America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by teedubbya. 59 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
The Liberal disease explained
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Kawak Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Jun 22 2011, 7:43 PM EST
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025
For the past thirty years, David Mamet has been a controversial and defining force in theater and film, championing the most cherished liberal values along the way. In some of the great movies and plays of our time, his characters have explored the ethics of the business world, embodied the struggles of the oppressed, and faced the flaws of the capitalist system.

But in recent years Mamet has had a change of heart. He realized that the so- called mainstream media outlets he relied on were irredeemably biased, peddling a hypocritical and deeply flawed worldview. In 2008 he wrote a hugely controversial op-ed for The Village Voice, "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain- Dead Liberal,'" in which he methodically eviscerated liberal beliefs. Now he goes much deeper, employing his trademark intellectual force and vigor to take on all the key political and cultural issues of our times, from religion to political correctness to global warming. A sample:

The problems facing us, faced by all mankind engaged in Democracy, may seem complex, or indeed insolvable, and we, in despair, may revert to a state of wish fulfillment-a state of "belief" in the power of the various experts presenting themselves as a cure for our indecision. But this is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. Here, the captives, unable to bear the anxiety occasioned by their powerlessness, suppress it by identifying with their captors.

This is the essence of Leftist thought. It is a devolution from reason to "belief," in an effort to stave off a feeling of powerlessness. And if government is Good, it is a logical elaboration that more government power is Better. But the opposite is apparent both to anyone who has ever had to deal with Government and, I think, to any dispassionate observer.

FuzzNJ Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Jun 22 2011, 8:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
So was he healed by the blood of Ayn?
wheelrite Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Jun 22 2011, 8:16 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
The Liberal commie homo disease is easy to understand...

Lazy phucks that want me to pay their way...


no need to write a book...
FuzzNJ Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Jun 22 2011, 8:25 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
The Liberal commie homo disease is easy to understand...

Lazy phucks that want me to pay their way...


no need to write a book...



This is the word of the Lord, Ayn Rand.
HockeyDad Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Jun 22 2011, 9:00 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
FuzzNJ is a captive to ideology.
wheelrite Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Jun 22 2011, 9:31 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
This is the word of the Lord, Ayn Rand.


as opposed to Marx?

Whistle
Kawak Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Jun 22 2011, 9:59 PM EST
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025
HockeyDad wrote:
FuzzNJ is a captive to ideology.


“I never questioned my tribal assumption that Capitalism was bad,” he writes now, “although I, simultaneously, never acted upon these feelings.” He was always happy to cash a royalty check and made sure to insist on a licensing fee. “I supported myself, as do all those not on the government dole, through the operation of the Free Market.”

He saw he was Talking Left and Living Right, a condition common among American liberals, particularly the wealthy among them, who can, for instance, want to impose diversity requirements on private companies while living in monochromatic neighborhoods, or vote against school vouchers while sending their kids to prep school, or shelter their income while advocating higher tax rates. The widening gap between liberal politics and liberal life became real to him when, paradoxically enough, he decided at last to write a political play, or rather a play about politics. It was the first time he thought about partisan politics for any sustained period
wheelrite Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Jun 22 2011, 10:03 PM EST
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Kawak wrote:
“I never questioned my tribal assumption that Capitalism was bad,” he writes now, “although I, simultaneously, never acted upon these feelings.” He was always happy to cash a royalty check and made sure to insist on a licensing fee. “I supported myself, as do all those not on the government dole, through the operation of the Free Market.”

He saw he was Talking Left and Living Right, a condition common among American liberals, particularly the wealthy among them, who can, for instance, want to impose diversity requirements on private companies while living in monochromatic neighborhoods, or vote against school vouchers while sending their kids to prep school, or shelter their income while advocating higher tax rates. The widening gap between liberal politics and liberal life became real to him when, paradoxically enough, he decided at last to write a political play, or rather a play about politics. It was the first time he thought about partisan politics for any sustained period


They all know deep down,They're shallow ,self absobred morons...
HockeyDad Offline
#9 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 6:50 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
wheelrite wrote:
They all know deep down,They're shallow ,self absobred morons...



...but they mean well.
tweoijfoi Offline
#10 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 9:02 AM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
It's a real self-affirming circle in here... to put it nicely.
FuzzNJ Offline
#11 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 9:16 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Kawak wrote:
“I never questioned my tribal assumption that Capitalism was bad,” he writes now, “although I, simultaneously, never acted upon these feelings.” He was always happy to cash a royalty check and made sure to insist on a licensing fee. “I supported myself, as do all those not on the government dole, through the operation of the Free Market.”

