HBO's 'Newsroom' Becomes MSNBC: Trashes Tea Party, Compares Bachmann to McCarthy
People turning on HBO Sunday evening must have thought they'd accidentally switched channels to MSNBC.
In the third episode of Aaron Sorkin's new drama The Newsroom, those involved in the fictitious cable news network ACN all basically became MSNBC employees mercilessly attacking the Tea Party whilst comparing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to the late Joe McCarthy (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
The episode was done largely as a flashback. At the core was a meeting between heads of the parent company Atlantis World Media including CEO Leona Lansing played by Jane Fonda as well as ACN's news division president played by Sam Waterston. This dramatically took place the day after the 2010 midterm elections.
ACN's program Newsnight has taken a hard turn to the left in recent months, and ratings have dropped by seven points. Top brass aren't happy, and they're taking Waterston to the woodshed for it.
Snippets of the “past” were shown beginning with the controversial Olbermann-like anchor played by Jeff Daniels starting a broadcast with an editorial comment addressing how he’s been asleep at the wheel like many "journalists," and is going to start attacking forces in the government supposedly destroying the nation.
That, of course, would be the Tea Party.
To demonstrate just how far to the left he was willing to go, he and his production team decided to only give about three minutes to the attempted bombing in New York’s Times Square in 2010
Back in the boardroom, Waterston got chewed out for this decision because everyone was switching the channel from ACN to the other cable networks that were giving this more airtime.
Waterston responded, “Media Matters, Think Progress, Howard Kurtz and the Columbia Journalism Review all praised our coverage of the Times Square bomb.”
One can plainly see some of the furthest-left, most biased entities in our nation basically have a hand in HBO's new offering.
What should one expect from a network that features Bill Maher and has a hit program that used the decapitated head of former President George W. Bush as a prop?
As the show continued, Daniels went on a lengthy, factually-challenged rant against the Tea Party besmirching folks like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Jim DeMint, and Allen West while conveniently pushing to raise taxes on the nation's richest one percent.
Potentially worse, mixed in with characterizations of real people were manufactured personalities that don't exist.
The producers concocted a phony member of Congress called Bryce Delaney just defeated in a primary by a Tea Party candidate.
During an interview with Daniels, Delaney claimed he lost because he said at a townhall meeting that Obama wasn’t a socialist. He also made the awful “mistake” of co-sponsoring a bill with a Democrat that provided for homeless veterans to receive housing vouchers and services such as counseling and job training.
This is tremendously scary stuff, and a bit unethical in my view.
By mixing fake characters in with real politicians, Sorkin is free to say anything he wants without sticking to facts as the overwhelmingly large percentage of viewers aren't going to know who's real and who's an illusion.
Back in the boardroom, things were really beginning to heat up. We found out that AWM as a result of all the Tea Party bashing has lost the backing of the Koch brothers.
Months prior, Daniels went on a lengthy rant accusing the Kochs and Americans for Prosperity of being behind the Tea Party movement - almost as if written by the leftists at the George Soros-funded Think Progress.
Sorkin on Sunday was proudly channeling some of the most left-wing views in America today, and just like Think Progress and MSNBC doing so without regard to fact or context.
But the worst was yet to come.
It's now election night 2010, and Daniels interviewed another fictitious Tea Party candidate victorious at the polls and refusing to answer questions about the looming debt ceiling vote.
Daniels perfectly exemplified all of the far-left's unfounded paranoia that not raising the debt ceiling would have caused a global financial cataclysm.
Back in the boardroom, Fonda has now taken over the meeting, and demanded to know what Waterston's done to Newsnight.
"I engineered a situation," Waterston replied, "wherein an executive producer with a unique ability to bring out the very best in an anchor with a unique ability were paired to do a news broadcast this company can and should be proud of."
“And rebrand ACN as MSNBC’s more combative brother?” asked Fonda.
"We did the news," he countered.
"For the Left," Fonda correctly interjected. .
"For the center," objected Waterston.
Fonda then asked what likely most intelligent viewers were thinking. "Are you f--king out of
your mind?"
This led Waterston to do his best Sorkin. "For the center, Leona. Facts are the center. Facts. We don't pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don't believe them. Balance is irrelevant to me. It doesn't have anything to do with truth, logic, or reality."
These lines almost came verbatim from an interview Sorkin did with New York magazine in June:
I don’t believe the truth always lies in the middle. I don’t believe there are two sides to every argument. I think the facts are the center. And watching the news abandon the facts in favor of "fairness" is what’s troubling to me.
But Sorkin wasn't done, for through Waterston he sneered, “America just elected the most dangerous and addle-minded Congress in my lifetime.”
After things got even more heated, Fonda told Waterston that the news division he oversees is only responsible for less than three percent of AWM's revenues.
"You don't make money for stockholders," Fonda scolded, "which I have a fiduciary responsibility to do."
"Well, last night," Fonda continued, "the voters ousted 21 percent of Congress, including seven members of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Three of those seven are AWM's most reliable friends on the Hill. Now, the congressmen that will be replacing
them are the same people that [Daniels] has been making look like f--king morons for the last six months."
"They've done a pretty good job making themselves look like morons," replied Waterston.
"I have business before this Congress, Charlie," objected Fonda, "And whatever you may think of these people, which is the same thing I think of them, they hold the keys to the future of AWM."
So even Fonda - who appears to play the only sane character on the program, mind you! - agrees with the left-wing view but is opposing it exclusively for business reasons.
This is the exact same offensive falsehood promulgated by the left: business people only go against liberal positions for money NOT because they have deep-seated conservative views.
Regardless, Waterston countered, "News organizations are a public trust with an ability to
inform and influence the national conversation."
"I know," responded Fonda. "That's why I bought one."
She then informed her employee that they're not candidates anymore, they're Congressman, and Daniels is going to tone it down.
Waterston objected, "If Joe McCarthy sat on the House Subcommittee for Communications and Technology, would you have told Murrow to lay off?"
"No," Fonda answered.
"Why?" asked Waterston.
"Because he was a genuinely bad guy," Fonda replied.
"Michele Bachmann's called for Congress to be investigated to ferret out House members who are un-American," Waterston said.
"Michele Bachmann is a hairdo," rudely responded Fonda. "I'm not worried about Michele Bachmann."
"I wonder how many people weren't worried about McCarthy," objected Waterston.
"You know, Charlie, a lot of people might argue that [Daniels] is on a witch hunt," offered Fonda.
"And a lot of people might argue there are witches out there," Waterston countered.
"I'll fire him, Charlie," said Fonda as the musical score got more tense.
And this was largely where episode three concluded.
When you add it all up, HBO and Sorkin have for all intents and purposes recreated Keith Olbermann, one of the most biased, hateful, and factually-challenged commentators to ever appear on television, and allowed him along with his staff to present a far-left view of America absent any regard for the truth.
Yes, HBO is now MSNBC.
To receive my articles hot off the presses follow me on Twitter ow.ly/btalc and Facebook ow.ly/btald.
— Noel Sheppard (@NoelSheppard) June 9, 2012
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It's perfect for Sorkin to not be limited by reality
Submitted by frank14 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:29am.
He is just like his hero Obama who created a fake memoir to promote his brand of socialism.
This is why I'll never watch
Submitted by sngnsgt on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:33am.
This is why I'll never watch this pos. Lefties are all alike. Whine, moan, distort, lie, belittle, smear. I think Barry and Ax should get producer credit.
Cowardice
Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:47am.
In normal public conversation, you can't say all these things without rebuttal. It's cowardice to cloak them behind the veil of drama, just because you don't want to deal with the rebuttal.
It's also revealing to see the mindset that the network doesn't have to worry about balance. The network won't deliver all the available events and interpretations. Instead, the network will decide which is true, and that's what they'll deliver to you. They'll evaluate all the theories and evidence for you, and all you have to do is follow what they tell you. Don't worry yourself with all that thinking stuff - they'll do it for you.
Of course when you disguise
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 1:11pm.
Of course when you disguise your politics as drama, not only can you ignore legitimate rebuttal, you can invent YOUR OWN rebuttal. And you can make the rebutters as stupid and narrow-minded as you like.
The MSM has been crying about just this very subject
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 2:17pm.
Because more information is available to the public, the network newsrooms can no longer control all that we see and hear (with homage to the Control Voice on 'The Outer Limits'). What Sorkin advocates today is how the networks functioned for decades when they controlled the info.
Now if they even try to slip in an opposing viewpoint or perspective, people like Lord Sorking blast them for offering balance over "Truth;" or to put it more bluntly: If we don't think there is a valid couterpoint, we don't need to offer one. It's like Dangerous Dan Rather claimed after the ANG memos blew up in his faith, "The validity of the documents doesn't matter because we know The Truth."
And I welcome the MSM to play along. It's already proven disastrous for ratings, and it doubling-down on the Sorkin/Gore philosophy will only hurt them more.
Why so extreme???
Submitted by ray johnson on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:55am.
Just what issues are so important to these self-proclaimed, gifted and talented cretins? Abortion on demand? Same-sex marriage? More and more spending? Gutting defense? State/single payer health care? The American people will make their assessment of this particular Hollywood clique when all their warts are exposed and when the stench is dragged out into the sunlight. The vast middle of the electorate - some say 10-20% - will reject the extreme and addled left without any delay once it's made very clear what they represent.
HBO audience will probalby eat this show up, but it
Submitted by Lipton on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:03am.
seems as the media gets more and more brazen they are becoming at the same time more and more transparent. At least that is my hope.
Wow...
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:10am.
This sounds like Sorkin is using this bit of fictional entertainment as self-justification of his views. He writes the lines and gets actors to read them and then he thinks they are real and that people agree with him. It's like a left-wing self-agrandizement circle jerk.
I'm not sure that it classifies as insanity, but it certaintly can't be healthy.
I'm just waiting for Media Matters and Politico to say, in real life, that HBO's "Newsroom" is another example of a "good news program" like Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" or "Colbert Report". Maybe we'll even see Jeff Daniels' testifying before Congress in character.
This is becoming more and more like we are living our lives in a reality made by M.C. Escher and Salvadore Dali.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
MSHBO
Submitted by trickle_down on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:21am.
I'm getting ready to cancel MSHBO. Aside from the politics, the crappy movies just don't justify keeping it any longer. It's been that way for years, but I've been too lazy to do it. It's worse now than ever, so I'm aptly motivated to cut the cord.
I guess I can get the next season of Game of Thrones on DVD. That's about all that was left.
I guess MSNBC didn't get the message
Submitted by Andante on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:26am.
The New York Times said McCarthy was right
From:
http://www.rense.com/politics6/mc.htm
“Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in Moscow and now the famous Vanona Intercepts -- FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48 -- the record is showing that McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.”
...and yet the fools at MSNBC still have not figured out that the "New Media' makes it possible for us to verify and refute the crap they spew.
-------------------------------------
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
Andante
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 2:21pm.
The article you linked was a good read but it does not state that the NYTimes said McCarthy was right. The NYTimes reference was to a review of a book that makes the case that McCarthy was right. There is no link to the review or any quote that the NYTimes agrees with the conclusions of the author, so a determination cannot be made on what the article stated.
We know McCarthy was correct. The Venona intercepts proved it. The Left will continue to deny it. They have much the same reason to fear exposure for being the liberty stealing frauds as their Communist forefathers - failed enslavers.
You are correct
Submitted by Andante on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 4:39pm.
I was too quick to copy and paste the results of my "McCarthy was right, New York Times" findings. I failed to notice that the NYT comments on McCarthy came from a Times book review as you mentioned.
Thanks for keeping NB (and me :) accurate.
-------------------------------------
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
NP, Andante. I agree with
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 6:53pm.
NP, Andante.
I agree with what you wrote otherwise.
I see in your About page that you flew heavies. My uncle is an avid aviation fan and used to fly single engine props before rheumatoid arthritis grounded him. He's always emailing me videos and stories about flying. I love flying machines, too. :-)
Actually, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 6:00pm.
The Venona intercepts did indeed confirm a significant Soviet espionage network existing both inside and outside of the US, but they did not prove McCarthy correct. On the contrary, they proved him almost entirely wrong, or at the very least cast serious doubt on the value and authenticity of his several "lists" of communists he waved dramatically during a series of theatrical performances of thundering demagoguery.
