on here its the personal attacks. If you cant change our hearts and minds through persuasive arguement of the facts, then you shouldnt win the debate. When Fiesty and Navy call Bachmann stupid, a Nazi or use the art of personal destruction, they lose all credibility. Maybe I should just assume all liberals are sexist. All they do is invite the same negative response then they get there hair in a bunch and call someone a racist if someone then asks about the affirmative action status of Obama into college and what his grades were especially in Econ 101. Neither attack is warranted in my mind.

So if you would level the playing field and ask the liberal gang here to stop the personal attacks on either republican candidates, current republican congressmen and posters here maybe you would have more credibility on your opinions towards conservative posters. Have you noticed the nasty names used for Governor Christie or Governor Walker because they disagree with their policies? At the same time, I havent read a single post from a conservative that calls Gov. Brown or what about Pelosi etc any of the vile names called by liberals. People might hate their politics but for the most the art of personal destruction has been province of the liberals on this board. So I am not sure thats any better than the alleged lies and falsehoods (which by the way I have called Navy, Suzie, American First and several others out on outright lies and falsehoods without a peep in response).

Anna Molly

You wrote:

No, your paranoia the other day related to your unfounded accusations that the LibsRUs group acted in concert in responding to the public revelation of our private posts. We hadn't -- or at least, I hadn't. That's exactly the kind of false assumption about us that you continue to make, over and over and over again.

Sorry....what did you write....here?

Collusion and deception? Where...anywhere where I accused you of collusion and deception? Anywhere?

Nash:

Not a lawyer but I play one on TV....

Libel Defenses include:

Fair comment on a matter of public interest, arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.

Don't go there.

Home room is over and now back to study hall.

AM: You're trying -- rather transparently, I must say -- to goad me into disavowing the group.

You can characterize that group any way you want to, it doesn't matter to me, it's your group.

AM: Your choice was to put down the diary and not read on, since you knew it was intended to be private. You elected not to do that. We BOTH had choices.

I only read what was posted here, in this public forum. After the Weiner debacle, you should know that nothing on the web is private. Looks like you too learned that difficult lesson the hard way.

AM: There were lots of other good things about that group, including real caring and support.

Yeah, and many of the people of Chicago loved Capone too. He did a lot for them, cared about them, and supported them.

Groucho:

I'm really concerned about the way you remember things and/or twist them to suit your convenience. You may want to consult with JoAnna about that, as she appears to be a quali ... (strike that) psychiatrist or something.

Actually, I wrote a post on First Thoughts on Friday setting forth my viewpoint about this whole thing. A few posts below it, you wrote a post accusing us of all colluding together on our responses. I immediately responded and told you otherwise. You, of course, never responded to that as it was contrary to what you wanted to believe.

I didn't SAY you accused me of collusion and deception. I said I responded to posts above me that made those accusations about the group.

Homeroom? Seriously, Eddie?! You remember what I said well enough. If you want to be taken seriously, then get your facts STRAIGHT and be serious.

@Bag Boy ~ In reality, I'm not following this whole line of posting about lies, so it would be a mistake to rely on what I might say about that. I wasn't here over the weekend, thank heaven, and I can't even go back to read the thread anymore because I have no copy, so I can't comment, either on whether what you've said are lies or even on what the group members said or did. I posted so rarely, that I really do not have a clear understanding of everything we're being accused of, or whether there's any truth to it, or not. I only know that I never saw much evidence of the things I'm reading about here.

JoAnna:

Yeah, and many of the people of Chicago loved Capone too. He did a lot for them, cared about them, and supported them.

Take it from the Queen of False Analogies that this one REALLY bags it. Try again.

Anna Molly-

Either you've misunderstood (I doubt that...you're way too smart) my question, or, you're evading a direct answer to it.

Again:

Is repeatedly calling another blogger a "liar" a violation of the Newsvine Code Of Honor, as you read it?

Is the approved conduct as outlined in the Code so amorphous as to encompass the act of repeatedly calling a fellow First Read blogger a "liar"?

AM: Take it from the Queen of False Analogies that this one REALLY bags it. Try again.

Well it's too bad your little therapy group went away AM. Be that as it may, the odor of that groups' actions is applied directly on you. Your little play acting routine that "Oh, but I wasn't like any them" is laughable. The group was rotten to the core, and you were a part of it.

Groucho:

If only you were as good at saying "I'm sorry" as you are at making threats. Oh well. Maybe in your world, it is "reasonable" to take the word of some random poster that just so happened to show up out of the clear blue sky to slander some folks. Fine. Tell your weekend persona I said hi.

Mixed Bag:

What do you call people who tell lies? Is it not permitted to tell the truth about liars? If not why not? Do you really care, or do you just want to pretend like you did not participate in this slimy affair? It is all good Mixed Bag. I am sure you are a great person.

I am just giving you the perspective of someone on the other end of the stuff you said with no evidence to back it up. Happens all the time though, so no hard feelings. Just setting the record straight. I bought my big girl panties long ago . . . perhaps I should distribute some extras . . . lots of whining around here.

If only folks would put that same effort into making sure what they are saying is true.

dangerfield:

See it isn't about political ideology at all...Neither Groucho nor I am conservatives by any definition of the term.

Dangerfield -- do you see the hypocrisy in what you just did? Groucho accused me of something I didn't do, for the second time today, and I called him out on it, and instead of acknowledging that, you're blaming me for using the term "your side." By the way, I didn't use the term "conservative." You only assumed that's what I meant.

Well, here's the news. I've never seen anything from either one of you that suggests that you're on MY side, about anything. Not one of you has ever stood up for me against JoAnna's vicious attacks. They continue today unabated, and without comment from you or others. If polarization has happened here, at least as it relates to me, you have all the comfort you can take in knowing that you and Groucho and the others who have repeatedly made unfounded accusations about ME have done it. Why would I ever take YOUR side again about anything?

I can't even go back to read the thread anymore because I have no copy, so I can't comment, either on whether what you've said are lies or even on what the group members said or did.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/24/6935760-week-ahead-the-money-chase#comments

It's right on this site and right on this thread...so you DO, and you COULD...

Anyone who makes personal attacks in response to political posts should be condemned by all and supported by no one. If you showed me a personal attack or if i saw one I would and I have responded to them many times. So please post one of the viscous PERSONAL attacks from this person and I assure you they will get the same treatment...

You lumped Groucho in with JS1, and I replied to THAT

Bag Boy:

Is repeatedly calling another blogger a "liar" a violation of the Newsvine Code Of Honor, as you read it?

Is the approved conduct as outlined in the Code so amorphous as to encompass the act of repeatedly calling a fellow First Read blogger a "liar"?

It might be. I've never really read the code, as I don't know where it resides. But if you're trying to suggest that I've called someone a liar out here, the answer is yes. But I stopped it, even though the lies continued. If that's what you were trying to get, you got it.

But I've been called a liar out here and worse, mostly by JoAnna, as a matter of fact, over a long period of time, yesterday, and today, in her very last post to me, above. And no one, including YOU, has ever called JoAnna or anyone else out for that. I'm on my own, apparently, while you're willing to defend someone like that.

Is it any wonder I had to look for my friends where I could find them?

Nash-

It's perfectly clear to me that you have no problem with referring to fellow bloggers with whom you have political disagreements as "liars".

I get that.

You've made that perfectly clear to me.

However,I believe that such conduct is a violation of the intent, if not the letter of, the Newsvine Code Of Honor which is intended to regulate the behavior of the bloggers posting here at First Read.

Do you disagree?

If so, based on what criteria?

df, she means to the Libs R Us text. I took it down. Rehashing the salacious tidbits your team chose to toss out isn't the WHOLE story. No matter how much it is professed to be so,...

Once again the old Chewowa Gang has managed to divert the conversation from the issues...

Typical and not unexpected... *yawn*

As pointed out last week - dangerfield has made threats of physical violence against another poster here & now claims to be 'morally' superior! LMFAO!

If you aren't aware od dangerfield's MO go read some of his comments it goes like this:

He picks one poster and personally attacks them under First Thoughts.

Said poster responds and wipes the floor with him.

Dangerfield tucks tail between legs and accuses them of stalking him! LOL

POST the unfounded allegations or stop alluding to them

KCMO-

I don't have a team, a group or a gang..that's you and the Ensign-Edwards DDI...

Annie, let me be very clear with this comment. You may want to think about the need to start taking responsibility for your behavior, your comments, who you associate with, and your actions. Constantly playing the victim is very unbecoming.