He saw he was Talking Left and Living Right, a condition common among American liberals, particularly the wealthy among them, who can, for instance, want to impose diversity requirements on private companies while living in monochromatic neighborhoods, or vote against school vouchers while sending their kids to prep school, or shelter their income while advocating higher tax rates. The widening gap between liberal politics and liberal life became real to him when, paradoxically enough, he decided at last to write a political play, or rather a play about politics. It was the first time he thought about partisan politics for any sustained period


lol, so being a Republican means living in monochromatic neighborhoods, sending their kids to private prep schools, less diversity and sheltering their income?

You guys are using him as an example of someone who has seen the light when these are all Republican stereotypes of rich white guys that he, as a liberal, was doing? Might as well become a republican, I'm acting like one.

But the majority of republicans are not rich white guys, yet they vote for the party that protects them, not the working men and women like them, all on the hopes that someday, just maybe someday if I work hard enough, they too can be just like them.

You won't.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#12 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 9:26 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
lol, so being a Republican means living in monochromatic neighborhoods, sending their kids to private prep schools, less diversity and sheltering their income?

You guys are using him as an example of someone who has seen the light when these are all Republican stereotypes of rich white guys that he, as a liberal, was doing? Might as well become a republican, I'm acting like one.

But the majority of republicans are not rich white guys, yet they vote for the party that protects them, not the working men and women like them, all on the hopes that someday, just maybe someday if I work hard enough, they too can be just like them.

You won't.



More gobblety-gook from the resident homemaker.Frying pan
FuzzNJ Offline
#13 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 9:43 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
More gobblety-gook from the resident homemaker.Frying pan



lmao. Keep voting against your own interest. You can keep whining and complaining then.
daveincincy Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 9:44 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2006
Posts: 20,033
It makes sense, but it's not just a "liberal" disease. It's a political disease...right, left, dem, rep, etc. It's also a social disease...rich, poor, white, black, etc. It's also a "religion" disease...catholic, prodestant, lutheran, jewish, muslim, etc. People don't know who they are and attach themselves to a group in the hopes of some sort of affirmation.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#15 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 9:48 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
lmao. Keep voting against your own interest. You can keep whining and complaining then.



Yeah..voting for the Dems is really in my better interest. Let's just pile on more debt and crush the system monetarily instead of a violent revolution like the Marxists want...yeaaaa!

Make some cookies...maybe you're good at that.

Because here...you're THE joke.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#16 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 9:49 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
daveincincy wrote:
It makes sense, but it's not just a "liberal" disease. It's a political disease...right, left, dem, rep, etc. It's also a social disease...rich, poor, white, black, etc. It's also a "religion" disease...catholic, prodestant, lutheran, jewish, muslim, etc. People don't know who they are and attach themselves to a group in the hopes of some sort of affirmation.



Yet when people stand up for themselves they get labeled as racists or intolerant.

Damned if you do...damned if you don't.
FuzzNJ Offline
#17 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:02 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Yeah..voting for the Dems is really in my better interest. Let's just pile on more debt and crush the system monetarily instead of a violent revolution like the Marxists want...yeaaaa!

Make some cookies...maybe you're good at that.

Because here...you're THE joke.


They both suck, it's just that one party's policies work slightly better for the working class. The Democratic party is way to conservative now as they have moved to the right. A revolution, violent or not, is not out of the question because at no time in our history has more wealth been controlled by so few. This has started scores of revolutions before.

How many wall st. executives responsible for the melt down are in jail? You know, the guys who lost your pensions, 401k's, retirement accounts and nearly sent the entire world into a depression? The guys who because of their greed and gambling will force most of us to work longer, for less pay. The same guys who want to take over your Social Security money. One. Madoff, and why? Because he stole from the rich.

All the rest got bailed out with money from the very people they stole from. Now not only have we lost retirement money, we need to pay more taxes for the bailout. But suggest that the people who made all the money and have all the money pay a little more in taxes and it's like the world is going to end. And people, who are living paycheck to paycheck defend them! It's insanity.

And see how I ignored the personal insults?
FuzzNJ Offline
#18 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Yet when people stand up for themselves they get labeled as racists or intolerant.

Damned if you do...damned if you don't.


lmao, so stupid.

Sounds like a white supremacist saying he doesn't hate black people, he just loves white people.

If it's racist or intolerant, it is. Has nothing to do with standing up for yourself.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#19 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:10 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
They both suck, it's just that one party's policies work slightly better for the working class. The Democratic party is way to conservative now as they have moved to the right. A revolution, violent or not, is not out of the question because at no time in our history has more wealth been controlled by so few. This has started scores of revolutions before.