McCarthy was a pathetic but dangerous opportunist who discredited and damaged serious efforts to expose and neutralize real threats to our security during the early 50's.
Jer
A much more accurate statement would be ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 6:48pm.
"Obama was a pathetic but dangerous opportunist who discredited and damaged serious efforts to expose and neutralize real threats to our security during his pitiful reign."
At least McCarthy tried to do something that would work in favor of the U.S.
Unlike the purple-lipped pos.
MD
Right, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 7:02pm.
Insinuating that Eisenhower was guilty of treason and questioning the patriotism of General Marshall was really working in the favor of the US.
McCarthy can be your hero. I'll pass.
Jer
So your against outing commies
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 7:21pm.
In our State dept and Defense dept Jer?
I am not surprised. Guess the more commies the better these days eh
Boudin...what are you yammering about?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 7:59pm.
All the commies at State and Defense in the McCarthy era are either dead or long gone.
Jer
Ya think?
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 8:06pm.
Hey, I got an idea, how about we give a boot to the current one's to.
gone but not forgotten
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 8:08pm.
and their teachings seemed to have a great impact of the status of the State Department today.
McCarthy was right often enough to not deserve the place in history that has been bestowed on him by many. However, he was loud, obnoxious and wrong often enough that the blow back from his 'investigations' seemed to have the opposite effect than he originated.
Agnostic..'loud and obnoxious' is an
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 8:36pm.
understatement. But at least we're closing the disagreement gap a bit.
Jer
we're closing the disagreement gap
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 8:44pm.
Are we? How so?
Boudin...my comment was addressed to Agnostic.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 8:48pm.
Not you.
Sorry.
Jer
Your on a public board.
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 9:30pm.
You wanna privet conversation? Thats what the pm feature is for.
Besides, I knew you were not sincere in the least.
Hey, Boudin, it was just the other day when ol' Jer was ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 9:47pm.
acting all out of sorts cuz neither motherbelt or ricklail would give him what he felt was an appropriate amount of consideration --- I seem to recollect that they were ignoring him.
Here you and I go, taking the time to reply to the majority of his posts, and he gets all pissy.
I wonder if he is going through the change? :o)
MD
Public service,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 9:48pm.
Has always been my dream
darn you Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:40pm.
"Jer may be going through the change"....
Cajun is exercising great restraint here..
Cajun might try exercising great restraint
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 1:10am.
on her friend Boudin. I'll gladly engage in constructive dialogue with him, but in this instance my response to Agnostic only concerned his and my respective opinion of McCarthy and the degree of our disagreement. Boudin was not part of that particular exchange and was just butting in for the heck of it.
Jer
Oh. where to start
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 7:47am.
I'll gladly engage in constructive dialogue with him,
BS, I have asked you countless questions about the subject at hand, only to receive comment such as above in return. You receive what you give from me.
Agnostic only concerned his and my respective opinion of McCarthy and the degree of our disagreement.
Which you were in fear of articulating. or else you would had. I dont think you 2 came any closer to agreeing on jack.
Boudin was not part of that particular exchange and was just butting in for the heck of it.
Who are you to say "what" I "butted" in for? I asked a very simple question. Where you gave a typical pissy Jer answer to.
So now your whining, again. How predictable
GET A ROOM Jer...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 5:52pm.
Ya know a chat room...
To share with Agnostic, as if he'd go there with you...
Once again you are on a, "butting in" BENDER, lolz...
Try your exalted sense of thread posting entitlement, elsewhere,pal. Kuz it ain't flyin round here...
You Didn't Build That.
Bark your orders to those
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 9:44pm.
who for whatever ludicrous reason might attach some slight significance to your commands. That would not include me.
But for you, junior, and for the crybaby Boudin, allow me to explain the issue in terms maybe even the two of you can grasp.
Agnostic, while far less critical of McCarthy than I, at least conceded the senator was "wrong enough", and it was for that reason, and that reason alone, I used the phrase about closing the disagreement gap between us in my response addressed to him. It was neither directed at Boudin, nor was it in any sense applicable to Boudin whose interruption added nothing to, but instead detracted from, the conversation.
Jer
Again?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 10:01pm.
Are you loosing your mind? Crybaby? The Whine calling me more names?
All you needed to do, was to get Agnostic to cooperate your claim, and all would had been forgotten. My question was extremity valid, considering your post, and Agnostics reply, nothing was agreed.
nor was it in any sense applicable to Boudin whose interruption added nothing to, but instead detracted from, the conversation.
You had already replied to my comments in the very thread directly before Agnostics post. I was as part of that conversation as you.
You need you grow up.
Yes, little one..
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 10:09pm.
You had previously injected a typically snide and childish Boudinism. So what?
And you wonder why I'm inclined to avoid discussions with you.
Jer
I aint little,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 10:17pm.
No-one thinks that.
And you wonder why I'm inclined to avoid discussions with you.
Discussion, with you?
For someone who claims to try, you dont seem to be to good at it.
For all I know you could be
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 12:14am.
8 ft. tall and weigh 400 lbs.
It's just that your comments make you appear small.
Jer
I suppose thats why you cant stop
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 7:13am.
Responding to them?
caj ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 3:46am.
Change --- as in morphing from dyed-in-the-wool lefty to leaning more our way.
We been working on him for some time now, and it has gotta be tough on him.
MD
That was it Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 5:31pm.
3 1/2 yrs of Obama-tsunami has to have had some effect on Jer. We know Jer is not a fool nor ignorant. I'm waiting for the "change" like you. However, remember, Jer does have a contract so it will be difficult for a lawyer to break the contract and come closer to the dark side....hehehe
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 6:56pm.
Color me shocked you stand with Leftist propagandists.
I'll stand with M. Stanton Evans over anything you've got.
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 7:06pm.
You're more than welcome to join Matthew and become an official member of the Joe McCarthy Admiration Society. Please count me out.
Jer
Another typical lefty comment from Jeringo, in ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 9:38pm.
that no one was eulogizing McCarthy - he had his flaws - just pointing out that he did far more in the way of being a patriot than ol' purple lips would ever be capable of.
You go ahead with your nastiness towards McCarthy, Limbaugh, Breitbart, and the zippered weasel, Jer, whilst loving you up some Obama.
This is a conservative site - what makes you think your lefty tantrums ever allowed you to be counted in?
MD
Roger wilco. More cigars and
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 9:45pm.
Roger wilco. More cigars and scotch left for the membership.
Does this mean you are also resigning your membership in the Alabama chapter of the Our Gang's He-man Woman Haters Club? Spanky was a stickler for rules and had a mean streak bigger than the skid mark in Buckwheat's shorts. Per the rules, Sergeant In Arms Butch will beat you out of the gang.
McCarthy...still the warped patriot
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 3:28am.
Following are a few pertinent remarks by John Haynes, the source upon whom your buddy Stanton Evans relied quite heavily to bolster his determined but daunting effort to rehabilitate the tattered reputation of the reckless, boozing thug and pathological liar from Wisconsin. Haynes' view is not quite as harsh as mine, but it is by no means positive:
Exchange with Arthur Herman and Venona Book Talk
"...Normal democratic politics cannot proceed when one side in a partisan battle regards the other as the enemy of fundamental values. Sometimes it is true that one force in a polity does threaten the fundamental values, or the foundation rules of democracy itself, or the institutional existence of other groups, and when that happens with major political forces one has a genuine systemic crisis and outcome may be civil war, as it was in 1861 when Southern political leaders felt that the policies of the newly ascendant Republicans threatened slavery, an institution then fundamental to Southern society. Or it may be true but the political force that threatens fundamental values is a not a powerful one and can be marginalized, as American Communists were in the late 1940s, while leaving the major participants in democratic politics largely unaffected. But sometimes it isn’t true, and we have a crisis generated by demagoguery and malign partisan zeal when one side falsely or mistakenly attempts to paint the other as illegitimate. In my view that is what McCarthy attempted to do, and is why I view his role as a negative one.
He did not succeed, and did not even come close. As I said earlier, I do not regard McCarthy as some sort of monster who terrorized the nation and seriously threatened its democratic value. Rather than the Great Satan he is depicted as in many histories, he was a minor devil. In my view the new evidence in general vindicates the broad anti-Communist consensus of American politics in the late 1940s and 1950s BUT DOES NOT VINDICATE Joseph McCarthy in the particular...." [my emphasis in bold and caps]
And linked here are the various lists of individuals McCarthy peddled and publicized at one time or another and which have been compiled by Haynes. Note the numerous entries of "Not identified in Venona" beside the overwhelming majority of the names [all but nine*]. I fear your triumphant announcement that the Venona intercepts proved McCarthy correct has been reduced to whimpering absurdity. That's a shame.
Jer
*app.15 if benign IDs are included. Total number of names on lists is 159
"Daunting but determined effort" would have ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 3:54am.
flowed more mellifluously, IMO.
Not too open-minded on ol' McCarthy, eh, Jer?
Was he by any chance Rush Limbaughs uncle?
MD
How does cram it
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 4:20am.
up your keyster flow? :-)
No I'm not. Political bullies who don't have the slightest clue what true patriotism means are especially repellent. McCarthy didn't care jackshit about commies, only how he could manipulate fear to his advantage and use the anti-Red hysteria as a vehicle for personal gain. And he had zero concern for those who--innocent or guilty--were ground under the wheels in the process.
Jer
Political bullies who don't
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 1:18pm.
Change a couple of words and you have described Obama and the Leftists in leadership today. You, Jer, should be especially repellent of your chosen leadership based on your purple prose but cannot because you are blinded by ideology. By all means continue in denial because the words your political demagogues spout are pleasing to your ears like sheeple throughout history in China, Germany, Italy, Spain, Venezuela, Cuba and numerous other totalitarian nation states. I will continue to point out your ignorance, manipulations and denial.
The Venona project did vindicate McCarthy. That the Venona project did not list every single pinko, progressive, fellow traveler, and commie in the USA is not an indictment of McCarthy or his list. It is a strawman argument, and a childish one at that, to think that if the name does not appear in the Venona Project then the person is absolved.
strat, in reply to Jer, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 6:17pm.
"Change a couple of words and you have described Obama and the Leftists in leadership today. "
Indeed.
MD
Grasp the shovel firmly with both hands, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 11:19pm.
and throw it as far away from you as possible. Then gather up the remnants of your shredded credibility and climb out of that deep hole you have dug with such misguided fervor.
So...you disagree not only with me about McCarthy but with John Earle Haynes as well. Not only am I ignorant and childish but, implicitly, so is Dr. Haynes. Are you even the least bit familiar with Haynes? Let me put it this way: His expertise in the area of communist influence in America and the history of Soviet espionage dwarfs yours by a factor of, oh, I'd say around 10,000. I'll let you google his credentials and his extensive scholarship--most of which is spent debunking the stubborn, arrogant, but unsustainable views of lefty apologists and exposing the real and existential threat of Red spy rings. Check out this interview with Haynes conducted by the editor of frontpagemag.com in 2003 and then come back and lecture me again about ideological blinders.
Haynes demolishes the denialists and defenders of Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Harry Dexter White et al. Nevertheless, in its review of Haynes In Denial appearing in Commentary, the following is noted:
In Denial thoroughly dissects this revisionist literature. In doing so, it also defends the record of anti-Communism, which Haynes and Klehr show to be a perfectly legitimate position enjoying broad support across the American political spectrum. Conservatives and socialists alike understood the serious threat posed by domestic Communism, and the anti-Communism of the postwar era, was, Haynes and Klehr write, “a rational and understandable response to a real danger to American democracy.” As in all their writings, they make a clear exception of McCarthyism, which they unequivocally condemn as a “wild and irresponsible” impulse that resulted in untold damage to anti-Communism itself. [my emphasis in bold]
Gee, that's remarkably similar to my personal observation which I have previously posted.
strat, I continue to marvel at the depth of your knowledge in your professional field and admire the eloquence and importance of your valuable contributions to the Health forum. And even though I disagree with much--but certainly not all--ot it from a policy standpoint, I can't deny the power and persuasiveness of your arguments.
But, obviously, the current topic is not your strong suit.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 12:51am.