@Dangerfield: The unfounded allegations are that we are all somehow guilty of collusion with the moderators and with each other in regard to getting rid of other posters, and with regard to responding to these ongoing attacks. I know this to be untrue, specifically as it relates to me. I'm not speaking for anyone else. And I know you have no proof otherwise as it relates to me. Of that I am confident.

I'll keep saying unfounded until you all stop including me in your accusations about the "group."

What really makes me sad is to see how you wasted your Saturday.

So please post one of the viscous PERSONAL attacks from this person and I assure you they will get the same treatment...

I'm not doing your homework for you. It happens nearly every day, and particularly from JoAnna. It has already happened today, but I guess you just don't see it, or don't care to. I almost left this board a couple of weeks ago because of how bad it got. If you don't care enough to do anything about it, then fine. But don't try to claim it doesn't happen. Next time, pay more attention. If there IS a next time.

I can see that you're doing everything you can to make sure there's not.

Joanna: Annie, let me be very clear with this comment. You may want to think about the need to start taking responsibility for your behavior, your comments, who you associate with, and your actions.

Let me be very clear with you. I'm not the victim, and I'm taking these comments to heart, if you know what I mean. I'm pretty sure you do.

So you won't post the "attacks" but still allude to them as viscous attacks...Did you EVER condemn Feisty's despicable attack on Nojo's person, husband and granddaughter? I did your "HOMEWORK" on that one...

You don't want to give me the chance to condemn them because that would explode your narrative. Because you know I would...

Is this a viscous personal attack in your universe?

"Joanna: Annie, let me be very clear with this comment. You may want to think about the need to start taking responsibility for your behavior, your comments, who you associate with, and your actions."

really?

When trying to distract from your own despicable behaviour, it always pays to change the subject to someone else. (Nice use of the bold dangerfield . . . you are one bad mutha! :o>)

lol

I think it is curious that folks only like "free speech" when they are saying what they want to say. Otherwise, it is time for a "level playing field". I was unaware that the Constitutional right of free speech was only reserved for folks saying nice things about Republican governors. I thought the point of free speech was to allow folks to say what they want with very limited exceptions. I did not know that hurt fee fees was a protected category. Now THAT is a news story.

Mixed Bag:

No shortage of courage here, bub. There is no point in responding to someone who wants not only to frame a rather useless debate as well as define the language as we go along.

It is rather interesting that the same people who are so willing to identify liberals as those folks who stand in line for government handouts have time enough to sit in front of their monitors waiting for a response to their insipid remarks.

I have other interests, not the least of which is building another business. Unlike "conservatives" who would love to invest, but are just too darned uncertain, I know that opportunity doesn't wait for government guarantees. When I'm paying taxes, that means I'm making money. What a concept.

Alan, NJ:

You note I have an ego. Wow! Nothing gets by you. I take it, you DON'T have one.

No Joe:

You're willing to "overlook" my characterization? Wow! Coming from someone who has no compunctions about making up quotes and playing fast and loose with facts, I can only say your magnanimous forgiveness means about as much to me as a cup of urine.

Kirk:

I have not noted any serious accuracy issues with either Feisty or US Navy. However, I don't live on this thread. If you have found errors, I'm certain you will notify them. They can defend themselves.

As far as the attacks on Republican candidates, you must be joking. This field is the most pathetic I have seen in 12 campaigns. They're horrible. Even though Obama has not performed as I would have liked, I haven't seen a single Republican candidate who comes close to his ability.

@ Dangerfield:

See, the difference between us, Dangerfield, is that I don't keep score. I have never kept score of anyone's attacks on anyone, and mostly I just walk right by because I hate it so much. But when you start accusing me of things I haven't done, that gets my attention.

You may feel free to condemn JoAnna's vicious attacks on me whenever they occur, if she ever gets that chance again. I could easily find the worst one to show you from the date of the e-mail exchange I had with a member of the group who helped me through it, when no one else spoke up, but that's not what I do. I usually just handle it myself and let it roll off my back. I don't devote threads to airing my personal grievances. Until today, which will be the last day. I came out here to talk politics, and I find that you are all still wasting time with this.

If you side with JoAnna about anything, then I know all I need to know about you.

Really.

Actually, Anna Molly, I don't recall you ever referring to another blogger as a "liar". To me, that would seem out of character for you. I can't recall seeing JoAnna or No Jo call another blogger a "liar". Personally, none of you have used that epithet to the extent that it's become notable to me, and I've read (and been involved in) a lot of heated exchanges. Maybe I've just missed those discussions.

I'm very surprised that you find JoAnna to be less civil than, say, Feisty, Bev, or Houston.

Not less disagreeable to you in terms of her political views, but less civil in her manner of presenting them than the liberal/progressive bloggers I mentioned.

Interesting.

This FR blog is hilarious (in a sad way). Aren't your lives worth more than the constant griping? I've been alive for quite a while, and I've seen and heard things that would be considered "the bottom of the barrel." You people have given me a new perspective though. If you lift up the barrel and look underneath...

Don't allow hate to hold you under it's thumb. That path never ends in a place you want to be, and the only difference you will make is worsening your own life.

No comment I read from some anonymous poster on any website ever changes my opinion. Interacting in the real world does that. I challenge everyone of you who really want to make a difference to take a break from this blog for a week or two. Just simply do not read or post anything. Maybe you would come back and actually say something worth reading.

Hi Clara,

Can't say I've read all the posts over the weekend or even all posts about this librusgate of Friday, but I think it is admirable on your part that you cleared the air about the whole hacking thing. You admitted that you or someone didn't privatize the settings and that you all were not hacked. You accepted that it was wrong to knowingly claim posts were ads/advertisements as soon as you found out you guys were not hacked.

Interesting to view all the discussion brought out about this and the accompanying opinions, mine included. The 60 plus posts above have been interesting to view.

Changing topics...For those interested starting now, I'm speaking generally in the remainder of the post and not naming names below unless I do! :}

Can I comment on the whole team and the (your side my side thing)? Perhaps it speaks to the starting post. I understand that a lot of people on here have like minded beliefs, or like minded values but do we all have to be on a side? At times it is interesting to see that conservatives will see me as open minded when I criticize Obama's foreign policy on Afganistan, Libya or Israel. Other conservatives or moderates may note my disapproval of Obama's gumption/follow through on his promises. Believe me I'm am just speaking my mind and forming my views from a very far left angle.

I don't like the simple my side is good yours is bad approach or worse the idea that if you are a liberal/conservative you have to think exactly like me or you are not on my side. We are all a mixed bag of beliefs, values and opinions. Just because we don't like or think what the other person is saying doesn't mean that they are lying or bad.*

*Note last paragraph is meant to relate to reasonable posters not the swoop and p**p types.

Edit - Wow 80+ posts. You guys are fast. I only type 30 words a minute.

David Walker-

Just curious...

Did you take note of the fact that most of the individuals taking part in what you describe as this "useless debate" are liberal/progressives? And that your comment, in fact, sparked the debate you call useless?

Selective cognizance, indeed.

Anyway, we have your definitive view on the matter.

"If indeed such a group exists, the members deserve no respect."

On that we are in agreement...well, perhaps not "no respect".

Certainly not much respect, that's for sure, David.

Mark, (yellowdog)-

I think I have said it before, but I will answer you:

No, I do NOT think Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the country. The problem, from my view, is that he is incapable of admitting he is ever wring, that a proposal of his has not solved the problem, or just plain not worked.

As a result, he exacerbates most of the problems he tries to solve- then doubles down on the failure.

Before, (or perhaps, during) the controversy over a small group of posters attempting to control the dialogue on this board, I posted the results of the AP poll that came out recently. One topic of interest- a large majority of people see the obvious, and disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy. Interestingly, 55% agree that the government CAN create the opportunity for economic improvement.

I believe a majority agree with me- that it is Obama's programs that are not working- in fact, exacerbating the problems- and have lost faith in his ability to effect the economy in a positive way.

It has been said that the one person who cannot learn is the person who believes he or she knows everything. I am pretty sure that describes Obama.

Do I think the man has evil intentions? No, and I never have.

I do not believe he has ever had the kind of experiences that would inform his vision. And I do not believe he is capable of learning from his mistakes and failures, because he denies they exist.

I wish he were half as intelligent as Bill Clinton. He knew when he had misread the message of the electorate, and got down to brass tacks. The whole country benefitted from that. I would have been thrilled if Obama had done the same.