How many wall st. executives responsible for the melt down are in jail? You know, the guys who lost your pensions, 401k's, retirement accounts and nearly sent the entire world into a depression? The guys who because of their greed and gambling will force most of us to work longer, for less pay. The same guys who want to take over your Social Security money. One. Madoff, and why? Because he stole from the rich.

All the rest got bailed out with money from the very people they stole from. Now not only have we lost retirement money, we need to pay more taxes for the bailout. But suggest that the people who made all the money and have all the money pay a little more in taxes and it's like the world is going to end. And people, who are living paycheck to paycheck defend them! It's insanity.




and YOU defend those policies! You think and still do that it was the government's role to bailout and buyout Wall Street.

No, you don't get to change your tune now Rachael Ray.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:11 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
lmao, so stupid.

Sounds like a white supremacist saying he doesn't hate black people, he just loves white people.

If it's racist or intolerant, it is. Has nothing to do with standing up for yourself.



See what I mean Dave?

It's like some warped Pavlovian experiment.whip
FuzzNJ Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:16 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
and YOU defend those policies! You think and still do that it was the government's role to bailout and buyout Wall Street.

No, you don't get to change your tune now Rachael Ray.


I didn't defend, I reluctantly agreed it was necessary for the Bush administration to do it to stabilize the world economy. I did not think the way it was done, with no strings or demands etc., was right. The bailouts of GM and Chrysler at least had conditions and the taxpayer will get back all their money and then some.

Truth is if it hadn't been done, things would be a lot worse. If it would have been done better, things would be a bit better.

I did say quite a bit more in the post that you didn't address though, so I can assume you agree on the rest?
tweoijfoi Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:28 AM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
DrMaddVibe wrote:
and YOU defend those policies! You think and still do that it was the government's role to bailout and buyout Wall Street.

No, you don't get to change your tune now Rachael Ray.


He's saying the bailout was neccessary but that those responsable should have been strung up and/or life in prison, instead of getting off richer than ever.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:33 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
I didn't defend, I reluctantly agreed it was necessary for the Bush administration to do it to stabilize the world economy. I did not think the way it was done, with no strings or demands etc., was right. The bailouts of GM and Chrysler at least had conditions and the taxpayer will get back all their money and then some.

Truth is if it hadn't been done, things would be a lot worse. If it would have been done better, things would be a bit better.

I did say quite a bit more in the post that you didn't address though, so I can assume you agree on the rest?




I was against Bush doing it and I'm against ANYONE doing it! The American taxpayer LOST money on those 2 auto companies. Bond and stockholders did too...I'm waiting litigation on that...It's going to be amusing to watch Owebama's healthcare get stricken down as un-Constitutional as well as the rest of his dismal policies.

No, theres not any truth to it...we have bankruptcy laws on the books already...USE THEM! You have no idea what would've happened, but I can tell everyone reading this that Capitalism if they would've allowed it to operate would've taken care of this mess sooner than the stagnation we have now with constant meddling. Instead it was a powergrab by this administration to payoff the unions that put him in power. See it for what it was for God's sake! The solid "truth" is you don't know what the hell you're talking about because you don't really know what would've happened. Instead we get to hear after the fact that money was doled out to foreign institutions...WITH NO OVERSIGHT! By an organization with NO OVERSIGHT! They're answerable to nobody! When they do get trotted up on the hill they don't answer the questions...because they can't!

That's the problem with halfwit students with no practical experience outside of a classroom...when the rubber hits the road it doesn't work. They want to have their hands on the till...they're not fit to have their hand on their own ass! Look at how the uber-smaaat scholars are leaving this administration back to the sweet payday of a classroom. THEY created this mess! Now they get to lecture fresh brain mush with their failed idelogy...but they won't say that...they'll claim they were misunderstood...the American public is too stupid to follow their ideas...or we ran out of money or some other BS that you'll crow about right with them. Too big to fail was the battle-cry the Turbo-Tax Timmay's and Bennie the Beards were screaming. You bought the lies.

As for the rest of you post...who cares? You? Get over whatever it is you're trying to do and yes you can assume anything and evewrything you want. Everyone here KNOWS that's what you do. Everyone here KNOWS what happens when one does.
FuzzNJ Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:33 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tweoijfoi wrote:
He's saying the bailout was neccessary but that those responsable should have been strung up and/or life in prison, instead of getting off richer than ever.


I don't think there is a death penalty for fraud, but you basically are correct. Beer
DrMaddVibe Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:37 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
tweoijfoi wrote:
He's saying the bailout was neccessary but that those responsable should have been strung up and/or life in prison, instead of getting off richer than ever.



Half right!

The bailouts were NOT necessary.

Businesses fail every day. Laws were created so a business like GM could restructure it's debt and continue operating. Instead we wiped away all debt and gave more power to morons that didn't know how to run their business to begin with!