Climb down off your Little Lord Fauntleroy hobby horse and comprehend what I wrote. The Venona Project did not name every Lefty in America. Everyone not named in the Venona Project but appearing on McCarthy's list was not innocent.
Your conflation of the absence of appearance in the Venona Project intercepts with those on McCarthy's list as evidence of innocence is foolish.
Your esteem for Haynes and indignation towards me is duly noted. However, if you purposefully misrepresented Haynes on this point to manipulate our discourse then shame on you, Jer.
If you're finished backpedaling, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/12/2012 - 3:52pm.
[old line: the Venona intercepts proved McCarthy right; the Venona intercepts vindicated McCarthy. new line: the Venona intercepts general failure to back up McCarthy doesn't conclusively prove he was wrong]...
how about parking your tricycle and conceding it may be time to re-evaluate your man-crush on Joe McCarthy
Or you can continue to deflect the facts by smearing me with absurd comparisons to "sheeple" in China, Germany, Cuba, etc. and with the utterly groundless, shamefully careless insinuation of my misrepresenting sources to manipulate the discussion. It is a despicable ploy accompanied by not even a sliver of evidence--a tactic in which your hero and mentor, Tailgunner Joe, uniquely excelled and which would have made him extraordinarily proud. Congratulations.
Jer
Jer, You are still having a
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 07/12/2012 - 5:40pm.
Jer,
You are still having a tantrum. LOL
Kind of funny the things you say when you support and vote for McCarthy-like Obama, Clinton, Al Gore.
McCarthy was a saint compared to the disgusting, anti-American, dirty, pathetic tactics used by your Left wing political heros.
and of course...McCarthy was right. You had the misfortune to be taught, like I was, the lie that McCarthy was on a witch hunt going after innocent individuals. Now, unlike you, I did not just sit there and allow my brain to be washed by the propaganda of my very Liberal teachers and professors. I did research and found out that wow...yes, there were commies in our government, in hollywood, etc as McCarthy said.
Well, at least it is fun to see a Liberal have a baby tantrum when confronted with the Truth.
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 07/12/2012 - 5:35pm.
Define what a "right" means, specifically from a Constitutional and Declaration of Independence perspective. Then I'll answer your post.
stratman, After the fall of
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 07/12/2012 - 5:50pm.
stratman,
After the fall of the USSR countless of KGB documents were found proving McCarthy correct. Sadly, Left-wing partisan hacks like Jer are more interested in their political ideology than they are in the truth.
Jer is too much of a Left wing idealogue, even though he loves to deny it, for him to admit this.
He hates McCarthy and because he said so, McCarthy was wrong and immoral. For Jer, the facts and KGB documents, proving McCarthy right, be damned!
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/12/2012 - 10:37pm.
Why do you continue to distort what I have stated on numerous occasions, i.e. the Venona intercepts as well as myriad sources made available after the collapse of the Soviet Union have confirmed the existence of an extensive network of communist cells in the US and a co-ordinated espionage operation directed from Moscow which was active inside and outside of our borders involving hundreds of agents.
I have NEVER denied this. And long before the release of this more recent evidence, I had read enough to be personally convinced of the veracity of the general allegations involving communist security breaches as well as the specific charges against high profile spies--vigorously but falsely defended by misguided Leftists--such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss.
However, just because many on the Left were wrong doesn't mean that McCarthy was right. When accusations demanded precision, he swung wildly with reckless and sweeping innuendo. Instead of presenting hard evidence, he would base guilt on dubious and disreputable, even unpopular, associations, while intimidating witnesses with bullying threats and undisclosed "proof". After he finished trashing the Truman administration and the reputations of George Marshall and Dean Acheson, he turned on Eisenhower and the US Army.
McCarthy was the author of a sorry chapter in American politics. Praise him to your heart's content. Call me a left-wing ideologue and a partisan hack until you're blue in the face. But it won't change my opinion of the man or his mania.
Jer
Jer, I am not seeking to
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 07/13/2012 - 12:31am.
Jer,
I am not seeking to change your opinion about McCarthy. I am just pointing out that you don't let facts and KGB documents get on the way of your hatred for McCarthy and your not based on history opinion of McCarthy. That's all Jer. You are entitled to your opinion, I think Stratman and others just wish you based it on facts and not Left wing propaganda.
I will give you this...you at least are capable of admitting that the USA was full of commies. you are the FIRST Left winger I have ever spoken to who admitted as much. Just goes to show how morally and intellectually corrupt the Liberal-Democrats are in the USA.
Additionally...It is amusing to see you despise McCarthy since your lovely President Obama, Clinton, VP Al Gore, and today's Democratic party have done to America and private citizens much worse than anything McCarthy did. Joe the Plumber anyone? and how his private life was leaked to the press by a Democratic party individual merely because he dared question the messiah. And it doesn't stop with there, look how the Democratic minions in blogs, media, hollywood treated him. Sara Palin? the Democratic party leaders and Liberal minions also in blogs, movies, tv. shows, etc. have done everything within their power to destroy her and her family, including her children merely because she is a woman and a conservative.
Again, spare us all your fake outrage again McCarthy when you support Left wing political leaders and you belong to a political movement full of Americans who will destroy your reputation, that of your family AND children merely because you do not believe like they do. McCartheism is alive and doing very well in the Democratic, Liberal, Left wing of America.
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/13/2012 - 1:52pm.
Have I ever once stated I hated or despised McCarthy? [The answer is "no".] I've indicated on several occasions that I reserve such intense emotions for the truly evil historical figures who wielded great power and inflicted great harm--Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (to name a few 20th century mass murdering contemporaries of McCarthy) as well as for deranged cultists such as Jim Jones and David Koresh who destroyed--literally-- the lives of innocents.
Obviously I am no fan of Joe McCarthy. And there's no need to restate my opinion of him or elaborate further my reasons for that opinion which have been pretty thoroughly aired on this thread alone. I suspect I like him even less than did Eisenhower who also was not an admirer of McCarthy. But hatred? No.
Jer
"Jer Koresh" is still available as a screen name on DISQUS.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 07/13/2012 - 4:45pm.
Murdering Koresh and his church, was a WIN WIN for your friend B J Clinton.
1). Burn the place to the ground...
2). Get restrictions on the 2nd. Amendment.
Another friend of yours, Obama was not as successful as Clinton,with Fast and Ferocious, giving another torquing to the 2nd Amendment....
Democrat you, through and through.
You Didn't Build That.
The child molester/murderer, self-proclaimed Son of God,
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/13/2012 - 5:10pm.
and assault weapon aficionado Koresh is YOUR hero, ucw. "upcountrykoresh" certainly has a nice ring to it and honoring the sick charlatan's memory by adopting it as your Disqus screen name would no doubt provide a few seconds of solace as he continues to burn in Hell.
Jer
It's your desire to bring him up all the time, why is that?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 07/13/2012 - 5:32pm.
YOU BROUGHT HIM UP ON THIS THREAD...Check the time stamps...
Sorry pal I already have the same exact same screen name over on disqus.
Your Hero, a Democratic President MURDERED him..and with it a chunk of the 2nd Amendment, went Aloha.
Just like a Democrat to play God.
Garofalo you
You Didn't Build That.
Sure I brought him up on this thead.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/15/2012 - 8:11pm.
I cited Koresh as an example of despicable humans along with Jim Jones, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. So what?
Look, junior, if you think Bill Clinton is a mass murderer of the innocent Branch Davidian victims, then I suggest you launch a determined, full-scale and relentless effort to bring him to justice. There is no statute of limitation for murder. I assume you will also admonish George H.W. Bush that he is consorting with a ruthless killer of women and children, and that his own life may be at risk via his associations with this cold-blooded monster.
But, please be advised. It is a daunting and formidable task awaiting you. The evidence of Clinton's culpability is, to put it bluntly, nil--whereas the evidence implicating Koresh is voluminous.
Good luck. I doubt you will have sufficient spare time to comment at internet websites for awhile, except to post updates on your investigation. Will look forward to same.
Jer
Jer, Fair enough. I do not
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 07/14/2012 - 1:32pm.
Jer,
Fair enough. I do not know your heart, so I cannot tell you how you feel towards an individual. However, that doesn't change the fact that your intense dislike of McCarthy isn't based on history, but on your opinion and the lies that the Left wing in America, which includes countless of socialist, communists, have told and taught. I also learned about the "Evils" of McCarthy from Liberal, Socialist and Communist professors at the University of Illinois. However, after doing my own research, I called out many a political science professors on their lies.
But again, How can you have such intense feelings against McCarthy, but defend and support Clinton, Obama, Al Gore and Liberal-Democratic ideology. Do you think it is a good thing that Conservatives in Hollywood have to keep their views under wraps until they become popular and powerful in Hollywood? If a Conservative dares speaks out for Conservative values in Hollywood, what happens to him/her? Out of a job, never to be hired again! In other words, true McCartheism!
It is well known that Al Gore and Clinton went after political enemies using the IRS!!! something Obama is currently also doing to go after Tea Party groups! Again, McCartheism! yet, you support these individuals.
It is well known that Obama has an enemies list which includes private citizens. It is also well known that Obama constantly goes after private citizens because they "dared" to speak against him and his radical Left wing values. Obama and his supporters love to find out who has donated to Right wing/Conservative causes and then they leak out these names with addresses. If it is a business, they encourage Left wingers to stop doing business with them, if it is a private person, they smear them on newspapers, do demonstrations infront of the private person's home terrorizing children!
Again, spare use your anti-McCarthy intense feelings when you support Obama, Clinton, Al Gore. when you belong to the Liberal-Democratic party full of leaders, minions, bloggers who have done much, much worse to Americans than McCarthy ever did.
If you are outraged by what McCarthy did to Eisenhower, great. Are you equally outraged by what Clinton, Obama, Gore have done to their political enemies, public and private citizens? if not, spare us your fake outrage against McCarthy.
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/12/2012 - 9:32pm.
If you wish to respond, feel free. If you would rather not, that's fine with me.
Jer
C'mon, Jer
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 07/13/2012 - 1:30am.
Surely for all your readings and discussions over the years you would effortlessly know this simple concept.
You want dialogue. Answer the simple question. Then I will respond to your post.
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/13/2012 - 2:04pm.
We could spend days on a Forum devoted to that subject alone and still barely scratch the surface. I don't understand your insistence that my addressing the issue here and now be a precondition to any further dialogue on the present--and generally unrelated--topic.
Jer
C'mon, Jer
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 07/14/2012 - 12:15am.
In the space of your 2 posts refusing to answer the question you could have answered the question.
You don't need to get high falutin' about it. You don't even need to name any enumerated Rights in our founding documents. Just the foundational premise of what a Right is. To narrow your research and time spent in crafting a response, you can just define what a Right from the Creator is, though you do not have to discuss the Creator if it makes you uncomfortable. I promise my answer will relate back to the McCarthy issue.
Chances are you know something of what will come next, or, don't know but figure it won't be much to your benefit and therefore are avoiding the question. Now you are in a quandry: Keep chatting on this thread about anything else but my question and be called on it; post no more on this thread and be called on it; or, answer my question and maybe find a way to genuinely rebutt my response without smokescreens, mirrors or chaff.
I've not known you to continue to converse but not attempt an answer to a direct question. Why now?
It's true, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/15/2012 - 7:39pm.
I've never ducked reasonable and relevant questions. And the thought of being sandbagged had not entered my mind, nor would it be of any particular concern even if there were some type of rhetorical or polemical setup afoot. So if you think I now find myself in some sort of quandary, well, think again.
For the record, I can't recall another instance during my entire tenure here where someone has made my response to a question--and an extraordinarily complex one at that--which is, even under the most generous interpretation, distinctly peripheral to the issue at hand a condition for that person's additional commentary.
We have both stated our positions, and, frankly, it makes no difference to me whether or not you further amplify yours. But, the implicit "threat" that you will withhold your remarks unless I address your tangential query--without the slightest effort on your part to demonstrate its materiality--strikes me as not merely unwarranted but just a tad silly.