I, too, enjoy our conversations. We agree on some things, disagree on others- but your posts always make me THINK.

I look forward to more of your posts, Mark. Have a great day.

Oops- that line should have been 'ability to affect the economy'. I should have edited before I hit post.

If you side with JoAnna about anything, then I know all I need to know about you.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

If I said that to you about Feisty, it would be just as melodramatic and equally silly. And just as wrong.

As a moderate/libertarian, I agree with conservatives sometimes liberals sometimes and am an iconoclast on my own "island" of sanity at other times.

This has been about PERSONALITIES not politics, so why would agreeing with someone's POLITICS have any bearing on anything more than that?

Unprovoked Personal attacks or personal attacks in response to political posts are wrong WHOEVER is the perpetrator. Period. They should be condemned by all and endorsed by no one, not even their friends.

That would be the "the difference between us"...

I don't judge folks based on their politics here, but on the persona they display and the way they treat others.

So if I agree with Js1 or Feisty or anyone else, it's because I agree with their OPINION on that topic not with their personality.

I also often try to point out the folly of the often calcified positions some hold here and how quickly they descend into the kind of personal crap that constitutes this thread.

That always gets a great response...

Pietro, the last time I confronted Navy with misleading opinions or facts regarding Obamacare and told him he was using outdated links and just look at the recent Wall Street Journal article providing updated facts and figures, he responded by calling me a GOP Thug when I hadnt called him a name one time but was asking him to debate not make misleading statements and run away. There have been numerous other posts similar to that and he would prefer to ignore than actually debate on the facts. He usually gets in the gutter and calls someone a thug or a Nazi. Fiesty is much worse but thats based on my reading of the posts not from personal interaction.

Its not at all silly that I call you guys out on the use of personal destruction as your tool to debate rather than actually winning on the merits. You didnt even defend the liberals on this board so I assume you approve of it. Telling me that there are conservatives who call Obama names is no defense as do you think I approve of that and show me the post in this particular newsvine first thought article where that occurred then count up each name calling of Christie, Walker, Palin, Romney or Bachmann and score it for me ok? Anyone including a conservative that does that has no credibility in their opinions. As soon as they use an act of personal destruction, all credibiliy in their argument is gone and that applies both ways. Thats like me coming up to you and saying Pietro--"Do you know how low your IQ is and your are one of the most repulsive ugly fat individuals I have come across in my life time and Oh by the way your wrong about that health care mandate" That makes a ton of sense doesnt it?

Bag Boy:

I'm very surprised that you find JoAnna to be less civil than, say, Feisty, Bev, or Houston.

Not less disagreeable to you in terms of her political views, but less civil in her manner of presenting them than the liberal/progressive bloggers I mentioned.

Interesting.

Not necessarily more or less civil. But as I told Dangerfield, I usually let that stuff roll, on both sides, even when it comes from JoAnna, and even when it's directed at me. But that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt, Bag Boy. It hurts. Words cut.

I never said JoAnna called anyone a liar. I said liar "or worse." Get the difference?

Like dangerfield, if you feel comfortable ignoring what JoAnna does, and in particular how cruelly she attacks me, because you agree with her ideology, or for any other reason that seems good to you, that's up to you. I try to ignore that stuff myself, unless it hits too close to home. That is, when it's particularly vicious and pointed directly at me. I generally handle myself, but she's gone too far this time. I tried to warn her yesterday, but she apparently doesn't care. Let her take her show down the road from now on. It's okay.

So, I'm not really asking for your help. I'm just asking that those on "your side" (which is the only term I can find that fits the polarization this whole thing has created) stop accusing me -- by lumping me with everyone else -- of things I haven't done. If you really have the transcript, you know that's true. There are many other members of the group to whom this also applies. Leave them out of it, too. If you have something specific to say about another blogger, then say it, and let that person respond. I believe that this is what Clara and Nash are asking for, as well. Just don't make generalizations about the group that everyone out here reads and then assumes they apply to everyone in the group. There's been talk out here of defamation. That's exactly what defamation is. False statements of fact that lower a person in the estimation of the community. And you know that's the effect of all these insinuations because otherwise what's the point?

One last word, and let me be plain. JoAnna has convicted me by association of things she claims to have read out here that -- to paraphrase her -- stink to high heaven. JoAnna seems to be a friend of yours. Should I then convict you by association of supporting the abusive things that JoAnna says to and about me? If you want proof, go back and review the threads for June 8. I think you'll find on those threads what almost drove me off this board, for good. Really. If you can defend that, then fine. And then I'll know where you and I stand.

And if conservatives out here had ever offered any real friendship, I might have taken them up on it, too. But you're all starting to show your real stripes, aren't you?

___________________________________________

Counselor, I'm crushed. I thought we had something good going. We didn't agree on much, but, it was some good spirited conversation. (And you felt comfortable enough to talk dirty to me. If that isn't at least friendship, I don't know what is)

thought we had something good going.

So did I. And yet you've also participated in accusing the group of acting viciously toward you and other conservatives. By implication that includes me. Why on earth would you do that, Joe?

Now maybe you understand why i'm crushed, too.

David, that was not the point and I have seen your reasoned generally well thought out responses in my short past. You are definitely more attune than you let on and you clearly get the drift or meaning of my post. You are correct that Navy and Fiesty can fight for themselves and I wasnt asking you to fight for them. My comment was that they dont respond in substance only in vitriol. I pointed them out as part of the gang using personal attacks and demeaning personal comments rather than ever winning on the merits of their positions. Whether you think Obama is best suited for the job over any of the other candidates is based on your personal opinion and views on the relative positions he may have. Other people disagree, including myself, who feel that his economic policies and naive fiscal positions and clear lack of understanding of how the business world works is startling. But I dont have a clue whether thats because he is stupid, inexperienced or just has differing economic principles than I share as a fiscal conservative. I dont ever attack him personally or say anything negative about him or the personal characteristics of democratic congress people in my attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people I debate. I use personal experience, opinion and personal stories I know (including a UofC professor I talked to who flew to DC under the radar screen to give Obama an education on foreign tax policy who said he thought Obama was digesting the info, seemed relatively smart but it was hard to know in 2 hours with him but was completely in the dark, inexperienced and was wrong on all of his preconceived perceptions of how companies like GE, GM, Coke multinationals price, compete, make money and get taxes in foreign countries. His talk led to Obama reversing his views on the subject from his campaign promises which means he learns but why do I want an inexperienced president who never held a job in his life and has no economic life experiences) to debate.

My point was that many on this board dont do that. They would prefer to try and personally destroy the candiate or person they are debating, thats a big distinction from your comment that Obama is the better candidate. Maybe you have used personal comments to debate but I havent seen it but its hypocritical of you to chastise the conservatives but not the liberals--that was my point and I am pretty sure you knew that but would prefer to not be an equal opportunity scolder

Like dangerfield, if you feel comfortable ignoring what JoAnna does,

and in particular how cruelly she attacks me, because you agree with her ideology, or for any other reason that seems good to you, that's up to you. I try to ignore that stuff myself, unless it hits too close to home. That is, when it's particularly vicious and pointed directly at me. I generally handle myself, but she's gone too far this time. I tried to warn her yesterday, but she apparently doesn't care. Let her take her show down the road from now on. It's okay.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

So you won't post the "attacks" but still allude to them as viscous attacks...Did you EVER condemn Feisty's despicable attack on Nojo's person, husband and granddaughter? I did your "HOMEWORK" on that one...

You don't want to give me the chance to condemn them because that would explode your narrative. Because you know I would...

and...

Unprovoked Personal attacks or personal attacks in response to political posts are wrong WHOEVER is the perpetrator. Period. They should be condemned by all and endorsed by no one, not even their friends.

I think knowingly posting a false statement is wrong too...

You really should be ashamed of yourself

PS-

Joe are you the poster Feisty calls "The Idiot from Albany"? just asking

dangerfield -- I gave a date to Bag Boy -- go look for yourself. I don't generally condemn attacks on either side. And mea culpa for that, I guess. When it's aimed at me, I defend myself until it gets too bad, and then I generally run or walk away, as I did yesterday and on June 8, just to give you two examples. I'm not really asking for help so much as I'm asking that you stop lumping us all together. You talk about posting my allegations, but I'm not really here to revisit that. People are accusing the "gang" of saying vicious things about other posters and trying to get rid of them. I deny that charge and I challenge YOU to prove it. Otherwise, stop insinuating that I've participated in those things just because I was a member of a group. That applies to other members of the group as well. You are doing all of those people the same disservice you are doing me. I see you're doing it again by trying to taint my "friendship" with Joe by associating me with something Feisty said. Feisty doesn't speak for me. Joe knows what I think of him.