As for being strung up...yes. Wall Street to Detroit...you want the taxpayer dollars to run your business...you deserve whatever the taxpayer wants to give you...INDIVIDUALLY! If you wanted to donate to them...do it, but to have my children's future mortgaged by fools, liars, thieves, sexual deviants and arrogant snots that never ran a lemonade stand...yes, let them twist in the wind!
ZRX1200 Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:42 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,626
Restructuring wouldn't have benifitted the unions as much as the bailout did. Andy Stern didn't approve of bankruptcy.
FuzzNJ Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:47 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
I was against Bush doing it and I'm against ANYONE doing it! The American taxpayer LOST money on those 2 auto companies. Bond and stockholders did too...I'm waiting litigation on that...It's going to be amusing to watch Owebama's healthcare get stricken down as un-Constitutional as well as the rest of his dismal policies.

No, theres not any truth to it...we have bankruptcy laws on the books already...USE THEM! You have no idea what would've happened, but I can tell everyone reading this that Capitalism if they would've allowed it to operate would've taken care of this mess sooner than the stagnation we have now with constant meddling. Instead it was a powergrab by this administration to payoff the unions that put him in power. See it for what it was for God's sake! The solid "truth" is you don't know what the hell you're talking about because you don't really know what would've happened. Instead we get to hear after the fact that money was doled out to foreign institutions...WITH NO OVERSIGHT! By an organization with NO OVERSIGHT! They're answerable to nobody! When they do get trotted up on the hill they don't answer the questions...because they can't!

That's the problem with halfwit students with no practical experience outside of a classroom...when the rubber hits the road it doesn't work. They want to have their hands on the till...they're not fit to have their hand on their own ass! Look at how the uber-smaaat scholars are leaving this administration back to the sweet payday of a classroom. THEY created this mess! Now they get to lecture fresh brain mush with their failed idelogy...but they won't say that...they'll claim they were misunderstood...the American public is too stupid to follow their ideas...or we ran out of money or some other BS that you'll crow about right with them. Too big to fail was the battle-cry the Turbo-Tax Timmay's and Bennie the Beards were screaming. You bought the lies.

As for the rest of you post...who cares? You? Get over whatever it is you're trying to do and yes you can assume anything and evewrything you want. Everyone here KNOWS that's what you do. Everyone here KNOWS what happens when one does.


Sure, I don't know what would have happened, exactly, if we let 2 of our 3 auto makers go bankrupt, but then again neither do you, so that argument is moot. What we can do is project based on logic.

Millions of jobs would have been lost. More than just 2 companies would have gone bankrupt, suppliers, dealers, parts manufacturers etc. Not to mention all the small businesses near factories of all those companies. The domino effect would have been devistating.

We also would have lost a huge part of what little is left of our manufacturing base, even though so much of it has been moved to Mexico or Canada. In the case of a national emergency, having those facilities available is crucial.

I have already said that any money given out without oversight is not good, so we agree on that. However, most on the right then complain that it's communism if the government has this oversight on private businesses, so you can't complain both sides of the issue.

This administration created no economic mess, they inherited it. They may have created some messes while trying to clean it up, but this in no way started under their watch. It's funny that you say that they will claim that the public is too stupid when you are saying that I am too stupid to understand your ideas.

Assume? I made no assumptions in that post.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:48 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
ZRX1200 wrote:
Restructuring wouldn't have benifitted the unions as much as the bailout did. Andy Stern didn't approve of bankruptcy.



Well, when you have a guy like Andy stern visiting the White House and spending more time with the President than his closest staff then you KNOW there's an issue of Ethics gone wrong...especially by someone that lectured and wagged his pointed finger at America that he was going to be "transparent"...riiight.

See the sham for what it was...an end-around game against Capitalism. Capitalism is the only system that does work. It rewards hard work and fresh ideas. It doesn't reward the lazy and incompetent.
FuzzNJ Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:51 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Half right!

The bailouts were NOT necessary.

Businesses fail every day. Laws were created so a business like GM could restructure it's debt and continue operating. Instead we wiped away all debt and gave more power to morons that didn't know how to run their business to begin with!

As for being strung up...yes. Wall Street to Detroit...you want the taxpayer dollars to run your business...you deserve whatever the taxpayer wants to give you...INDIVIDUALLY! If you wanted to donate to them...do it, but to have my children's future mortgaged by fools, liars, thieves, sexual deviants and arrogant snots that never ran a lemonade stand...yes, let them twist in the wind!