But, what the heck. I'm in an accommodating mood. So, in the simplest and most concise terms I can muster, I'll define the "Rights" to which you presumably have in mind as the unalienable entitlements--the freedom of behavior--which ALL individuals possess as their birthright. Such liberties being inherent and not bestowed or granted by documents or governments or legislatures or monarchs, they cannot be divested, rescinded or withdrawn by those entities. Rather they are endowed within Man by Man's Creator and are therefore Natural rights, intrinsic, permanent and invariable.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 07/15/2012 - 8:25pm.
I will answer your reply by beginning a new post instead of continuing on in this threaded passage. Since using Firefox 13 I have returned to the skinny, one word per row, vertical column of posts when too many people respond in a thread.
Yeah, strat...when I check out comment threads on my
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/15/2012 - 8:48pm.
iPAD, I find they rapidly shrink to the one or two word skinnies.
I'm not even sure which Firefox version I'm using on my desktop that I use for posting most of my comments, but the columns remain considerably wider.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/16/2012 - 12:09am.
OK. Just posted my response. Click here to go to post.
I was using an older version of Firefox with Matthew Sheppard's Style fix. Unfortunately the Style fix does not work since upgrading Firefox. I've always had minor but irritating quirks with NewsBusters' Rich Text Editor, and I've experienced some display and formatting issues on a couple of forums I frequent.
Since only a few complain of these issues with Firefox, it stands to reason that some application, service, or setting I have is the most likely root cause. One day I'm going to uninstall Norton Internet Security Suite and see if that is causing problems. After that, I'll live with it till I get another computer with the latest and greatest Windows operating system.
Jer, the phrase not only flows well - it has a certain ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 6:20pm.
"down home" ring to it.
It also is a multi-faceted reply; fit for almost any occasion. :o)
Well done !
MD
edit to note that "keyster" should be spelled with an "ie" rather than an "ey".
MD, Waco esk for sure...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 6:47pm.
Some sort of boilerplate hobby?
You Didn't Build That.
I do believe, upcountry, that he had a career in ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 6:58pm.
lawyer-ese contract boilerplate. :o)
MD
touche`, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 10:03pm.
I bow to your expertise on keisters, regardless of how it was acquired. [Is it "ie" or "ei"?]
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 11:50pm.
" 'i' before 'e', except after 'c'".
Is there a "c" in "keister"? I don't think so. Then again, maybe the "k" mimics a "c" in this regard.
*Dunno*
Either way, it just looks wrong. Maybe we should ask BK???? I'd imagine he's heard it a thousand times before, and may be able to share some insight.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde..
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 11:59pm.
I know the general rule is 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. But there are some weird exceptions.
Jer
Touche, Jer
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 12:13am.
If it weren't for spellcheck....I'd never have spelled "weird" correctly. Never. Not once.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Same here, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 12:16am.
I was saved by technology.
Jer
Jer, What is it about
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 1:52am.
Jer,
What is it about Leftists like yourself who have a horrific tantrum whenever anyone points out that McCarthy was right, the USA was full of commies. You Leftists all play the same game calling McCarthy unpatrotic, a bad man, etc.
Yet, you admire and worships anti-Americans like President Clinton, VP Al Gore, President Obama. I mean are you as outraged at President Clinton for using the IRS to go after political enemies as you are at McCarthy? Of course not because it is ALL ideological.
It is hard to believe that you care about America when you support Presidents who have done nothing for America and everything for themselves and their political cronies.
I mean, are you proud that President Obama and his administration go after private citizens like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity because they disagree with him? Maybe you are proud of the government official, a Democrat, who went after Joe the Plumber because Joe "dared" ask the President a tough question. And you are proud of how the Democratic party used Joe's life, a private citizen, against him, because he "dared" question your President Obama.
Are you outraged at Hollywood, an industry which shuns, spurns, rejects, spits upon Conservatives who do not fall inline with Liberal-Democratic values? Hollywood an industry which black lists Conservatives, practicing Catholics? McCartheism is alive, it is being carried out by the Left in Hollywood against Right wingers, but since it is not going after individuals with your ideology, you simply don't care.
If you were consistant in your outrage maybe people would take what you have to say about McCarthy a lot more serious.
Spare us your fake outrage against McCarthy, you and your Left wing friends support and vote for individuals who have done much worse than anything you can make up McCarthy did.
Actually, Jer, my expertise would be more in the area of ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/11/2012 - 6:03am.
spelling; though Lord knows that almost four years of dealing with you on these threads has certainly increased the scope of my experience with kiesters. :o)
MD
I cancelled my HBO
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:31am.
I cancelled my HBO subscription last year, reason given: Bill Maher.
Noel, I am so sorry that you and others at NewsBusters has to sit through this dreck to report on the bias and pushing of "progressive" values on the masses but it is much appreciated by us here.
Offing Themselves
Submitted by rammingspeed on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:36am.
HBO has steadily been losing subscribers, and this kind of crap is one of the reasons why. People are far smarter than the "progressive" left (Sorkin and his crew of scumbag followers) think they are and they are ditching the bullsh*t. This show is obviously timed to help Obama this November, which qualifies it as an under-the-radar campaign contribution. (And the libs complain about Citizens United. But I digress.) For example, Bill Maher would have been long gone if it weren't the big money HBO gets from it's huge number of subscribers that basically pay for all of the programming. Don't have to worry about ratings and inconvenient stuff like that.
HBO is the bottom layer of an outhouse, and it's sinking into its own stink.
A
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:40am.
bunch of looser has beens on a looser show.
grammy... has-beens
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:51am.
grammy...
has-beens (hyphenated)
loser, not looser
sorry,
Submitted by grammajane on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 1:36pm.
my old age is catching up to me.
no problem grammajane*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:16pm.
At our age, there is a benefit.....we are a lot "looser" than we used to be...;-)
I'm sure Sorkin believes that
Submitted by JeffC... on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:50am.
I'm sure Sorkin believes that Gov. Palin said that she can see Russia from her house. I'll bet it's in an upcoming episode.
HBO could save so much money just rebroadcasting old MSNBC footage.
". .not worried about McCarthy?" How bout JFK & RFK?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 3:37pm.
Filed under, 'how soon they forget," or is it, "did they never know?"
From: Joseph McCarthy -- Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
By ARTHUR HERMAN:
[...] Robert Kennedy served McCarthy loyally as assistant counsel for his Subcommittee on Investigations, until a personal quarrel with the chief counsel, Roy Cohn, forced him to quit. But he and Joe remained close, and Joe McCarthy stood as godfather for Bobby and Ethel's first child. One day after McCarthy's censure by the Senate in 1954, Bobby was sailing on the Potomac with a group of reporters. He started defending McCarthy against their criticisms. "Why do you reporters...feel the way you do?" he wanted to know. "OK, Joe's methods may be a little rough, but after all, his goal was to expose Communists in government — a worthy goal. So why are you reporters so critical of his methods?" Even after his own conversion to left-to-center liberalism, he refused to disown or even criticize his old boss. "A very complicated character," he would muse to himself years later. Robert Kennedy had seen in America's Grand Inquisitor a man who, for all his glaring faults, had "wanted so desperately to be liked."
John Kennedy's views, on communism and the Soviet threat, were not so different from McCarthy's either. . .
One might wonder why the media doesn't understand that Michelle Bachmann, then, stands in good company.
(;~/ gary
Hanoi Jane and Self-Righteous Sam on the same show?
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 5:34pm.
Glad I cancelled all of the pay services years ago.
Last night, we enjoyed a nice barbecue for the 4th, watched "The Searchers" on our poolside screen while enjoying some watermelon for dessert.
Certainly not looking at blood-dripping, sex-crazed vampires or any of the ugly mugs on the new Cokehead, er, Sorkin liberal whinefest.
They keep ruining shows with political commentary
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 10:44pm.
I'm watching a new show, "Perception". Long story short, for an example of lying they showed George W. Bush talking to Congress about Iraq having WMD's.
Yes Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:20pm.
I'm always looking for a new show but I got 12 mins into this one and I was done. If I want to observe the schizophrenic behavior and distorted logic of a nut case, I come to NB and read the troll posts.
Cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 07/09/2012 - 11:26pm.
For me it's like being at a family reunion. Although I will say with this new format the craziness is getting worse and worse!
I will say I made it to the end of the show and they did show Bill Clinton wagging his finger when he was saying "I did not have sex with that woman" as another example of a lie. Still not liking it.
Sorkin is too stoopid and ignorant to realize it, but he paid...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 07/10/2012 - 9:57pm.
...Michele Bachmann a pretty high compliment.
Joe McCarthy was pretty much right.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Jer - "Rights" Continuation
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 07/15/2012 - 11:53pm.
Good definition, Jer, however, you forgot a key element of a Right - non-interference. Your omittance is central to your support for the Left's perversion of Rights in this country. Somehow for the Left, non-interference is good when it comes to groups desirous of abortion, gay marriage, and the Church forced to pay for contraceptives, but forgotten about when it comes to those groups endentured by ObamaCare.
Let's look at what Walter Williams has to say about Rights in his article concerning health care:
You have already stated that you believe health care is a Right. You have come to this conclusion based on your life experiences. And as a Right, health care must be provided to all in America.
Tell me, Jer, how you plan to go about enforcing this new Right without
You can't, Jer. You must usurp and sacrifice various forms of liberty in order to provide a new "right".
Why didn't the Founding Fathers include national healthcare as a right? The Founding Fathers could have included health care in the Constitution. They did not. They could have discussed health care at any time in their correspondence or publications. It was not to the best of my knowledge. Medical care was available and a system to pay for it with taxation could have been implemented at any time since Washington was President. It was not. It's not like there was a money problem back them preventing implementation, because we are trillions in debt, and getting worse, and still going through with ObamaCare. And it's not as though we are any smarter than the FF's, because we are not when it comes to developing, nurturing and leader a democratic Republic. The asinine futility of Statism in all its form, over and over and over again, proves Mankind is no smarter on the ways of good governance, something that requires understanding human nature without the specter of tyranny.
No, Jer, the old boys were brilliant men not distracted by shiny objects like our technology or Marx's siren call. They also had to suppress personal, selfish whims when crafting the founding document or else court disaster. The FF's were educated on what works in the service of human beings from the writings of philosophers, politicians and historians, not the capricious whims and lazy day dreaming of irresponsibleness that creeps into people's souls. This is why the Rights we are born with are true Rights that no person, no leader or tyrant can eradicate from human consciousness. Manmade rights, however, may come and go based on whomever is in charge. Your healthcare manmade "right" is one such wish.
Why is ObamaCare not a Right? It interferes with and obligates some to the benefit of others. In specific, ObamaCare interferes with my Liberty and obligates me unlike other segments of the citizenry and does so twofold.
I'll bet you believe everyone has a right to food. Even though this is not enumerated in our founding documents, we have governmental subsidies BUT do not force farmers, grocery stores, or agro-business to give away their services or products. Nor are they mandated by government to earn less. But you've managed to rationalize stealing liberties from physicians and other entities in health care.
So how does this relate to McCarthy? I will agree that McCarthy became a bitter and reckless man, driven to despair and desperate measures in large part by the deaf ears and combative personalities that ignored or led assault against him for his now proven correct charges. That Eisenhower and other important people knew McCarthy was correct and did not assist or blocked his efforts did not help.
Regardless, Tailgunner Joe, in your opinion, felt compelled to interfere with, obligate and diminish the Rights of certain people in the service of his wishes for the supposed greater good of the nation. You, Jer, feel compelled to interfere with, obligate and diminish my Rights, and the Rights of other professionals and businesses in the health care industry, in service to your wishes and the supposed greater good of the nation. (Not to mention the personal gain both you and McCarthy feel/felt acting upon your compulsions) This is not respecting Rights. This is tyranny, the usurpation of true Rights, in service to your emotive wishes.
You have become that which you despise - a medical McCarthyistic Tailgunner Jer.
Bravo!
Stratman, I work for a
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 07/16/2012 - 3:39pm.
Stratman,
I work for a medical school. I do a lot of interviews of applicants seeking entrance into our program.
one of the KEY questions I ask is, "If healthcare is a human right, as so many people have come to believe and as you informed me you believe, what happens when this right cannot be exercised due to a lack of healthcare providers? Is it then morally right for the government to force people into the healthcare fields in order for it to protect your healthcare right?" I have worked with this university for 4 years. I have done countless upon countless of interviews. No student who believes healthcare is a human right can answer this question.