Two excerpts from comments from our very own dangerfield:

Their silence is their admission of guilt. If they could delete posts they could respond. If they are involved, this is a disgrace and potential career killer for them as actual paid journalists.

#2.26 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:33 PM CDT

and this . . .

Nashville Phony-

You are one of the guilty-you have no honor, and you actually defended this gross violation-because you are in collusion with these people.

#2.30 - Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:54 PM CDT

Yes, our very own dangerfield pretty much acted as judge and jury upon hearing the fantastic claims of the phantom poster "now i'm here". Once it became clear that "now i'm here" was posting lies mixed with carefully selected out of context private chat text, then dangerfield seemlessly shifted to making the conversation about whether or not Feisty should have made mean comments to no joe.

Of course, there is more where this came from, but hopefully, self-righteous and indignant dangerfield will return to his "independent" facade and quit trying to badger Anna Molly as a cover for his own questionable acts.

Ironically enough, the very Code of Honor he continues to harp about advises reporting inflammatory comments, not making them worse. I guess we are free to pick and choose those honorable bits that are most convenient for us, eh?

I have always tried to stay above the fray on this blog, I truly am an Independent and I do sometimes see the liberal point of view! I have been here for about 2 years now and have given up on the regular what I call the "14" Having spent 10 years in the military with 3 combat tours (only losing part of my knee) I have learned with great pain that at some point in the argument, a fight breaks out! Whether it be physical or verbal. Being that my real skills have proven to be combat skills I prefer to not argue with people because I know where I will tend to go! So I explain my opinion and wait for comments and discussion. From a lot of the "14" I have gotten a lot of vitriolic banter and abuse. Because my opinion doesn't fit with yours. I currently do not support what Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid have done to this country even though I do not have any bad feelings about Mr Obama! I dont think he wants to ruin our country and certainly would never call him or his family names! I respect the CIC of the United States specifically because of the title rank! The one thing I do know is that text by rule is devoid of emotion so it garners the emotion of the reader. Which can be a very misread application. I try to say what I mean and mean what I say. It seems that there is a lot of emotion on this blog today!

Pietro, you have it backwards as I have several times pointed out to Navy with the appropriate backup that his facts were old and outdated and his response was to call me names and call me a thug not the other way around. Generally when I respond, I never get a reply back if Navy or others get called out on misleading facts. Yesterday a poster said a bunch of nasty things about the republican congress based on votes of partial bills. I said that was misleading and using that logic, Obama and the democratic senate voted to extend Bush's tax cuts so obviously they are in favor of tax cuts. I got no response which is generally what Navy does. Do I want you to fight for him absolutely not and I am lost at why you think I am whining.

Did you even read anything I posted? Did you find any aspect of what I said that would be opposed or be unhappy with well researched responses from liberals? I am not complaining about Fiesty or Navy but actually doing what you are asking and pointing out instances where they refuse to debate. David posted statements that attempted to make him look objective but only called out conservative posters for falsehoods and lies. I responded and said that was unfair, in that liberal posters use personal attacks which undermines their credibility no differently. You respond to tell me to stop whining and basically just take it. I noticed you didnt even bother either time to refute my premise which I guess means you disagree and that you like personal attacks as a means of debate rather than winning on merits. Dont be lecturing me on laziness when Navy uses Soros funded nut job links that are as stupid as the right wing embellished web sites. My point had nothing to do with research or homework and if any of us are lazy and wrong I am sure you will point it out. I am not complaining at all about any well researched reply from you guys--as I think that would be wonderful. Personally attacking and using the art of personal destruction as a debate tool is not childish nonsense you just dont like getting called out for it. I am happy to let you outwit me or outsmart me on any fiscal topic you want so go for it but I can promise I wont ever say your ugly in the debate. So no your nonresponsive response did not help.

PS. Why would I go to blogs where everyone says the same thing and everyone agrees as how would I actually learn anything. If everyone agrees with everything I say, its like the emperor who has no clothes on right? Neither of us is always right on all topics and I know I can learn alot from others especially in areas I have no personal experience so why not go where I can find differing opinions and find out why. But you guys make it tough when I immediately discredit some BS coming from Mediamatters or Progressive whatever no different than if it came from the NRA for me. I would rather have you say, in my experience working at so and so, this is what I learned or what I experienced or what happened to me.

So did I. And yet you've also participated in accusing the group of acting viciously toward you and other conservatives. By implication that includes me. Why on earth would you do that, Joe?

______________________________________________

"viciously" is not a term I used or would use to describe the (formerly) secret libsrus chat room. And, especially not for you. I actually find it Hillaryous and very jr-high-schoolish. The "cool" kids taunting those they don't like because they're not "cool".

BTW, I hope that If I was ever brought up on charges in the libsrus chat room kangaroo court, you would vigoroulsy defend me. Pro bono, of course.

Wow Annie, you just don't know when to give it up. Your attempts to rally support for your position seem to be falling flat. You seem to have forgetten the hypocrisy of your statements where you try to garner support for your position, your self proclaimed victim-hood, and wanting of others support when you perceive you are attacked. But you neglect to do the same when others are attacked from the Left. I can not think of one time where you spoke out against anyone in your group of LibsRUs misfits when they conduct their (un)coordinated attacks. But now you want others to speak up when your feelings get hurt.

Interesting.

I truly am an Independent

This is your idea of being truly independent? Fascinating to say the least...

jollyoldsoul1

NJNB hurry back Im not sure I can fend off all 14 of them for long! Maybe if I keep them dancing (you know how those liberals love to dance) We can make it until you get home.

Let do the Tuesday morning version of the Liberal Cha Cha!

Koch Koch Kock cha cha cha Rove Rove Rove cha cha cha bushy bush bush ummmmpoppa mau mau! Do the hokie pokie and shake it all about( be careful though dont want to harm any innocent children)...Cha cha cha! Aiiiiiiie carrumba !!! BMI fiesty .......BMI!!!!

#1.48 - Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:56 AM CDT

OR this?

jollyoldsoul1

I just want Feisty to burn he she its a$$ out on this futile endeavor. I can hear the incessant drone slowly winding down.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/11/6245165-first-

Maybe this is what you meant?

jollyoldsoul1 Comment collapsed by the community

Amy..... are you a Ma$$hole or a real Maniac?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/03/6180588-nbcwsj-poll-tea-party-supporters-like-huck?commentId=20507704#c20507704

I really wish someone would have warned me today was re-invent yourself day on First Read! lol

Joe Albany: BTW, I hope that If I was ever brought up on charges in the libsrus chat room kangaroo court, you would vigoroulsy defend me. Pro bono, of course.

Maybe Ms. Molly can reference some of her more memorial moments where she challenged her LibsRUs brothers and sisters in the private chat area about their offensive public behavior in a way she's asking others to challenge people she is offended by. Did you change any minds using your superior logic Anna?

Sure Feisty In your case I do look pretty right! But I voted for both Mr Carter and Mr Clinton twice! So over all I am independent. If you knew anything about Maine people you would know how they think. Anyone from Mass. is a M@!$%#! (funny group) I currently am center right on a lot of issues and dispise most anything Ms Pelosi and Mr Reid have done to this country. That's not to say that I wouldn't support a center Democrat with the right ideas. Do I have issues with you, Bev and Navy boy You betcha I do! I live in the middle of Detroit I see every day what the left has propagated here in the inner city! I live on street where 3/4 of the residents are 2 to 3 generation welfare families with NO reason to ever change! Do a bit of research on Kwame Kilpatrick and the Kilpatrick family. See where that democratic family has taken Detroit. For the most part I would be able to sit and enjoy a chat and a drink with just about anyone! Im just not sure about you Bev and Navyboy!

Joe:

BTW, I hope that If I was ever brought up on charges in the libsrus chat room kangaroo court, you would vigoroulsy defend me. Pro bono, of course.

My pleasure, your honor. As for the fee, I'm always open to negotiations. ;-)

JoAnna:

Maybe Ms. Molly can reference some of her more memorial moments where she challenged her LibsRUs brothers and sisters in the private chat area about their offensive public behavior in a way she's asking others to challenge people she is offended by.

I never did, and I never asked you to lay off of anyone but me, either. I'm not asking it now. I'm just asking people to stop making false accusations about me.

Now stick a sock in it, please. I'm done with you. Truly.