This is precisely the attitude that makes tea-baggers and big L Libertarians incapable of governing.
FuzzNJ Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 10:53 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Well, when you have a guy like Andy stern visiting the White House and spending more time with the President than his closest staff then you KNOW there's an issue of Ethics gone wrong...especially by someone that lectured and wagged his pointed finger at America that he was going to be "transparent"...riiight.


Another lie perpetuated by the right-wing media. For someone who says they don't listen to it, you sure have a lot of 'facts' that they like to spew.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
Sure, I don't know what would have happened, exactly, if we let 2 of our 3 auto makers go bankrupt, but then again neither do you, so that argument is moot. What we can do is project based on logic.


Then STOP pretending that giving taxpayers money away like free candy was any type of a solution then!

FuzzNJ wrote:
Millions of jobs would have been lost. More than just 2 companies would have gone bankrupt, suppliers, dealers, parts manufacturers etc. Not to mention all the small businesses near factories of all those companies. The domino effect would have been devistating.


Millions? I seriously doubt that. News flash...GM will go bankrupt again. Instead of another company snapping up it's assets from a Chapter 11 and creating something new they delayed the inevitable and made damn sure that ANYONE with a fresh idea would have their equity stolen away like the bond and shareholders of those 2 fine auto companies. Those shining bastions of manufacturing would instead probably streamlined their operations like...say...FORD has been doing since the late 80's! WITHOUT TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!

FuzzNJ wrote:
We also would have lost a huge part of what little is left of our manufacturing base, even though so much of it has been moved to Mexico or Canada. In the case of a national emergency, having those facilities available is crucial.


Hello...NAFTA wiped that away long before...national emergency? Don't make me laugh. DC has sold America out for mineral rights and you think we're going to mass produce Chevy Volts to thwart off the criminal spending spree?

FuzzNJ wrote:
I have already said that any money given out without oversight is not good, so we agree on that. However, most on the right then complain that it's communism if the government has this oversight on private businesses, so you can't complain both sides of the issue.


Shut up about most on the right...you halfwit. Yeah halfwit because you want to play this half against that half. See it for what it is. If you want Communism...go to Cuba and live under that. China doesn't have it and Russia never did...oh they call it that but it's not. Not by any academic sense and certainly not by Marx's sniff test.

FuzzNJ wrote:
This administration created no economic mess, they inherited it. They may have created some messes while trying to clean it up, but this in no way started under their watch. It's funny that you say that they will claim that the public is too stupid when you are saying that I am too stupid to understand your ideas.



Yes...they did. They were consulted every lockstep way once the Kenyan King was the Dem's anointed one. Bush made damn sure he was too. Look it up. It's there. I remember it vividly...it was this mean evil wicked man reaching across to the savior as he parted the waters and led his people to the Promised Land...manna shot out of his ass. Owebama then turned around and ushered in another round of bailouts and buyouts. Add some ObamaCare to the mix...what do ya say to another war too? Let's not get out of the 2 we had already...let's meddle the military complex up with more to play with and yes...this current administration created an economic mess...check your beloved CBO today Fuzzy Wuzzy...boo hoo hoo...sucks to be you...all the stuff that almost everyone here was telling you all along. These are not MY ideas...it's called Capitalism at work. The weak disappear. The strong survive. There will be an emerging technology that envelopes the prior one...it always has and it always will. Remove your hatred for me from the scope of what you read and if you can't differentiate it from reality then you are a failed student.


Assume? I made no assumptions in that post.[/quote]
FuzzNJ Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 11:38 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
So much anger today DMV. The red text doesn't make you any more correct btw, it does highlight your obvious venom though. Unfortunate that you can't hold a conversation without all the personal insults and mocking tone. Might have been a good one.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#33 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 11:42 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
So much anger today DMV. The red text doesn't make you any more correct btw, it does highlight your obvious venom though. Unfortunate that you can't hold a conversation without all the personal insults and mocking tone. Might have been a good one.



Anger schmanger...get over the facts.

You're wrong...AGAIN.

Matter of fact unless its some useless recipe that nobody is ever going to make...you've never been right!

Shut down Fuzzy Wuzzy...go back into your shell.

We all await your next moment of monumental FAIL!
FuzzNJ Offline
#34 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 11:45 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Anger schmanger...get over the facts.

You're wrong...AGAIN.

Matter of fact unless its some useless recipe that nobody is ever going to make...you've never been right!

Shut down Fuzzy Wuzzy...go back into your shell.

We all await your next moment of monumental FAIL!


Allrighty. Enjoy your day. I know I will.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#35 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 11:48 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
Allrighty. Enjoy your day. I know I will.



I'm sure you will...make sure you have your entire family stand around your computer chair and discuss the merits of how wrong I am for laughs.