Bleeding heart Liberals don't stop to think further than, "it feels good to think healthcare is a right..." If healthcare is a right then the government must force people to go into healthcare careers in order for all of us to be able to excercise this right. However, the second the government impinges on your freedom to chose the career path you want, well, healthcare is no longer a right.
there is a huge shortage of medical doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers already, Obamacare is only going to make this problem much bigger. I ask all of those bleeding heart Liberals who honestly believe healthcare is a human right. How will any of us be able to excercise this "right" when there aren't enough physicians, nurses, etc. to look after our health?
It is no different than what has happened in Canada and England. Sure, they have universal healthcare in which anyone at any moment can go to see a physician. Great, right? Well...not so much, why? Because the vast majority of the times you have to wait months to see a doctor.
My sister lived in Detroit and worked at a hospital. She was shocked at the amount Canadians who crossed from Windsor either because they could not see a physician for three or more months or because the Canadian government had denied them a procedure.
I interview Canadian applicants. Out of 10 interviews that I do a week, 9 of them well tell me a story of how a parent, grandparent, sibling, friend, etc. was denied a life saving procedure by the Canadian government. SCARY stuff which the Left wing Liberals who love to tout University Healthcare refuse to address.
Sorry to toss cold water on two such impassioned
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/16/2012 - 4:18pm.
screeds, but I am reasonably certain [I won't say "absolutely" when it concerns a topic which has elicited thousands of comments, including quite a few observations from me, over the years] I have never argued that healthcare is a "right". So, mull that over and I'll post additional remarks later on.
Jer
Jer, Hmmm...toss cold water?
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 07/16/2012 - 6:39pm.
Jer,
Hmmm...toss cold water?
Where in my post do I say that you have said healthcare is a human right? For having a heart-attack when you believe someone is not being 100% accurate, you certainly do not live up to the standards you demand from Conservatives. How typical of a Liberal, do as Liberals say, not as they do.
For a lawyer, you certainly lack reading comprehenson skills. Mull this over while you attempt to answer from the radical Left of the political spectrum.
If you wish to split hairs, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/16/2012 - 6:53pm.
where in my post do I explicitly state that you claimed I said healthcare is a human right?
stratman did make the direct allegation however. And a major portion of your post is premised on the notion that liberals believe it to be a "right".
So chew on that and worry about your own comprehension skills.
Jer
LOL Jer, really, you really
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 07/16/2012 - 7:41pm.
LOL Jer, really, you really want to play this game, lawyer? LOL
Hmmm…lawyer, you did say, “Sorry to toss cold water on TWO impassioned screeds…” replying to the TWO posts right above yours, correct? What? Are you now going to claim that you weren’t replying to my post, only Stratman’s?
Anyone with an ounce of common sense, an IQ over 100, reading-comprehension skills and self-respecting individual who is not a radical Left wing ideologue will easily come to the conclusion that you were referring to both Stratman and I when you added, “…but I am reasonably certain…I have never argued that healthcare is a “right”” Insinuating that both of us asserted that at some point on NB you have claimed healthcare is a human right. (Told you you need to work on you reading-comprehension skills).
Thus, I ask you again, lawyer, where in my post do I claim that you have said healthcare is a human right? No where. I don’t name you or address you in my post. I don’t talk about Jer in my post, do I? I was talking about Liberals in general (anyone who does not have a persecution complex will realize that not every post is about him. Especially when his NB avatar is not even mentioned!) obvious to anyone with reading-comprehension skills.
I in fact talk about bleeding heart Liberals who honestly believe healthcare is a right. If you aren’t a bleeding heart Liberal or a Liberal who believes healthcare is not a human right, why would you take my post personal?
So, I don’t use your name in my post. Nowhere in the post do I imply anything about you. Yet, you have to make it personal and take a stupid shot at my post and lie about what I said. My post had nothing to do with you, ultra-sensitive Liberal. Chew on this fact while you keep on crying and defending your inability to read and comprehend.
The honorable thing to do, Jer (being a lawyer I know you must not have much honor and honesty left in you) is to say, “ooopps Liberal lies, I jumped the gun, sorry! After re-reading, I realize it was Stratman who made this claim, not you” But I know I am expecting too much from a Liar, I mean lawyer who is Left wing partisan hack.
Thanks for proving my point...you don't live by the standards that you demand from Conservatives and Republicans.
Chew on that and worry more about your inability to be an honorable and honest individual. Of course, you can always do the honorable and honest thing and admit you made a mistake.
Then why
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 11:43am.
The snotty comment? Typical Jer parsing,
What snotty comment?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 4:20pm.
Jer
Hmmm.
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 4:32pm.
Really?
Hmmm...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 4:47pm.
About the same level of snottiness as this comment in the post I addressed:
For a lawyer, you certainly lack reading comprehenson skills. Mull this over while you attempt to answer from the radical Left of the political spectrum.
Jer
Same level,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 5:02pm.
And after your post.
Look, if you want to post like that, fine. Just quit with the "poor me" nonsense when it gets directed at you.
Look, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 6:19pm.
How about you stop with the nonsense of calling me out for merely responding in kind to someone else--and with your whining for weeks about it when that someone else happens to be you. Okay?
Jer
Oh, my!
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:48pm.
I think I might faint.
Jer, You are such a run of
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 9:48pm.
Jer,
You are such a run of the mill, typical Liberal who sees hismself as a victim.
1) You are the one who decided to butt in and call my post to Stratman and Stratman's post "screeds". You also decided to use the condescending "mull..." comment against us LONG before I said anything against you or even addressed you.
2) I asked that you provide proof of your accusations using your "mull..." comment against you and you can't provide an ounce of evidence.
3) Instead you return with a "chew on this comment..." Yes, I return in kind AFTER you went after me in two posts and yet you poor, poor, poor thing, you poor Liberal feel like the victim. REALLY?!!
So, you start something. You don't like it when people return in kind and start crying about being a victim. You typical run of the mill Liberal victim you. LOL
the problem with Liberals is that no matter how hard you try, eventually you all fall into the same pattern, victims of your own poor behavior. Unfortunately, none of you are mature enough to take responsability for your actions. Instead you all act the same, claiming that you are the victims of someone else's behavior/action. Most of you Liberals are too partisana and blind to see that you are only a victims of your own actions/words.
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/16/2012 - 9:38pm.
1) Liberallies did not say anything about your opinion on health care being a Right. Liberallies can handle himself well enough on his own.
2) You clearly, without pedantry or mincing around the edges, posted that you believed health care was a Right in direct response to my question of whether health care is a Right. You told me about a friend/relative of yours who lost everything due to illness - a medical bankruptcy. This was a reinforcing, if not defining, moment concerning the inequities of illnesses creating financial hardship to decent people - for instance your friend/relative who worked and saved and did everything properly in life only to lose his savings, retirement and possessions due to illness. You didn't "argue". You stated it and we had a discussion, though at that point, based on this and other experiences in life you discussed, I knew there was little point other than didactics.
Are you stating today you do NOT believe health care is a Right? If so, why have you changed your belief?
If not, and still believe health care is a Right, why and how do you justify the targeted abrogation of my Rights and the confiscation of the fruits of my Labor by the Federal government under ObamaCare?
strat---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/16/2012 - 10:52pm.
Unless you provide THE example; day, date, time, and a signed, stamped, and sealed affidavit from a Notary Public where Jer ---
---clearly, without pedantry or mincing around the edges, posted that he believed health care was a Right in direct response to your question of whether health care is a Right. ---
Then it didn't happen.
How do I know this?
Cuz Jer insinuates continually that if I don't provide an example of what he stated; it never happened.
Convenient, eh? A sure fire debate winner, too. Only thing more sure fire is ol' Jer gettin' pist when somebody ignores him.
If you don't count the ire factor when someone jumps in and replies to one of his posts without picking a number and waiting politely in line, that is. :o)
MD
Here you go, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 3:49am.
"....Is health care a RIGHT? The answer tells me all I need to know about what one wants or expects. If you say "yes" then America must be foundationally changed to accommodate this development in confiscatory, tyrranical (soft) government...."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/02/26/rush-calls-out-ap-cri...
Hhmm,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 11:32am.
Odd you should post that to witch you didnt reply?
Your education and experience in the legal profession I thought would provide valuable insights for me that would better comport my arguments and conclusions on sound legal law/theory. I already can Google. I asked you your opinion and understanding, specifically referencing your "persuasive" argument comment, because I actually wanted to know more of the nuts and bolts from your perspective.
I posted the end of the very same comment, to make clear what was requested. All through the health care debate Jer kept his opinion to himself as to the legality of it and why. I shared Strats frustration. Your continued fall back of the Repubs attempt to pass a health care bill, does not in anyway relate, or convince us that this one is somehow ok. The fact it didnt pass, should provide some helpful insight as to why.
was the enactment of health reform legislation which would address the flaws in our (then) current system: exploding medical costs and skyrocketing insurance premiums, unequal access to quality care, lack of plan portablility, pre-existing condition limitations, tens of millions of uninsured or underinsured, and the financial devastation to individuals [and their families] hit by catastrophic illness.
Whats missing here is: The how, why's and the fact much of this already exist. Where it doesnt exist is because of Government intervention.
It is very frustrating to me to look at these HC threads in hindsight of the SC decision.
Not odd at all, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 4:19pm.
Since strat has been continually insisting that I had explicitly replied in the affirmative to his question "Is health care a RIGHT?"
I've already linked my post where I stated I was not a big fan of Obamacare and that I wouldn't shed any tears if the entire Act were thrown out. As far as its legality, I long ago commented that I believed its constitutionality was a close call. I did find it ironic, however, that the provision which most upset Republicans was one that many of them had supported in the past.
Jer
I did find it ironic,
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 4:35pm.
Well all the dimwits support it now! Even though the most Americans dont.
I'm curious, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 4:38pm.
Were you one of the approximately 70% of Americans who supported "significant health care reform" prior to the 2008 election?
Jer
Reform is a vague description Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 4:56pm.
If you mean did I want the Fed out of it, I did. If you mean did I want the Fed to control every aspect, and more, then no, I did not.
There is not a single reform in this Bill, just more bureaucracy and punitive penalties and taxes. Which is why dimwits supported it 100%.
Many dimwits wanted a public option or a single payer system.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 5:17pm.
Those would have entailed far more government control. Obamacare rejected both and attempted to preserve private sector and market components in order to make it more palatable to conservative Democrats and Republicans. But it became so politicized that it eventually was clear congressional Republicans weren't going to support ANY bill that they didn't write themselves.
Jer
Well, they got it.
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 5:50pm.
Only a matter of time before insurance co. and businesses cant compete with the fed.
What we need to collectively ask ourselves, is who's labor is the fed going to steal to keep their grandiose promises? As if they care.
Guaranteed health coverage, is not the same as health care.
What makes libs so painfully stupid, is their insistence that they can solve everyones problems, even when no-one wants their help. As well as their absolute lack of prudence.
Not only that, but your effort to suggest Repubs would have refused any action is pure bs. Do we really need to remined you that the Repubs were locked out. Were afforded no opportunity to help construct any aspect of this liberty stealing Bill.
Ol' Jer does tend to attempt to neutralize any Democrat ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 6:30pm.
move that draws heat as one that was previously tried by, supported by, or originated from, the Republican side of the aisle.
When doing so, he is guilty of felony generalizing in that regard.
Nothing wrong with arguing for your side; we all do that - but Jer pontificates as though actions by or statements from a few non-conservative RINOs automatically ties the whole right side of the political spectrum together in lockstep.
It just doesn't work that way - even, or especially, for the sake of bolstering one's argument.
MD
Here ol' Matthew:
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 6:46pm.
"...Skeptics of government should clearly prefer the individual mandate to single payer. In fact, the individual mandate was developed by conservative economist Mark Pauly as an alternative to single payer. “We did it because we were concerned about the specter of single-payer insurance, which isn’t market-oriented, and we didn’t think was a good idea,” Pauly told me last year. In the 1990s, the individual mandate was also the Republican counterproposal to President Bill Clinton’s health-care bill, and in 2005, it was the centerpiece of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s health-care reforms...."