Mixed Bag

I'm very surprised that you find JoAnna to be less civil than, say, Feisty, Bev, or Houston.

I'm surprised that Bag thinks he's in any position to pontificate on civility.

BTW: Unlike JoAnnaSmith, I don't make stuff up, put in in quote marks, and pretend someone else said it.

x

Pietro, if we only knew the people across the table my guess is that things would be much different but your right you need a thick skin. But again, you seem to be completely missing my point and I cant tell if you really are missing it or just want to lecture me or somewhat defensive yourself. First, my point to David and I said it with no personal malice was that personal attacks were just as bad as lies and falsehoods. I didnt know the conservative posters and had no personal stake in the people he called out so whether they do or not was irrelevant to my point. You are welcome to disagree with that discreet point I was making but you really havent said anything but stop whining or get a thicker skin. Maybe I am wrong and making an improper assumption on your views but feel free to correct me. I wasnt being whiny or at all thin skinned because for the most part, besides a couple of people, no one has personally attacked me. So I was positing the opinion that personal attacks damage a poster's credibility and I find them to say something about the person's debating style in that such person probably cant win on the merits. You can disagree with me on that point obviously but you really havent responded to that specific issue which I called David out on.

As for debating the issues, lets discuss. I would prefer to leave it to fiscal matters but I probably have opinions on other matters but lets do it. I agree you should feel free to use whatever sources you want and let the credibility and persuasiveness of such stand on its own. The fact that I dont find anything Soros funded as credible is just an opinion (you would be absolutely shocked why I know this) but I agree with you that we should all use sources that make us comfortable. I have no hangups on fairness its all about my personal views of credibility. When someone debates and says I saw this on Hannity or I saw it Maddow or I saw it in Media Matters or the NRA had this on its website, I agree that can be a source but I think its credibility is low. If Pietra says when I was doing this and based on my experience this is what happened, I would give it a ton more credibility. So to me its not fairness but credibility in your debating style. Finally, you use this blog maybe to get things off your chest which is different than some of us. So I find I would rather be cordial and learn something or see why someone feels differently than playing a game of Mortal Kombat. Thats has no interest to me and so maybe you and would not be good debaters. Enough said

As for debating the issues, lets discuss. I would prefer to leave it to fiscal matters but I probably have opinions on other matters but lets do it. I agree you should feel free to use whatever sources you want and let the credibility and persuasiveness of such stand on its own. The fact that I dont find anything Soros funded as credible is just an opinion (you would be absolutely shocked why I know this) but I agree with you that we should all use sources that make us comfortable. I have no hangups on fairness its all about my personal views of credibility. When someone debates and says I saw this on Hannity or I saw it Maddow or I saw it in Media Matters or the NRA had this on its website, I agree that can be a source but I think its credibility is low. If Pietra says when I was doing this and based on my experience this is what happened, I would give it a ton more credibility. So to me its not fairness but credibility in your debating style. Finally, you use this blog maybe to get things off your chest which is different than some of us. So I find I would rather be cordial and learn something or see why someone feels differently than playing a game of Mortal Kombat. Thats has no interest to me and so maybe you and would not be good debaters. Enough said

Kirk - Fair enough. You have spirit and spunk, and although we may not agree on all issues, I feel confident after posting on this thread that you and I can debate an issue and agree to disagree if necessary.

Again - it is not my intent to debase or 'lecture' anyone because I have too much to work on about myself to have time to do that to someone else.

As far as my debating 'style' is concerned, I am pretty straight up. If I feel your points are wrong, I will say I disagree. if you call me a 'Liberal doodie-head', then I'll tell you to grow up. I have no time for the personal attacks or the snide innuendoes. I grew up in New York, so if I call you an 'IDIOT' (I am not really doing that now, I am making a point. I have to do that because SOMEONE is going to post and say that I called Kirk an idiot) it is because that is exactly what I think of you. You will always know where I stand in my posts.

You are OK in my book Kirk. I look forward to our debates. I may even surprise you and AGREE with you from time to time!

Nashville Phony-

You are one of the guilty-you have no honor, and you actually defended this gross violation-because you are in collusion with these people.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You didn't post the whole thing for a reason and you are after me because I caught you dead to rights

This was in reference to Feisty's personal attack on Nojo...

so that misrepresentation makes you what?....

If you didn't feel so guilty you wouldn't be trying so hard to shift the focus elsewhere.

I have never flaged anyone as advertising to get their posts deleted

I have never defended a viscous personal attack on a poster in response to a political post.

You and your gang have.

Keep BSing and trying to cover your dirty tracks...

I went after what you did you're trying to go after my character which is typical...

I will post the whole dam long thing with feisty's slime your defense and the time stamps again, boring everyone, but I will not let some self-righteous gang member impugn my character when it is you and your gang who are the guilty parties...

Nashville_fan

dangerfield:

The accusation that was made was that there was a conspiracy between the moderators/reporters at First Read and the members of our group.

That allegation is not supported with the links you have posted. What those links show is folks using the tools available to all posters to highlight posts they found inappropriate or offensive, as is their right.

In the absence of the actual posts being discussed, there is no way to back up your claim that these tools were used inapproriately.

I know you are excited that you got to peep into our windows and listen to our discussions. But no matter how many times you post those same coversations, it does not prove collusion between moderators and posters.

So that claim remains a lie.

• 5

• !

#3.66 - Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:46 PM EDT

Thanks, I look forward to it. I am in NY at least twice a month so very familiar with the style ha. I grew up in rednecksville Illinois and now live in chicago but have 25 years of legal and finance experience so I have some relevant experience both from growing up in a completely farming, blue collar area where my parents had their own small business along with my mom being a teacher to working in some very high profile areas. I dont worry about disagreeing as much as why because that is relevant to me. Why because someone told me so or I learned it in a book, or I experienced or lived it are two different things. Not that either are right or wrong just I enjoy learning how someone got to their beliefs.

I know you are excited that you got to peep into our windows and listen to our discussions.

lol-What are you now, a mind reader? Reading those posts would make any normal person sick and want to wash their hands. That's how I feel, disgusted, and just a little amused at the junior-high gossip...

You don't know jack, you just cherry-picked the one thing that is he-said/she-said, which may or may not be true. You can't PROVE it isn't true, can you? So unless YOU have proof that there was no collusion, it's still an OPEN QUESTION

That is just ONE item on the list of things you and yours are party to.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

That allegation is not supported with the links you have posted. What those links show is folks using the tools available to all posters to highlight posts they found inappropriate or offensive, as is their right.

In the absence of the actual posts being discussed, there is no way to back up your claim that these tools were used inapproriately.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Flagging posts as advertising to get them deleted is inappropriate, wrong and most of all, petty and you were caught red-handed doing it, so stop with the BS. And you conspired off site to coordinate to do it, as the posts above document and prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.

and conspiring OFF site with others to do so is collusion, whether or not BS Murray was actually involved, or KNEW about your actions.

You can't bull@!$%# the facts here. They are your own words.

Everyone who cares, and most really don't, will have the chance to decide for themselves exactly what the posts prove or don't prove, and as I know you agree that "sunlight is the best disinfectant", so the best way to handle this is to publish every nasty little action, every single disgusting, filthy, page.

When this was said;

What's the matter NJNB - hubby out of town AGAIN? I would be more worried about WHAT was UPwith that then spreading you your HATRED every chance you get?
Do YOU think the hubby wants to get it on with a BITTER OLD BROAD that couldn't day something NICE if they had a GUN to their head?

and this;

You GO get them you miserable OLD BAT M'Kay?
PS: Thought you had me on ignore?
Nothing more than further PROOF you're a LIAR & and FRAUD...
DO YOU know where your hubby is? LMAO!
Other than with someone WHO is WARM?

in response to this post;

How about next week we get a story on the Issa hearings? You really do not want to miss that boat- looks like it will cost Holder his job.
How about a story on the secret fundraisers held in the Blue Room at the White House in March? Seems the DNC organized it, and Obama met with long term Wall Street donors. Of course, no money changed hands. Nosirree- that would be illegal.
They just wanted to chat. In secret.
How about one on Boeing and the NLRB- and the thousands of jobs the Obama administration is squelching?
You missed the boat on Cree Industries- could have been a good story. See, they took stimulus funds, and used them- to build a plant in China.
Well, I provided the leads. I guess you will get right to work- on a bunch of Palin stories.

Disgusting, inappropriate, intentionally cruel insinuations about a person's PERSONAL life in response to a POLITICAL post; Where is there anything here that merited an attack on a person's home and family life?