Yeah, you'll have a good day changing diapers, doing the laundry and getting your nails done!Frying pan

FuzzNJ Offline
#36 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 12:35 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
I'm sure you will...make sure you have your entire family stand around your computer chair and discuss the merits of how wrong I am for laughs.

Yeah, you'll have a good day changing diapers, doing the laundry and getting your nails done!Frying pan



If I did do that, you would be looked at more with pity than enjoyment. I haven't had to change diapers in years and I don't miss it at all, and I've only had a manicure once professionally while on vacation after getting a massage. I did have a Dominican ex girlfriend who would clean my nails up occasionally, but that was 20 years ago when I was pretty.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#37 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 12:42 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
If I did do that, you would be looked at more with pity than enjoyment. I haven't had to change diapers in years and I don't miss it at all, and I've only had a manicure once professionally while on vacation after getting a massage. I did have a Dominican ex girlfriend who would clean my nails up occasionally, but that was 20 years ago when I was pretty.



Sorry your day is sucking so bad that you felt the need to come back and fire off a retort to the point that you couldn't have a discussion!
FuzzNJ Offline
#38 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 12:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Sorry your day is sucking so bad that you felt the need to come back and fire off a retort to the point that you couldn't have a discussion!


It was actually a retort to a sorry excuse of an insult from an angry little petty man with such low self esteem he must constantly insult someone who disagrees with him in order to make himself feel better.

Slight difference. But I can see how you would see it the way you do as I have empathy, a trait sorely lacking by most who frequent this board.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#39 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 12:51 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
It was actually a retort to a sorry excuse of an insult from an angry little petty man with such low self esteem he must constantly insult someone who disagrees with him in order to make himself feel better.

Slight difference. But I can see how you would see it the way you do as I have empathy, a trait sorely lacking by most who frequent this board.




LMFAO!!!

Poor Fuzzy...poor poor Fuzzy.

How 'bout a Fresca?Frying pan
FuzzNJ Offline
#40 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 12:57 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
LMFAO!!!

Poor Fuzzy...poor poor Fuzzy.

How 'bout a Fresca?Frying pan


I'm fine, I require no sympathy, but thanks anyway.

And no thanks. I don't like fresca. Got a single malt?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#41 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 1:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
I'm fine, I require no sympathy, but thanks anyway.

And no thanks. I don't like fresca. Got a single malt?



Yeah, but seeing as how you don't ever leave your house...well...that's gonna be a toughie.
FuzzNJ Offline
#42 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 1:06 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Yeah, but seeing as how you don't ever leave your house...well...that's gonna be a toughie.


heh, Well I am going out to dinner tonight. That count?

Going to order the duck.
tweoijfoi Offline
#43 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 1:12 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
* eats popcorn *

Don't you two see you're meant for eachother? There's love in the air so strong you can smell it.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#44 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 1:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
Another lie perpetuated by the right-wing media. For someone who says they don't listen to it, you sure have a lot of 'facts' that they like to spew.



One thing is clear: Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/30/seius-stern-tops-white-house-visitor-list/


The more pointed variant of this critique was directed specifically at Obama. Unlike 42—who loved to stay up late, jabbing at the speed dial, spending countless hours gabbing with local pols and businesspeople around the country to gauge the political wind and weather—44 not only eschewed reaching out to governors, mayors, or CEOs, but he rarely consulted outside the tiny charmed circle surrounding him in the White House. “What you had was really three or four people running the entire government,” says the former White House strategist. “I thought they put a pretty good Cabinet together, but most of those guys might as well be in the witness-protection program.”

A funny line, no doubt, but an overstatement, surely? Well, maybe not. “I happen to know most of the Cabinet pretty well, and I get together with them individually for lunch,” says one of the most respected Democratic bigwigs in Washington. “I’ve had half a dozen Cabinet members say that in the first two years, they never had one call—not one call—from the president.”

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70829/index1.html


Wall Street Journal and NY MagazineThink ...ooof...so far to right that it well...it's just...well...Eh?
tweoijfoi Offline
#45 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 1:18 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
By the way, I truely think those who cause disaster and reap huge dividends
because of it should get the death penalty. Some on death row killed a couple
people. Big deal. Some of these guys have ruined the lives of hundreds of
thousands and caused ripples which will hurt our entire country for decades.

Many of these people did these things intentionally and in full knowledge
that it would lead to an eventual collapse, but didn't care because they've
made uncounted millions of dollars. To me, that's worse than murder. It's
cold, calculating, and they show no remorse as they lie in court with
"I don't recall that meeting...".
FuzzNJ Offline
#46 Posted: Thu, Jun 23 2011, 4:04 PM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
One thing is clear: Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/30/seius-stern-tops-white-house-visitor-list/


The more pointed variant of this critique was directed specifically at Obama. Unlike 42—who loved to stay up late, jabbing at the speed dial, spending countless hours gabbing with local pols and businesspeople around the country to gauge the political wind and weather—44 not only eschewed reaching out to governors, mayors, or CEOs, but he rarely consulted outside the tiny charmed circle surrounding him in the White House. “What you had was really three or four people running the entire government,” says the former White House strategist. “I thought they put a pretty good Cabinet together, but most of those guys might as well be in the witness-protection program.”