[my emphasis]
Jer
Really doesn't mean jack to me, Jer. Check out my ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 6:50pm.
tag line. :o)
MD
MD Is Correct
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 8:04pm.
I don't give a crap what the idiot Republicans did to avoid doing there job and not grow government. Neither side appears willing to not grow government and its reach over private citizens.
Your link is incorrect and incomplete. For instance:
The "tax" goes into effect in 2014 and steps up each of the next two years. The $695 is the minimum for one person only. Starting in 2017, the minimum will increase to account for inflation. There is a cap on families, no matter the size, of triple the per-person tax. The individual tax will cap at whatever the "bronze" level insurance costs in the government mandated and controled exchange.
Addendum:
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 6:58pm.
Here is a balanced account of the origin and history of the individual mandate.
Jer
A "balanced account", you say ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 7:34pm.
"The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate"
Lord, Jer; you are too funny !
MD
Did you even bother to read the entire article, Matthew?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 8:18pm.
My guess is "no".
Jer
Do you have any more idiotic comments, Jer? ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 8:30pm.
Guess what my guess is.
MD
Not sure, but it probably has something
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 8:34pm.
to do with "sideways" and "shoving it".
Jer
Best one heard recently.....
Submitted by creekrat on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 6:38pm.
Problem: folks can't afford health insurance
Solution: force folks to purchase health insurance
Yeah, thatll work!
Huge difference, Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 5:09pm.
Reform? Absolutely. Total government takeover? NEVER! They have done such a good job with programs so far, don't you think?
Boudin, you state my position
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 7:40pm.
Boudin, you state my position well: He did not answer the question put forth to him. Unfortunately, and exasperatingly, he fails to answer questions frequently.
Jer, this was not our only rodeo on the questions of
1) Health care as a Right
2) Asking for your interpretation, not someone else's.
First, your "explanation" to my question about Federal Court determinations was:
In other words, you remarked on everything but what was asked - your interpretation of Federal Court proceedings based on your legal education and experience.
Then there was your wish list for health care:
Sure sounds like someone who thinks health care is a Right.
Explain how costs are a "flaw", Jer? Were your professional fees a "flaw", Jer? What can't you call a flaw? To what extent do you propose cost containment occur? Costs are incurred with every supplier, manufacturer, vendor, middle man, transporter, servicer, and worker that is involved in commerce of goods and services that eventually are utilized in health care. Are you suggesting agriculture, steel and plastics industry, truckers, and even secretaries that work in businesses whose widgets or bath soaps are used in health care be cost contained? What are you going to do about the fixed and variable costs not covered under your wish list that those in health care will still be subject to?
In contrast, should we let people take food from a grocery store or grab it from a someone else's field because of costs?
If you're going to be "fair", and I know you want to be Jer, then you must manipulate all commerce. We both know you don't have the stones to propose this, let alone bring yourself to admit what your wishes obligate. No, you prefer the emotional comfort hidden behind your incremental march into State control.
Unequal access to care? Complete Leftist gibberish predicated on a corrupted view of Rights versus wishes. Are you talking about having health care conveniently located to the citizen or the ability to be seen and treated by someone in health care regardless of convenient location? Since when is "equal access" to have a product or service not predicated on what the person providing that good or service wants to do with their own labour... unless you believe that access a Right? There is as much equal access to health care as there was for obtaining your home, your car, your clothes and the food you eat. You have money for goods and services then you get goods and services.
Did you and your colleagues never turn down a client because the payout was not enough let alone probable? If your answer is yes then you segregated people, denied people, discriminated against people on the basis of money and opportunity. Given your beliefs about health care costs will you return the money you charged your clients rapaciously as decided by someone else such as the government? Of course there is legal services offered to those that cannot pay, just as there is in health care.
How will you ensure "equal" access in rural and urban communities? There have been incentives in place for years but the issue still exists for primary care, specialists, and ancillary services. Are you suggesting we increase incentives? Doubtfull the Dems will agree to the costs required for permanent solution. How about more foreign H1B visa heath care workers? Sure, that would help. Good thing most physicians aren't unionized. However, as the trend in government is forever marching into full-on Statism, it is not rocket science to realize that Leftist's will eventually and incrementally mandate control over medical school matriculation and graduation, residency positions, and, finally, employment locations. That is the only way you will guarantee your wish for "equal" access. Your government managed access wish is already beyond my concept of liberty and government excess. Where's does your wish end? How much control do you require, Jer?
Portability - One of the easiest wishes on your list. It will, however, require changing tax laws and trampling on States' rights. There is no portability due to an intended consequence of governmental wish fufillment. (Hint - employee insurance and WWII)
Pre-existing conditions - you are no longer talking about insurance from a classical perspective. This is another health care as a Right wish. You are not serious about cost containment if you undermine the concept of insurance with governmental forcing of pre-existing conditions on all insurance. You are not serious about free market forces either.
The Uninsured - Taking care of the unisured could have been done without 2700 pages of ObamaCare which leaves actual decision making to a later date and a star chamber of unelected and eventual untouchable committee members. This has been dissected on Blonde's Health Care forum. Read there for more. ObamaCare is the foundation that incrementally provides for the eventual complete government takeover of health care as well as a gateway to increasing governmental control over more than just the access or quality of care of the populace.
Financial Devastation - Oh, boy. The third rail of blackmail ideology. A wish for equal outcomes, not equal opportunities. A denial of the inequities inherent in life itself. I don't recall you posting ad nauseum about how people should give to charity or provide charitable works. I don't recall you hounding Biden and Obama or anyone else about how they didn't donate or donate enough to charity. Yet you want government to confiscate the fruits of all people's labour in order to fufill another of your wishes. Your passion runs one way - government. Charity is fine and dandy but taxes are sweet as candy to sunny day Constitutionalists like you, Jer. There are safety nets in place for health crises. They may not make one whole but that has never been the responsibility of government or citizens nor a guarantee of assistance for any and all. Similarly, from Warren v. District of Columbia , police do not necessarily have a duty to respond in person to a call for help. Why would I have a duty to your friend's father's finances? What makes you think the government will have a duty to him or similar cases? Aren't we supposed to be containing government costs? I may or may not want to help someone. That is liberty. We all have the same freedom to choose. That is our Right to the fruits of our labour. You want to steal some of my liberty and obligate me to fulfill your wishes.
Bullshit, Jer. If your goal is to implement your wish list then your comment about free markets is a deceit to give you an air of reasonableness since we all know it cannot not occur without being forced by government. Except in Liberal Unicornville. Your statement also contradicts your change from vigorous supporter and defender of ObamCare to unenthused or lukewarm supporter and defender. Given the non-existent explanation for your change, let alone a trail of postings which document your evolution, one must conclude that your singular dispassionate and less than convincing example is more your dissappointment that ObamaCare does not go further and faster Statist.
Yeah, I've really felt your passion and conviction from reading your multiple detailed posts on this topic, like the way you feel about McCarthy. Same goes for your proclaimed unenthusiasm for ObamaCare all these years. Not.
The way I asked the question of health care as a Right was near guaranteed you would not answer in the affirmative on that thread. It was also not the only time I would ask you. This thread was also not the only time I asked you to provide your personal interpretation and insights, nor the only time you were evasive or non-responsive.
Forget it, strat.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 8:11pm.
You have furiously backpedaled from...
"You clearly, without pedantry or mincing around the edges, posted that you believed health care was a Right in direct response to my question of whether health care is a Right."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/09/hbos-newsroom-beco...
to...
"Sure sounds like someone who thinks health care is a Right."
Do you believe a baby brought to an ER in severe respiratory distress should receive medical attention? If so, I suppose you would characterize your affirmative response as "sounding like someone who thinks health care [for babies] is a Right."
Your duplicity has been exposed.
Done with you.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 9:10pm.
I figured you would go this route. Not an unreasonable response but incorrect. I dissected your answer not as the proof of your post admitting you believed health care is a Right, but as corroborating evidence that goes to your presence of mind that you do believe health care is a Right.
And yes, I still stand by my recollection that you stated health care is a Right. No backpedaling.
That thread was not the only time brought up the question of health care as a Right, but it was framed in such a way that is was near guaranteed you would not answer in the affirmative on that thread.
You did not comment at all then whether you thought health care was a Right. You certainly had ample opportunity to respond, especially to "staunchly advocate", as you said about tort reform, your position on your wish list. Reading the entire post it could be construed I wasn't asking you explicitly to answer, instead making a general statement about those who believed health care is a right. This is not backpedaling either, but maybe why you didn't answer then. My "move along" comment was more about my choice than yours, Jer. It is ludicrous to think you would hold your tongue if you cared to comment given your past behavior on NewsBusters.
Then came your dumbass comment of the year concerning babies in ER's. WTH? You proposed the absolute worst scenario to support your position. The odds a physican, nurse, or respiratory therapist would deny care to anyone in their ER with severe respiratory distress, LET ALONE A BABY, are about zero even before EMTALA. You really don't understand people in health care.
Yeah, you are done.
Yes I do strat.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/22/2012 - 9:43pm.
But you don't understand the application of logic. I know what the odds are of a baby not receiving treatment in an ER. The scenario was presented to underscore your staggering ignorance concerning "rights" and the deceit which has infused your comments and conduct during our exchanges.
Now please vent your crippling fury over Obamacare at someone else. Your extended meltdown has become painful to watch.
Jer
Looks Like Jer Believes Health Care Is A Right
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 1:47am.
Yeah, you're the one who evades my questions and fails to address my points, but I'm the one who's deceitful.
OK, Jer, since you are in a hypothetical logic-y mood:
Your scenario with the baby is incorrectly framed. Yours is a question of obligations and expectations. It does not address the question of whether health care is a Right as Walter Williams defines.
You also failed once again to answer pertinent questions put to you in my previous post such as:
If you can not or will not explain these simple questions then, to paraphrase Jeff Foxworth, you just may be a liberty stealing believer in health care as a Right.
The duty to provide emergent medical care predates the Constitution. While workers in the health care field are not required to respond to an emergent situation in public, the ER is another matter entirely. However, just as the police's qualified duty to respond to calls - something you evaded discussion on despite being asked - what is the duty of an ER that is so overwhelmed that an emergent patient cannot be given care? What about in times of crises when ambulances are diverted because an ER is full? What then happens when someone enters the ER on their own - will they be turned away if emergent? The answer is no, but it is possible that timely or adequate care to stabilize may not be given due to catastrophic circumstances overwhelming to the staff. (earthquake, fire, mva, shooting, explosions, etc causing massive casualties beyond the limitations of available staff)
ER treatment is covered under EMTALA. Your argument is a non-issue.
Here's another scenario for you: Is it a Right to provide charitable works and donations to those in need? Is it a Right of those in need to expect or obligate others to donate or do charitable works to provide for their need?
Maybe you are right for trying to float the most emotionally charged argument possible. Too bad you incorrectly framed the issue as well as present a non-issue.
So health is now taxable, it's a basic fee for breathing, tax.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 2:43am.
As of June 28, 2012 it should be a right, to breathe even tho we don't know whats in it right? Yea Riiight...I think Jer is sayin that your breath is not your own, unless you pay for it, right?
Then it's a right, once the check clears...
You Didn't Build That.
For heaven's sake, it's the song that never ends...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 3:15am.
strat, my old friend, read...my...lips: IT DOESN'T MATTER! It is utterly irrelevant whether it's called a 'right', a 'privilege', a 'service', a 'duty', a 'good thing for America', 'desirable social policy', a 'widget', an 'optimum health incentive', a 'personal liberty destroyer' or 'Obama's folly'. You are obsessing over a non-issue.
The parameters of the inquiry are these, and these ONLY: A sufficient number of members of Congress voted to pass legislation known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was then signed into law by the current president. The seminal issue was whether or not Congress acted within the scope of its Constitutional authority in the enactment of said legislation, or, stated differently, was this federal body properly invested with the necessary power to act under either the Commerce Clause or its Taxing prerogatives as prescribed by the US Constitution. A corollary question concerned the severability of the provisions of the Act in case one--i.e., the individual mandate--was found to be a product of Congressional overreaching and thus constitutionally untenable. The four dissenters believed the law failed to pass constitutional muster under either theory--the flawed mandate fatal to the overall construction and implementation of the Act, and therefore voidable in its entirety. On the other hand, four majority Justices found it constitutionally compliant under both theories, while the Chief Justice joined with those Justices only in holding the ACA sustainable under the Taxing authority of Congress. But that was enough, at least for now. A future Congress or a different Supreme Court may have a different view.