SHOW ME!

There is no justification for that PERSONAL HATE-FILLED diatribe that any decent person could find. So maybe YOU can tell me what made you condone it?

Hate-Speech that any DECENT person would have condemned, YOU gleefully ENDORSED. Endorsing the utterly vile and obviously inappropriate rantings of an emotionally disturbed person, responding to political questions with a fusillade of spittle spewing insulting personal HATE, YOU said;

P.S. To all the folks who got their fee fees hurt by Feisty's comment . . . newsflash . . . other folks have feelings too. You reap what ya sow, like it or not.

Well, P.P.S.

That newsflash is about to come back and bite you in the FANNY.

• 7

• !

#3.67 - Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:52 PM EDT

dangerfield:

So in closing, all you have against me is that you don't like the way I don't get upset enough when Feisty exercises her right to free speech?

Cool.

P.S. It is difficult to make a point about the inappropriatness of personal attacks while simultaneously making personal attacks . . . Nashville Phony? . . . Fanny? . . . I mean, I'm fine with it, but I'm just trying to understand how this is helping your point.

P.S.S. I didn't post the whole thing because I figured that most folks didn't give a rats a$$, oh parnoid one.

P.S.S.S. Self righteous gang member? Seriously? Face it dangerfield, you are a hypocrite. You claim to be upset about "personal attacks", but really you are upset that your plan to humiliate Libs 'R Us did not go the way you (ya'll?) planned. It's okay . . . you can try again . . . it is all good.

How fascinating it is that there's a group absolutely incensed that some average Americans became friends and decided to correspond online. "Collusion", they're calling it. Their "concern" over this is so phony and transparent, as shown by their LACK of concern when powerful interests actually DO collude in ways that ultimately impact upon all of us;

There’s a good chance that readers of this page already have some idea who David and Charles Koch are, and what’s happening this weekend, as the sugar daddies of the Tea Party throw a little party of their own in Palm Springs. Invitees include a pack of their billionaire friends, plus prominent pundits, Republican Party officials and lawmakers, a number of whom benefited from hefty Koch contributions this last campaign cycle.

Together they’ll strategize how to get rid of every regulation or politician that stands in the way of wealthy people becoming wealthier; namely, taxes, healthcare reform, environmental and financial protections, Obama and what little remains of the social safety net. Citizens United will undoubtedly energize the annual end-of-weekend ritual when all the donors—40 percent of them new—whip out their checkbooks to underwrite these adventures in subverting democracy with an eye to their bottom line.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158146/koch-brothers-v-left-palm-springs

Amen John B.

"I'm surprised that Bag thinks he's in any position to pontificate on civility."

Lol.

Of course you are, Houston.

BTW-Called anybody a brainless teabagger lately?

What a chilling post, IR. Combine the "echo chamber" with the politicians who the right supports and they have a stranglehold on our entire system.

Read the posts this morning and have a few, very few, comments:

First, Navy, the attack on women's reproductive rights, prenatal care, cancer screenings, etc. have been under attack for a long time now, but has intensified over the last couple of years. You could not be more right about that. The debt cutting agenda as outlined in the Ryan plan exacerbates this problem, especially for the poor, elderly and uninsured. While both Medicare and Medicaid need restrcturing, a scalpel rather than a butcher knife would be more appropriate. What kind of country have we become if we can't take care of the neediest Americans.

IR: Medicare will go broke by 2020 the absolute latest. Social Security by 2037, and by that time benefits will have been reduced to about 50%, perhaps a bit more. It's a fact IR, not Republican propaganda. Check the OMB figures. Yeah, there's a little scare tactics from both sides but the fact remains these entitlement programs are in financial difficulty, more is being paid out than paid in and that problem needs to be addressed.

David Walker: Your personal attacks on NOJO and Joanna Smith are, to be kind, not appropriate. you may question their facts, disagree with their opinions and totally disregard their conservative political agenda.

To state :"time is running out for us, and the liars are willing to kill America. That's right, they're not passively standing by, they are actively seeking this country's destruction - and it matters not a whit that they don't know it. Indeed, that makes them even more dangerous. They are truly the enemy, the missionaries of madness. They must be stopped." What you suggest is doing away with the First Amendment and proposing that will end the two party system and democracy as we know it.

It's opinion and dialogue David, we're not going to censor them or conservative media, burn all conservative books and call them liars just because you found a misstatement of fact. Do you want to fact check all the democratic points made on this site? Wanna bet there's at least more than one falsehood.

Point out the inaccuracies on both sides and stop the personal crusade against 2 specific posters.

Thanks

This is a very important post, IR. Thank you so much for doing this. I am getting very tired of being criticized as a lunatic for trying to get people to see the real dangers to democracy posed by the Koch brothers. It's good to have confirmation.

Groucho-

What you said...:)

If you build it they will come.

Regrettably, a whole bunch are already there, keeping the seats warm for the rest...

Good morning Independent Redneck Va.

It goes like this: large amounts of money a la Koch brothers are given to conservative think tanks where well-paid staffers develop position papers. The think tanks release the position papers pushing conservative ideas, then an army of publicists place the pundits from those very think tanks in media appearances to promote the ideas, repeating the talking points. The corporate media parrots these positions as if they're fact; conservative politicians (funded by the Kochs and other conservative donors) embrace and promote the same talking points, as if they're fact.

You are so right about the Koch Brothers. It's not just the Koch Brothers. It's that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailees @ FOX NOISE.

Others have referred to the network as "Faux News",^[18] "GOP-TV",^[19] "Fox Noise Channel",^[20] "Fox Nothing Channel", "Fixed News"^[21]and "Cluster Fox.

The documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism claims that Fox reporters and anchors, rather than citing an anonymous source in order to advance a storyline, Fox personalities allegedly use the phrase "some people say" to include unattributed conservative opinion and commentary into reports.

Fox News executives exert a degree of editorial control over the content of their daily reporting.

In the case of Fox News, some of this control comes in the form of daily memos issued by Fox News' Vice President of News.

News employees are interviewed to better understand the inner workings of Fox News. In memos from the documentary, Moody instructs employees on the approach to be taken on particular stories.

The Washington Post quoted Larry Johnson, a former part-time Fox News commentator, describing the Moody memos as "talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray."^[69]

Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."^[70][71]

In December 2010, Media Matters for America released a leaked October 2009 e-mail between Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon and the network's senior producers, which seemed to issue directives slanting Fox News' coverage of President Barack Obama'shealth care reform efforts. In the e-mail, Sammon instructed producers to not use the phrase "public option" when discussing a key measure of President Obama's reform bill, and instead use the terms "government option" or "government-run health insurance", noting negative connotations;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

I'd like to teach the world to sing in prefect harmony things do not go better with Koch.

Anna Molly..

Anna, all GOP are not lunatics or Tea Party members or racists. The media covers them cause that's sensationalism and that sells papers and creates ratings. Fox is the very best at doing it to liberals and Democrats. One sided, often incorrect facts, and never ending conservative opinion

To say they must be stopped, in language that does remind of repressive regimes of the past, is beyond scary and I would only hope that these are the fringe of the liberals on FR speaking.

Be against it, argue against it, refute every word but don't suggest "it must be stopped" as that sort of talk in no longer opinion, it borders on hate.

Groucho:

Be against it, argue against it, refute every word but don't suggest "it must be stopped" as that sort of talk in no longer opinion, it borders on hate.

What are you talking about? I didn't use that language or anything like it. But I am curious as to why you want to ascribe it to me. I'm the one who has been accused of being a lunatic for trying to get people's attention about the Koch brothers. You've never said a word about that, and yet you choose to attack ME for things I never said.

At the same time, I am also curious about why you chose David Walker to call out for his supposed attacks on JoAnna and no joe, and said not a word to JoAnna about her VERY virulent and VERY personal attacks on me, including her latest name-calling diatribe yesterday, that proved to be, as usual, factually unfounded. It seems that you level your criticisms in a biased way, yourself, Groucho.

Look to your own house before you make yourself the keeper of mine.

IR, fantastic work, keep up the pressure on the echo chamber.

Groucho, while I agree with your statement that not all GOP are lunatics, Tea Party members, or racists it's unfortunate that those are the groups setting the agenda within the party. There really are only two choices here. Either these fringe elements who control the Republican Party will destroy the party or they'll destroy the country. My belief is that they'll cause the collapse of the GOP, at which point more reasonable, moderate elements will again come to the fore. That's internal to the party and not really my business. My goal is to keep the likes of Michelle Bachmann from destroying the country I love.