A funny line, no doubt, but an overstatement, surely? Well, maybe not. “I happen to know most of the Cabinet pretty well, and I get together with them individually for lunch,” says one of the most respected Democratic bigwigs in Washington. “I’ve had half a dozen Cabinet members say that in the first two years, they never had one call—not one call—from the president.”

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70829/index1.html


Wall Street Journal and NY MagazineThink ...ooof...so far to right that it well...it's just...well...Eh?



In a Dec. 3, 2009, broadcast, Beck decried that Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union, appears more times in a White House visitor log release than anyone else.

"You've got to ask yourself what the hell happened to this country," Beck said. "If I would have told you instead that the most frequent visitor of the White House, over the secretary of state and everybody else, is a labor union president [Stern] who has repeatedly said workers of the world unite ... would you have believed it?" (For the record, "Workers of the world, unite!" is the popular, if unofficial, translation of the final exhortation in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto .)

We found the source of Beck's claim. When the White House released its first batch of visitor logs on Oct. 30, 2009, as part of a pledge to bring more transparency to the White House, Stern's name did indeed appear 22 times, more than anyone else listed, including Clinton, who was listed three times.

But that's not the whole story.

Stern led the pack for the first data release, which covered visits from Jan. 20, 2009 to July 31, 2009. But he was surpassed by several other individuals in the second release, which updates the data through Aug. 31, 2009 (and which was made public more than a week before Beck aired his comment).

Among those who visited more frequently than Stern, according to the combination of the two logs, were Lewis (Lee) Sachs, counselor to Treasury Secetary Timothy Geithner, with 92 visits; associate attorney general Tom Perrelli, with 49; Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski with 47; Spencer Overton, principal deputy assistant attorney general, with 38; and Health and Human Services office of health reform director Jeanne Lambrew, with 27. (Stern visited twice more during the period covered by the second batch of data, giving him a total of 24 visits.)

Another complication is that the first batch of data -- covering the period from Jan. 20, 2009, to July 31, 2009, which found Stern in the lead -- is not a complete accounting of White House visits during that period. It only includes data for visitors whose names were first requested by the public. If no one requested a specific name, that name would not appear in the database. So there's no way of knowing whether Stern actually had the most visits for that period; he simply had the most of anyone whose name was requested by the public. (All records dated after Sept. 15, 2009, will be released, the White House says, with exceptions for issues of national security, personal safety and a few other caveats.)

Finally, there are a lot of important people whose visits are not ordinarily captured by the White House log system -- most notably, Cabinet members, like the one Beck mentioned, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While the visitor logs show a mere three visits by Clinton, we were able to confirm at least 26 separate White House visits by the secretary of state by using three public Web sites -- the White House's own site, the White House Flickr site and the State Department's site. Our sources column at the right includes the full list of Clinton's 26 visits, with links to the documentation. Since the White House has said that it cannot fulfill our request for a full listing of Clinton's White House visits, it's possible that the number of Clinton visits is actually higher. (And we have not included instances in which Clinton met with the president in locations away from the White House itself, such as flights aboard Air Force One and foreign travel, even though we found evidence documenting those sorts of visits as well.)

So, while Beck did pass along a widely reported finding as he made his point about Stern, the data it was based on was incomplete and out of date by the time of his show, and ultimately the conclusion he drew was incorrect. We rate his statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/
DrMaddVibe Offline
#47 Posted: Fri, Jun 24 2011, 6:02 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
So, while Beck did pass along a widely reported finding as he made his point about Stern, the data it was based on was incomplete and out of date by the time of his show, and ultimately the conclusion he drew was incorrect. We rate his statement False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/07/glenn-beck/beck-says-labor-leader-most-frequent-white-house-v/


So, because the ever so Most Transparent Administration and the Greatest Show On Earth didn't disclose the actual names and dates and Glenn Beck aired that out this is your big right wing media lie?

I'd be really pissed if I were you.

On top of not getting the hope and change you voted for and the cessation to the endless wars as well as the closing of the evil prison camp we house on foreign soil you now also have to find out that they're NOT the transparent administration they claimed they were going to be. Funny and sad that you harbor those feelings about a "right wing media" when I clearly showed above where they came from...not Beck! Because it's from FoxNews and it's an Op Ed show...and not really news...it's educational for people that didn't know about Jarrett's connections and Van Jones being an out and out communist but so sad, too bad...they're not reporting news.