So is health care a Right? I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't mean dick.
Jer
Amazing, after all this
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 7:37am.
Jer says it doesnt matter. Even after it has been explained to him, if it's his Right, then who's labor does he get to receive at gun point?
A Right, or Privilege are now the same thing. Well who knew, somebody better get busy editing the Webster dictionary. Any other words we want to change the meaning of Jer? Make sure you catch them up too.
Good freakin grief!
Boudin
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 1:03pm.
I get Jer.
He posits hypotheticals, I destroy his arguments, then he states it doesn't matter.
Ex post de facto hocus pocus, presto chango, bippity, boppity, boo - POOF! - it never happened.
You're not getting anything
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 4:10pm.
except the shredding of your credibility.
But since you and Lord Boudin obviously have it all figured out, I'll let the two of you continue congratulating each other while embellishing your fables.
Re your comment below, to my utter unamazement, you thought wrong.
Jer
Speaking of not getting anything.....Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 5:42pm.
With the exception of your one reply which was not a reply, recieved not one response to my questions on the weekend open thread concerning the positions and vision of the resident NB libs. Are liberal core beliefs that difficult to articulate?
There not difficult Creekrat
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 5:52pm.
They dont exist. With fingers in their collective ears, and tomorrow in their sights!
Creekrat,
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 6:25pm.
It's not Jer's role to answer questions here.
His role is to pontificate and berate, and most here will agree that he does both very well.
That's nonsense, CX, and you know it...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:19pm.
I have absolutely no problem with addressing any and all reasonable questions. As you can see here*, I patiently responded to strat's queries despite his insulting remarks about my profession and the condescension directed at me personally. It became apparent he was more interested in disparagement than productive debate which ended with his stating he was moving on.
Again, on this thread and at his request, I amplified my views on Natural Rights [although they were not really relevant to the subject-matter of the blog], which he then turned around to accuse me of McCarthyism.
And on countless occasions during the past year and a half he has popped up on various threads for the sole purpose of taking gratuitous potshots at me [e.g. interrupting friendly bantering among Rad, cajun, GG and me to admonish them that Jer was voting to destroy America, and another time warning Rush Fan not to trust me.]
You're lecturing the wrong person about berating folks.
Jer
* problem with link so click on link I pasted in earlier post to strat ["Here you go strat"] and review the exchange between us on Tom Blumer's blog
BS Jer. Big, big, fib your swinging around there Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:24pm.
You never, answer my questions. Now you do post complete bs about the questions I ask. But you never answer any questions I actually ask.
And I know why you dont answer them, and it's not because you have quit beating your wife, it's because the answer contradict your ideology. How do I know that? Because thats why I ask them. Face it, your a lib, you cant afford to be completely honest, only honest enough to obfuscate.
You're right, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:47pm.
I generally make it a point to ignore your colossally inane questions that are customarily framed something like this: "How can you dimwits support a stupid president who hates America?"
Now, if I have failed to address reasonable questions posed by you, please furnish an example of same. Or are you going to repeat your brilliant "I don't fetch for libs" retort?
Jer
I already furnished them
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:02pm.
Chicken sh!t.
Relax, Boudin, wash your mouth out with soap...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:14pm.
and then point them out to me. Please.
Jer
Why? You wont answer them,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:23pm.
Just start with the questions on this page, from Strat, Creekrat, and any other you provoked!
big guy!
We're talking about YOUR reasonable questions, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:25pm.
which you claim I have refused to answer.
Show me.
Jer
Your done,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:35pm.
Aint proved nothin, not a single thing.
I know it's not nonsense, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:23pm.
First of all, I was addressing my remarks to Creekrat, not you. They were in regards to you, but I was not "lecturing the wrong person about berating folks". I wasn't lecturing anybody about anything. I was pointing out two of your strong points so as to give credit where credit is due.
Perhaps this will be helpful: when I am writing to you, I will indicate that I'm addressing you by saying something like "I know it's not nonsense, Jer".
Thank you for proving my point about pontification. I said you do that well and you have amply demonstrated your prowess with your response.
And to offer some friendly advice with regards to Strat's remarks about your profession and condescension directed at you, I refer you to my tag line. It was thought to be good advice when you wrote it and I assume its utility endures. I'll be sorry to see that gem go when we can't have tag lines any more.
As an aside, how are we going to carry on these lovely little chats when NB no longer shows recent comments?
Perhaps this will be helpful, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:38pm.
I don't care whom you may be addressing, if the remarks pertain to me, and very explicitly so, and express an opinion about me with which I disagree, then you can expect a response from me. Fair enough?
As far as your tagline and thicker skin, I'll just note that the very fact I have been posting here for the majority of the past five years is credible evidence of my possessing reasonably thick skin.
Finally, re your aside, I think these lovely little chats will soon be just a beautiful memory.
Jer
The whole damn thread is about you
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:50pm.
You vain bs artist. Go ball your eyes out elsewhere. Again with the insults and the whining about decor. Meanwhile ignoring anything remotely about the topic, but of course, not before pulling the seniority card.
Could you be any more ridiculous? Dont answer, I'll be the judge.
You're free to leave at any time, Boudin.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:54pm.
But then what the hell would your purpose in life be if you weren't constantly following me around.
Jer
Great Jer, again?
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:59pm.
Very classy.
Sorry, I tried...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:23pm.
but I just couldn't match your "vain bs...go ball your eyes out" level of classiness.
Jer
Are you whining again,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:31pm.
Yes I believe you are. Bless your little sweet heart.
Absolutely fair, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:24pm.
Just try to accurately represent my remarks, okay? I know you're a stickler for detail in other peoples' comments, so I don't think it's unfair to expect the same of you.
As for your posting here for the majority of the past five years, I'm not sure whether it's a sign of reasonably thick skin or a lack of common sense... ;)
Will NB still have forums? Maybe you can start your own forum and battle your antagonists there!
Well, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:09pm.
Just try to accurately represent my remarks, okay? I know you're a stickler for detail in other peoples' comments, so I don't think it's unfair to expect the same of you.
In that case, I should note that I didn't misrepresent your remarks, although I'll concede that "lecture" may not have been the most appropriate term to describe your delivery of the criticism. Aside from that, the fact that the criticism of me was contained in a post addressed to someone else is completely irrelevant. And your contention you were actually giving me credit for two of my strong points [berating and pontificating] is laughably disingenuous. That type of game-playing does not become you, CX.
As for your posting here for the majority of the past five years, I'm not sure whether it's a sign of reasonably thick skin or a lack of common sense... ;)
Touche`.
Will NB still have forums? Maybe you can start your own forum and battle your antagonists there!
Good question, and one I have already asked. I still don't know the answer. I initially thought the forum option would remain, but now I'm not so sure.
Jer
Let's look at what you wrote, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:26pm.
See, when you write "You're lecturing the wrong person about berating folks" people who read that will get the wrong impression that I was lecturing you about berating folks. I wasn't addressing my comments to you and I certainly wasn't lecturing Creekrat about you berating folks, so your sentence is wrong on all counts.
Now, if you want to say that it is incorrect of me to make a comment to Creekrat saying you berate people, that's a whole different thing and would accurately reflect what I wrote. But I would still be correct because you do, in fact, berate people on a regular basis. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing; it's just your rhetorical style.
And, just as another example of how we think differently, what you think of as laughably disingenuous I think of as dead-on, and your berating me for "game-playing" that doesn't become me doesn't bother me at all. It's only your opinion and I give it all due consideration.
Hey, hey, hey,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:34pm.
You dont get to make those decisions.
Jer will tell you what you say, and what you are. Be patient!
"Addressing any and all reasonable questions",---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 8:56pm.
(based on what I decide is reasonable)
"patiently responded --- despite his insulting remarks ---"
(as I always do no matter the continual unfair and everlasting provocation to be snappish, snide, and snarky)
"---condescension directed at me personally ---"
(as if I would ever give cause for that)
' ---he was more interested in disparagement than productive debate ---"
(a typical conservative, I tell ya)
" ---I amplified my views---"
(it wasn't necessary; I just did it out of the goodness of my heart cuz that's the kind of guy I am)
"--- which he then turned around to accuse me of McCarthyism ---"
(ME, for God's sake. ME. I hate McCarthyism. I hate McCarthy. If that bastard wasn't dead, I'd kill him myself)
"--- and on countless occasions ---"
(lots of times, trust me. Bunches.)
"--- he has popped up --- for the sole purpose of taking gratuitous potshots at me ---"
(ME, for God's sake. ME. I hate
being methat)"--- interrupting
biased ideologicalspeak on my partfriendly banteringbetween myself and those foolsamong ---"(As if it isn't hard enough already to conduct bone deep lefty speak while simultaneously watching my six)
"--- to admonish --- and another time warning --- not to trust me.]"
(The nerve. The unmitigated gall. The effrontery. Treating me as if I were a lefty liberal on a conservative site. How gauche)
:o(
MD
Okay! The gang's all here.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:19pm.
Wondering when you would show up. Was getting worried. Am much relieved.
Activating spell check.
Jer
A Circle Jerk of Conservatives
Submitted by Toesies on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:24pm.
It's a real shame these guys can't show you the same respect you've shown them for the past 4+ years.
Toesies, you're cracking me up!!!
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:33pm.
How much of Jer's 4+ years of comments have you read in the 1 year and 44 weeks you've been on this site?
Plenty
Submitted by Toesies on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:38pm.
And then some. Why you can read only this thread to see what kind of person he is.
You're absolutely right, Toesies
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:49pm.
You can read only this thread to see what kind of person Jer is. Ask any of the others who are engaged in the conversation with him tonight. I'm sure they'll agree with you.
Welcome Toesies
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:10pm.
Do you understand his logic? Thanks in advance
Go away toe jam
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:26am.
Many of the posters giving Jer here grief also have him on their buddy list. Now please confine yourself to the disqus section. You're not welcome here.
So even though, toesies-posies, you have been ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:46pm.
on board for two months shy of two years, you know all about 4+ years of a lefty's posting history at NBs.
If you have been following ol' Jer's career for 4+ years, why did it take you so long to get signed up in order to be able to defend a fellow lefty?
Entering into someone else's house and spending all your time telling them their beliefs are wrong, and arguing that their attitudes are improper - and then castigating them for telling you to fold it five ways and stick it where the sun don't shine - deserves respect why?
Typical lib, you are.
MD
That is right
Submitted by Toesies on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:57pm.
I am a typical lib who rarely posts, as you can see from my history. But I read a lot of articles and posts here and rarely have bothered to post because of this very thing. Jer has outlasted every liberal, every troll, every conservative who has tried to chase him off. And I don't need to read 4 years of history to see that this guy is wasting his time arguing with you, the last few clinging to the old format probably to get this argument won, Jer of course just clinging to his integrity and you jokes hoping you can put a stake through his heart once and for all before succumbing to disqus. I don't think Jer's going away so stop being a bunch of d--kheads and be thankful people like him exist in this world, because they could all be like me and that would be a lot worse.
Toesies,
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:08pm.
how, exactly, are you and Jer related?
Seriously, though, you are cracking me up!
I retract my "typical" lib, statement, and amend it ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:20pm.
thusly:
You are a bone headed, liberal ass kissing, liberal ass.
I am absolutely thankful that lefty libs like Jer exist; so that I know what the oddball left is thinking and how to cancel out one of their votes on election day
Jer sticks around here because arguing through a keyboard is far less risky than drinking and smoking.
MD
Bears repeating,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:27pm.
Jer sticks around here because arguing through a keyboard is far less risky than drinking and smoking.
I would say easy on the teeth? But I'm nice
: ]
Why Jer is one of the most beloved persons on NB's
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:23pm.
There are hundreds of us, who would love to get em in a headlock and give em nooogies till his hair caught fire!!
Toesies, a word?
Submitted by creekrat on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:50pm.