Anna and John B.

Anna...then let me amend what I posted.

Personal attacks on either side are inappropriate. Stick to politics and facts and refute the argument. You supported David Walkers comments that included the comments made about the 2 conservative posters. This is about politics. Personal attacks don't belong here. That's last weeks news and I hope it would have changed.

John, agree with one addition, it's the fringe on BOTH sides. We need compromise now more than ever or nothing will get resolved.

The fringe in both parties are preventing that from happening, no compromises in sight, and as long as it continues there's a stalemate, no legislation gets passed and we sink deeper into the abyss.

Oh really, IR? Did the Koch brothers concoct this:

"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures—but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits." [p. 337 in the link below]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/pdf/spec.pdf

Or this:

"The accumulated holdings [of the Social Security trust funds] can be viewed as a measure of funds dedicated to pay future benefits. However, these funds will only be available as the government raises the resources necessary to pay for the securities as they are redeemed to pay benefits. The securities are a promise, by the U.S. government, to raise the necessary funds. The funds used to purchase the securities were used to fund other government activities, and cannot finance benefits directly." [p. CRS-13 in the link below]

http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss3.pdf

Or this:

"The trust funds are part of the federal government, so transactions between Social Security and the Treasury are intragovernmental and have no net effect on federal bor-
rowing from the public or on the unified budget. Any increase in revenues credited to the trust funds or decrease in outlays from the funds makes available additional cash that can be used to finance other government activities without requiring new government borrowing from the public; the trust fund surpluses that were generated in previous years have been used in that way. Similarly, any increase in outlays or decrease in revenues for the OASDI trust funds in some future year will represent a draw on the government's cash in that year. Thus, the balances in the OASDI trust funds (in the form of government securities) are an asset to the Social Security system but a liability to the rest of the government. The resources to redeem government securities in the OASDI trust funds and thereby pay for Social Security benefits in some future year must be generated from taxes, other government income, or government borrowing in that year. [p.3-4 in CBO link below]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf

The FACT of the matter is that Social Security has a near term funding problem in that the Social Security trust fund has no cash in it and therefore needs to be recapitalized in order to pay benefits to the boomers. The only way to do that is to increase taxes or issue more debt. The paper balances in the trust fund are an accounting artifice that creates the illusion of solvency where there is none. And the Koch brothers had nothing to do with that.

Groucho:

You supported David Walkers comments that included the comments made about the 2 conservative posters.

What? I supported IR's comment. I didn't even vote for David's.

Seriously. You need to apologize to me for what you said, and then think VERY seriously about what you say out here and to whom you say it. Your self-righteous is showing today, just like your paranoia was showing the other day. I am not a part of any conspiracy against conservative posters. If they all left tomorrow, so would I.

@Anna -- Now you know how Glenn Beck feels for pointing out the dangers to democracy George Soros is promoting. What fake indignation. That's hilarious.

Anna..

You are correct, I took your comments as support for Walker when it was for IR.

I do apologize for that. I know you are not part of any conspiracy and I did apologize.

You think I'm being paranoid for calling out Walker as he specifically mentioned 2 conservatives and said they MUST be stopped? Doesn't that sound just a tad fringe-like to you?

That's not paranoia, his tone and comments, at least in my opinion, were hate filled. Disagree if you will

Again, apologies for associating you with the wrong post.

That's got nothing to do with Groucho's attack on me, Ben, and Glenn Beck makes himself a target for personal attack by accepting millions of dollars a year for what he does on national television. I imagine he feels just fine.

OMG,

Bill just admitted that Republicans RAIDED the Social Security LockBox!

Priceless. Yes, they did. Part of the STARVE THE BEAST Strategy, no doubt.

Groucho:

You think I'm being paranoid for calling out Walker as he specifically mentioned 2 conservatives and said they MUST be stopped? Doesn't that sound just a tad fringe-like to you?

No, your paranoia the other day related to your unfounded accusations that the LibsRUs group acted in concert in responding to the public revelation of our private posts. We hadn't -- or at least, I hadn't. That's exactly the kind of false assumption about us that you continue to make, over and over and over again.

But your apology is gratefully accepted. Thank you.

Groucho-

You have been accused of libel on the board...that's a serious accusation.

I warned him, dangerfield, that his "truce" was worthless.

I told him that on the strength of their belief that he would honor his agreement, they would call him a liar, and pretend that nothing at all had happened.

Now we have David Walker slyly praising them for their efforts to stifle free speech.

The gang of 38 seems to be culled to 19- I guess they are still trying to figure out "whodunit".

Yep...got it...read it...answered it.

Not starting this crap over again.

Anna Molly if the Koch Bros are bad, how about George Soros? How do you feel about his plan to take over Secretary of States offices, why would he want to do that? Could it be that SOS control the voting in any given State? There wouldn't be some dot to connect there now would there?

How about the money he has pumped into states trying to change judges from being elected to being appointed by a committee of attorneys? Wouldn't that be disenfranching?

Of course to change the judges there would have to be some constitutional revisions requiring approval by a vote of the citizens, but we all know how enough money can talk people into doing things they don't understand.

So why so much hand wringng over the Kochs? I'm betting when you add it all up, from the obvious to the clandestine, it's a pretty level playing field with the amount of money being spent by both sides to influence agendas. You just don't happen to like the agenda the Kochs are pushing.

Take it up with IR, White Collar. I've had enough of this for today.

I feel a morning FR Liberal Cha Cha coming on! We have had several Koch koch koch's all we need are a few Roves and a Bush or two and we can dance. Cha cha cha! Come on Feisty, Bev Anna get over here and shake that booty in the Cha Cha line!

Clara KCMO

OMG,

Bill just admitted that Republicans RAIDED the Social Security LockBox!

Priceless. Yes, they did. Part of the STARVE THE BEAST Strategy, no doubt.

Yes he did Clara, however I think the implication was that it was the dems who did it. But, for the more informed posters here, that was simply a waste of key stroking.

I believe that AM, Don't know why anyone would bother to rehash the garbage from last week yet again. What a waste of time. I just hope they don't start talking about digraced NY Reps again.

Bill just admitted that Republicans RAIDED the Social Security LockBox!

Yes he did Clara, however I think the implication was that it was the dems who did it. But, for the more informed posters here, that was simply a waste of key stroking.

Too funny.

The sources I quoted were impartial government sources dated in both Democratic and Republican Administrations. "Informed posters" would know that it has been standard operating procedure for the federal government to use the dollars in most trust funds to fund current operations. Neither Democrats nor Republicans "raided" these trust funds (as Al Gore famously tried to suggest). Rather, instead of putting those dollars under a mattress they were loaned back to the government to be used for other purposes.

Under normal circumstances, recapitalizing these trust funds to pay current benefits would be a manageable problem. But today's circumstances are not normal, and therein lies the problem. The Social Security trust fund is imposing huge liabilities on a government that is already burdened by a $14 trillion debt, and on a working age population that has no stomach to have their taxes increased. Hence, the paper balances in these funds are an accounting artifact that creates the illusion of solvency where there is none.

P.S. to Savvy Senior – I know the logic of this argument may be difficult for you to follow, so feel free to question posters such as myself and others who are actually informed on this issue. We'll be glad to walk you through it so that even you can understand what's going on.

Bill, Fairfax VA: P.S. to Savvy Senior – I know the logic of this argument may be difficult for you to follow, so feel free to question posters such as myself and others who are actually informed on this issue. We'll be glad to walk you through it so that even you can understand what's going on.

I am well aware that our SSTrust Fund was raided and replaced with treasury notes, supposedly by both parties, but my comment to Clara was addresssing, imo, the implication that this was accepted practice only by democrats and, if so, an indication of your arrogance.

This a venue for sharing information, ideas and differing veiw points. I have read many of your posts in the past and recognize your abilities and expertise, however it is not necessary to be either condescending or insulting when responding to posters comments. The sun neither rises nor sets in your a$$, so get a grip as there are many who are far more "intelligent " than you.

x

Savvy

I am probably the last person you want piling on here;

But Thank you and WELL said on post 3.27

ooo

Now that's two of the most intelligent posts I have seen from both of you. Keep it up. LOL!

I was thinking they needed a room!