How you reach to the conclusion that Glenn Beck...little Glenn Beck is fabricating information and passing it off as news when the White House clearly doesn't have a handle on simple protocol is beyond me! I'd like to think that every visitor is documented but clearly this administration doesn't feel the need to comply.


THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 4, 2009
STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT ON THE FIRST TIME
DISCLOSURE POLICY FOR WHITE HOUSE VISITOR LOGS

As another indication of his commitment to an open and transparent government, the President announced today that for the first time in history, records of White House visitors will be released. Each month, records of visitors from the previous 90-120 days will be made available online.

"For the first time in history, records of White House visitors will be made available to the public on an ongoing basis," said President Obama. "We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history not only by opening the doors of the White House to more Americans, but by shining a light on the business conducted inside. Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process."

Aside from a small group of appointments that cannot be disclosed because of national security imperatives or their necessarily confidential nature (such as a visit by a possible Supreme Court nominee), the record of every visitor who comes to the White House for an appointment, a tour, or to conduct business will be released.

Previous administrations fought disclosure of White House visitor logs in court. This administration began a review of the policy during its first days in office.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government reform organization which has long objected to administrations keeping White House visitor logs secret, said in a statement from its executive director Melanie Sloan:

"Today the Obama administration has proven its pledge to usher in a new era of government transparency was more than just a campaign promise. The Obama administration will have the most open White House in history. Providing public access to visitor records is an important step in restoring transparency and accountability to our government."

The administration thanks CREW for their participation in the development of this new policy.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-first-time-disclosure-policy-white-house-visitor-logs

I bet their arms get sore from patting themselves on the back all the time....


President Receives Transparency Award from Open-Government Coalition
Posted by Steve Croley on April 07, 2011 at 06:30 PM EDT
Leaders of the open government community met with President Obama last week to present him with an award for his leadership in making government more transparent. The inscription on the award reads: ‘To President Barack Obama For His Deep Commitment to a More Open and Transparent Government—Of, By, and For the People from The Openness Community.

Group leaders representing a coalition of open government groups included Gary Bass, Founder and Executive Director of OMB Watch; Tom Blanton, Director of the National Security Archive; Danielle Brian, Executive Director of the Project on Government Oversight; Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; and Patrice McDermott, Director of Open the Government. They praised the President’s efforts to reduce secrecy by reducing classification and over-classification, to create a more responsive FOIA process, and to enhance transparency through the Open Government directive and the White House visitors logs, as well as his support for whistleblower protections and the reporters’ privilege.

The meeting was more than a handshake, however. The President also engaged the group leaders in discussion. He listened to their concerns and priorities, and expressed his agreement with their fundamental commitment to open government, and with their observation that promoting transparency requires ongoing effort. He welcomed their continued support, assistance, and feedback.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/07/president-receives-transparency-award-open-government-coalition

I bet he placed that right next to his Nobel Peace Prize. I imagine it looks nice there...together. He really earned those. Trophies for all!!!Frying pan
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#48 Posted: Fri, Jun 24 2011, 10:31 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Kawak

I FIND THE IDEA THAT YOU COULD EXPLAIN ANYTHING, AMUSING.

PERHAPS YOU COULD EXPLAIN WHY HEAVIER THEN AIR PLANES CAN FLY?
FuzzNJ Offline
#49 Posted: Fri, Jun 24 2011, 10:44 AM EST
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrMaddVibe wrote:
So, because the ever so Most Transparent Administration and the Greatest Show On Earth didn't disclose the actual names and dates and Glenn Beck aired that out this is your big right wing media lie?


I am upset about a lot of things the Obama administration has done and not done. I've said dozens of times here that the administration is way too conservative for my taste, but better than the only other option we're given.

I am relieved and glad that this is what you're worked up about though. At the same point in the previous administration we had suffered the biggest terrorist attack ever and it was discovered that they ignored many warnings. So this is nothing compared to that.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#50 Posted: Fri, Jun 24 2011, 10:46 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
FuzzNJ wrote:
I am upset about a lot of things the Obama administration has done and not done. I've said dozens of times here that the administration is way too conservative for my taste, but better than the only other option we're given.

I am relieved and glad that this is what you're worked up about though. At the same point in the previous administration we had suffered the biggest terrorist attack ever and it was discovered that they ignored many warnings. So this is nothing compared to that.



Yeah...with several chances to take out Bin Laden by the Clinton Administration...9-11...oh wait, it's all W's fault...riiight.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
2 Pages12>
Back to Top