I would venture to say, Anna Molly, that most people in Pa. couldn't name who sits on our Supreme Court--let alone to read about them having what everyone can probably agree on was at the minimum a heated confrontation, whether or not it can be proven to have been more than that. Can you tell me about the relative size of the 2 justices----is Prosser of such a stature that he could have been physically threatened by Justice Bradley? (I'm trying to figure out whether self-defense would work here).

Anna Molly:

I've been trying to follow the events surrounding David Prosser. Was there an observer who saw Prosser attempt to choke Justice Bradley?

If you enlarge this photo of the Court, you will see Chief Justice Abrahamson, a rather petite woman, sitting in the middle. To her right (left in the photo) is Ann Walsh Bradley. On the other side of Bradley is David Prosser. Prosser is obviously the larger of the two.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_b8006134-8442-11df-b57d-001cc4c03286.html

I'm not very impressed with the self-defense allegations that were belatedly raised by Republicans. Even if Bradley rushed at Prosser, which is what he alleges, grabbing her by the throat does not seem to serve a useful purpose. The normal response would seem to be putting up your hands to fend off the alleged assault, but not necessarily placing someone in a chokehold.

I would add to this that Prosser publicly called Justice Abrahamson, that petite woman in the center, a "b!tch" and vowed to destroy her. He has quite a temper on him. In his debates with Joanne Kloppenburg he was condescending, in the minds of many people, to the point of rudeness. In short, whatever else might be said about him, he's NOT a chivalrous man known for his gentle treatment of women.

Ron:

As I heard it, there were several witnesses, including justices. I've never been in the Court's new chambers, but I highly doubt the whole thing was quiet. Trying to claim it didn't happen, as Prosser reportedly did, wasn't going to cut it.

To all appearances this is being handled well by the authorities. What concerns me about it is that Conservatives are using an apparent attack by a Republican to attack the victim. Conservative media is already mobilized in a call for Justice Bradley to be removed from the court AND for Justice Abrahamson--not even a part of the incident other than her role as apparent witness--to step aside as Chief Justice.

Well the side-show drama continues for Anna (at least it keeps her distracted) in Wisconsin, it appears Wisconsin governor has achieved fiscal success by signing that states budget, (balanced budget!). Congratulations to Governor Walker and the taxpayers of the Wisconsin!

Well deserved applause for their hard work and success.

AM--I believe Prosser would correct you and say he called the Justice a "total bitch". I guess there is a difference. I didn't think the self defense argument was going to make it---isn't the response supposed to be commensurate with the threat? Who ever knew Wisconsin was such a dramatic place? I thought it was all about cheese and the Packers!

SF

Apparently constipation can really cause some to behave in a foul manner.

Im thinking that if there were an illegal act he would have been arrested by now. If you want to try this out, go outside find a person any person. Put your hands around their neck and squeeze! Im pretty sure you will have to spend at least a few hours in the county lock up

How can it be called negotiating and compromise when one side first says it won't consider raising the debt ceiling without addressing the deficit (even though neither side has ever done that before). The other side agrees to this and then the first group says---the only way to address the deficit is to cut spending. Why are they unable to compromise over tax rates and give something? And why do I have the sense that this is so much public posturing while deals are being made behind the scenes?

Nash:

First Read says that "Democrats and Republicans are playing chicken on the debt ceiling and medicare." But is that true?

Of course it's not true. The Democrats will go along with big spending cuts (probably TOO big), in exchange for much more modest revenue increases. In other words, they are willing to compromise. The Republicans refuse to entertain any revenue increases whatsoever and demand only enormous budget cuts. In other words, what the Republicans want from Obama and the Democrats is capitulation, not compromise.

But as the Republicans become increasingly insane, the media has to pretend they're merely mirror images of the Democrats. To the media, the only real difference between the two parties is the color of the team uniforms, and it's all a big game whose only purpose is to give the media something to chatter about.

And what's "too big" on spending cuts Houston?

Oh wait, I forgot, people like YOU actually think that massive government spending is a "good" thing, right? As a matter of fact you probably think that another "stimulus" like the Democrats are talking about is just wonderful, correct?

Why don't you people wake up to the fact that the CONSTITUTION of this country was written to STOP massive government expansion, spending, debt, and instrusion into our lives?

Why don't you READ it sometime. It's a document that is about LIMITED government, not the stupidity that you on the left support.

The biggest lie told by the Republican-Tea Party is wanting small Government. That's just the big WHOPPER told to their base. Instead, Government grows under Republican leadership.

It is funny to see how the left is starting to prepare itself for the inevitable.

Ben, Which is the reason this Independent has 1.67Mbs of screen prints, Of some of the most memorable moments on this blog! The day after election day is either going to be spent deleting a lot of files. Or (as I think) a lot of fun at the expense of some on this site. I just hope people will show up! I was having a conversation with a fellow I person yesterday and he said, "I almost would like to see the republicans take the Senate and the House and let Mr Obama win". Just so he could watch the dismantling!

CherylLM

Oh wait, I forgot, people like YOU actually think that massive government spending is a "good" thing, right?

Wrong. People like me think that the government needs to spend enough to promote the general welfare, like the US Constitution says it should, and no more. Tax subsidies to big oil ethanol, and giving corporate jets special tax breaks do not promote the general welfare, in my opinion. Neither do the socialist farm subsidies that Michele Bachmann benefits from.

"Republican destructionists"?

If you check your HISTORY, you'll find that nearly EVERY program that is bankrupting this country was passed by Democrats.

We're in debt because Democrats think that Government is the answer to everything. We have massive "entitlement" programs because Democrats think that those that actually EARN what they have actually owe it to those that don't. Democrats think that every American has a "right" to own a home and not only backed CRA and Fannie and Freddie buying up hundreds of billions of dollars in bad mortgages, but even protected them while they sold those mortgages as "securities" and caused the present recession we're in. Democrats backed bankrupting unions, and then bailed them out. Democrats back "public employee" unions which are bankrupting the states. Democrats over-regulated and over-taxed the industries of this nation, literally FORCING them to export jobs overseas. Democrats passed the most expensive, massive, welfare program in our history last year and LIED to the entire nation about its costs. Democrats keep on thinking that more government spending, more taxes, and more regulation, while expanding the government by 35% in the middle of a recession is the "answer" to everything.

But it's all about the "Republican destructionists", right?

Seems to make more sense to me, then your statement!

CherylLM

If you check your HISTORY, you'll find that nearly EVERY program that is bankrupting this country was passed by Democrats.

If you checked real history rather than your made-up history, you would notice that what is "bankrupting" this country are the Bush tax cuts, the unpaid-for Bush wars, and the revenues shortfalls caused by the Bush Recession.

Democrats keep on thinking that more government spending, more taxes, and more regulation, while expanding the government by 35% in the middle of a recession is the "answer" to everything.

Uh, the Democrats under Obama have CUT taxes to rates lower than they were when Bush left office. That's why current rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years -- when the commie business-hating Republican Dwight Eisenhower started raising taxes and increased spending on things like the Interstate Highway system, followed by one of the greatest economic boom in American history.

Willie, Im a Independent who feels that the liberal agenda is not one I would like to see this country follow. But I dislike the word "HATE" I have fought on 2 continents and have taken the life of more than a few humans. I knew it was me or them.....still I did not hate them. Hate is a powerful word that can cause emotional reactions far beyond the actual reason for the word to be used. I used to be an emergency foster parent and took in children removed from their homes in the middle of the night because of a multitude of reasons. If there was ever a reason to hate people it would be for what these parents did to their loving caring children! But I managed to find understanding in how they got to be these kinds of people. If you look deeper you will see things in everyone that has some sparkle of kindness. So when I see a post like yours where the word HATE is bandied around so easily it worries me!

White/Happy: You have done an excellent job of illustrating the core values and principals of the Tea Party movement, and M. Bachmann has clearly stated that she is the divine chosen leader of that movement. The movement is clearly a while supremecy organization, with Protestant religious values, and backed by a 100% capitalistic monetary system. Attempting to debate the good/evil qualities of those values would be useless as anyone involved in the movement decides these matters using the emotional brain (some call it the 2nd brain tier). It is very difficult to aruge with emotion because logical, rational thinking is thown out the window.

That being said, several people here are rational thinkers (the highest or what some call the 3rd brain tier, and definietly a Protestant no-no) and find these values morally corrupt. That is why you so many posts calling out the fallacies of the Tea Party movements values.

Happy fourth to you, and please keep those posts coming. All people of this nation need to see examples of the Tea Partys true values and ethics.

Blobert..... not everyone shares your liberal hate them kind of views. Some people strive to be middle of the road!