Don't know who you are, you are new to me, obviously a right despising liberal. Will you answer a couple of questions for me.
First, what would be your vision for America under your belief system.
Second, present how you feel that conservatism is wrong, and your liberal system will work and is the best for this country.
It is no strain for me to articulate my beliefs, I've just never heard someone from the left do it.
Regards, creekrat
I have no "belief system"
Submitted by Toesies on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:06pm.
I think conservatism is as wrong as liberalism, and I'm liberal. But that's not important. What's important here is Jer's integrity and his ability to honestly defend his positions and condemn those (even in his party) with which he disagrees. Don't be a jerk to the guy because of his beliefs because he obviously disagrees with many of yours but certainly offers a respect you and the rest do not reciprocate.
Well, Toesies ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:31pm.
Your defense of a fellow liberal, via hiding behind the 'mutual respect' doctrine, is most enlightening.
It underlines the obvious; you sinister types can dish it out, but you can't take it.
MD
MD, what the hell did
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:42pm.
MD, what the hell did Tootsie-Roll just say??? That he thinks conservatism is just as wrong as liberalism, and he's a liberal??
Did I read that correctly??? Well..........that puts a whole now spin on things - he admits to being something that he considers to be wrong, huh??? Hell, Toots - I'm a conservative, and I KNOW I'm right..................and I'm not gonna make any lame-ass excuses about it either.
killa ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:49pm.
The Tootsie-Roller apparently believes he chose the lesser of two weevils.
He must figure that protects him from being bugged by anyone on the Left.
MD
Maybe, MD, but the
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:55pm.
Maybe, MD, but the Tootsie-Roll-Popper DID admit to 'not having a belief system', which pretty much nails him as being a lib, which he hesitatingly admitted to..............the guy sounds like he's got some serious issues, actually. But I'll bet he's a big Obama supporter.................and that's all he needs to know. Of course, 'getting Jer's back' isn't the way to go through life either, unless you happen to be Jer - who manages to do it on his own.
Wow! Toesie
Submitted by creekrat on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:40pm.
Guess I should thank you for your come back, however, as I suspected, you are stuck in something you don't have to think about. To me that is sad. The roots and ideals that made this country great and succeed are lost on you and you obviously take no interest.
And, by the way, Jer will confirm this, he and I do not argue. Learned a long time back that like with you, it is pointless.
Unlike you, Jer does not just show up and throw insults, though the discussions sometimes get heated and interesting. I'm sure Jer will assure you he can handle himself.
You, sir are the perfect lib represenative. I may never get a thought out reply from anyone, but obviously it is not coming from you.
Footsies
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 11:35pm.
"I think conservatism is as wrong as liberalism, and I'm liberal. But that's not important."
Exhibit A of the empty-headed, mental midget faculties of a liberal -- or someone that chooses the liberal brand.
He does everything here in his two brief, opening salvo sentences to Creekrat's polite question and opening of the NB door to him/her:
- Claims both parties/ideologies are bad/wrong
- Then proudly tells us he's one of the bad/wrong ideologies
- Then diverts, saying none of that is important, so he doesn't have to deal with a direct question about the bad/wrong platform he's chosen.
- mr-shy.com
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Hay Mr.Shy, nice of you to show up here, on the tail end of NB
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 11:39pm.
Aloha baby....
You Didn't Build That.
No ka oi, timing is
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 11:56pm.
No ka oi, timing is everything - and Shy's got the timing down!!! And you're here too, along with the rest of the 'last of the Mohicans'!!!! Where's Tootsie-Roll-Pop??? I"m still wating for some kind of response to his moronic statement.......................I mean, I could hear Boy Baraka sayin' (Obamaspeak) sumpin' like that............'uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,welllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, I don't like Communism, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaandddddd...............ummmmmmmmmmm....................I'm a communist...........buuuuuutttttt I think it's wrong. and I'm a..........uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................better kind of communist anyway.....................'''
killa, one things for sure, libs, do FEEEEL..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 12:23am.
commies share, share your toy, logic.
Oh look haole boy won't share, give em stink eye.
Fairness and equality over Liberty...
It should feel bad for you to have Private property, and I don't, it's so unfair.
$15.88 trillion.... hay it's just paper... Aloha
Spent Enough Already..
You Didn't Build That.
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:42pm.
If you can't find mommy to kiss your boo-boo then buy some Bactine and quit whining over a nearly 17 month old scab on your psyche. You're not a saint and your victim card is threadbare.
You say you are not an attention-seeking drama queen. Then get over yourself.
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:15pm.
That wound would have healed long ago if you hadn't been so dead set on periodically reopening it. I am all for letting bygones be bygones. But it requires a mutuality of intent.
Jer
Once again, creekrat...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:11pm.
I have been stating my center-left philosphy here for the past five years. general company and ucw badgered me to post a a summarizing essay regarding my beliefs 2-3 years ago and I took the time to do so. They both then promptly disappeared without posting one single word.
These threads will be either gone, inaccessible, or closed to comments shortly. It's a little late in the game to be insisting upon a Declaration of Liberal Principles from me.
Jer
Is there still a link, Jer?
Submitted by creekrat on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:35pm.
Any possibility you can link that 2-3 year old entry? This has been playing on my mind a lot lately. I'm not real good at argueing, but am willing to share my beliefs. Problem is, run into most who don't agree also have no interest in changing their beliefs, even though they can't tell me what they are. Extremely frustrating.
I have not been able to get anything understandable from any aquaintence in spite of the fact that they will never accept mine. I'm not trying to convert them, just understand them.
I find that liberal/progressives spend a lot of time ignoring the forrest for the trees.
No huge deal if you can't or won't, noone else in the threads took the questions either. That tells me I'm not far off the mark. You were my best hope.
Being center left, could you at least say why redistributionary policys are acceptable? You work hard, are educated, thoughtful and all, but still support this administrations agenda.
Regards, creekrat
No, creekrat...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 1:27am.
That post was wiped out in the site redesign of 2010. However, your "you were my best hope" lament has humbled me. If you can wait until this time tomorrow, I will, to the best that I am able, share my beliefs with you. But, please understand, designating me as the resident defender of and official spokesperson for "The Liberal Mindset" may prove a disappointment to not only conservatives but also to many on the left who will likely find it insufficiently reflective of contemporary liberalism.
I consider myself a political pragmatist with a healthy disdain for rigid ideologues, be they of the left or the right. While it may expose me to accusations of lacking principles, it also provides me the freedom and flexibility to weigh the merits of ideas unconstrained by a conscious or unconscious devotion to dogma. That doesn't mean I will always judge correctly, but it ensures that I will more often than not judge fairly.
So maybe the best approach to this exercise will be for me to [sometime tomorrow] list and describe my positions--some general, some specific--as they relate to a broad range of policies and issues which will hopefully give you helpful insights to the, or at least my, center-left belief system.
Okay?
Jer
update: On second thought, I may PM you my statement. I'm in no mood, in these closing days of NB as we knew it, to open myself up to yet another round of the inevitable flaming from the usual suspects for having the temerity to post anything which they find disagreeable, of which the following would be a typical example:
Jer , a lib LIAR FLOPS again Yawn, Less not could I care!
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 11:36pm.
Why on earth would I want a diatribe of liberalism from you! Your liberalism is spewed daily from every MSM OUTLET 24-7-365.24 dazzzes a year....I want to hear that again...so it got wiped out ea... sure it did...
oh hello newbe toaseze... whatever...
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/09/hbos-newsroom-beco...
Thanks, Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 8:44am.
Never got a pm before. And don't feel rushed, but I deeply appreciate you making this effort, looking forward to your thoughts.
creekrat...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 4:15pm.
Sent you PM on another topic.
Jer
Evening, Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 6:33pm.
You have been on my buddy list almost since I joined, can't remember what the other one is....no biggie. I did learn how to access pm's today, though. Thanks, and regards.
Thank YOU, creekrat..
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 7:38pm.
Sent you follow-up PM.
Jer
Jer, Are you serious? You
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 11:25am.
Jer,
Are you serious? You are a political pragmatist, who is center Left? Do you honestly believe what you typed? LOL
Jer, Jer...you are a very far to the Left. The problem with Liberalism and the Democratic party in the USA is that both have gone so far to the Left from the Center that Jer thinks he is a Center-Left kind of guy, when it comes to politics.
Jer, the individual who defends President Clinton at any cost. Jer, the individual who claimed that Al Gore is a great individual who is not demagogue. Jer, the individual who defended Al Gore's 300+ million dollars after Crazy Gore went on a rampage and lies about global warming. Jer, the defender of President Obama.
Jer, the individual who not too long ago went on and on and on and on in a forum about how evil McCarthy was, but gives a pass to the McCartheism used by Left and the far Left politicians he admires and worships. An individual who in a forum went nuts over the comments from Tugboat when Tugboat "dared" to point out how Democratic party politicians get standing ovations even after caught in perverted sexual acts.
Of course, Jer will turn around and say, "No, I am not a Left wing idealogue, I liked it when Reagan walked!!! You see, since I liked it when Reagan walked, it makes me Center-Left, not a Far Left, Clinton Apologist, Al Gore worshiper, President Obama defender Far Left idealogue!!" "Don't pay attention to the countless of times on NB where I have bowed down, kissed and defended the FAR Left policies of Clinton, Al Gore, and Obama. I liked it when President Reagan walked, thus I am not a far left winger!" LOL
Jer is just terrified of admitting what he is, a Far Left-Wing Idealogue. He has played this game for years. I am unsure why since it is obvious to everyone, but him, that he is a Far Left Liberal-Democrat who is not a pragmatist and not Center-Left.
Double...
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 11:28am.
Double...
Hey again, Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 9:41pm.
See toesies comments above for the perfect example!
Jer , a lib LIAR FLOPS again Yawn, Less not could I care!
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 11:36pm.
Why on earth would I want a diatribe of liberalism from you! Your liberalism is spewed daily from every MSM OUTLET 24-7-365.24 dazzzes a year....I want to hear that again...so it got wiped out ea... sure it did...
oh hello newbe toaseze... whatever...
Balboa has the record for being the house lib.. Jer get second place again..
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...are you drunk?
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 12:02am.
That post is an unholy mess, even by your standards.
Jer
Not yet, jerster...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 12:06am.
What don't like second place... LOLz
You Didn't Build That.
Less not could I care...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 12:20am.
what? oh hello
whatever.
BWHAAAAAAAAAAA!
Jer
a play on , I couldn't care less, so?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 12:53am.
Yodaese
You Didn't Build That.
Wonderful Jer,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 7:41pm.
Absolutely wonderful. Strat and I and others answered your questions, but still the best you can do is to post nonsensical bs and insults.
You refuse to be questioned, because you refuse to believe the answers. So who is creating the fables here Jer?
Boudin, Strat, and all NB conservies
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 6:44pm.
Apparently, all of our credibility is being shredded, while The Jerister's remains in tact.
I've been telling all of you for several years now (wow, how time flies!) that NB appeals to him because he can act out the only role he wants to play -- that of the irritant.
- mr-shy.com
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 7:18pm.
I should have listened to you.
Now can you explain why only he can remain credible when he says:
Considering his recent posts on other's credibility, doesn't this make Jer a liar with shredded credibility by his own definition?
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Opps, the glove fits OJer.
An absolutely ludicrous analogy, strat...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 1:02am.
Unlike yours, there was no flat assertion by me that I had addressed a specific question to Liberallies and that he had replied in a very specific, unequivocal manner.
But I suppose your point, an embarrassingly feeble one at that, is a suggestion you had posed the "Is health care a Right" question to me at some time prior to our exchange in Feb. 2011 and that I had responded in the affirmative on that earlier occasion. The suggestion is nonsense. Given your overwrought, obsessive and excessive concerns with the issue--and the zeal with which you have attacked my perceived views concerning healthcare "rights"--the possibility that you would have permitted such response to slide without even a whiff of disapprobation is nil. No, the butting of heads would have been memorable inasmuch as our relationship had been excellent until Feb. 2011 when you decided to sever it.
Furthermore, as I noted in a previous post, if you had asked the question and I had answered [without mincing words, etc.], you would have had no reason to ask it again during the Feb. 2011 exchange. You would have simply prefaced your comment with something along the lines of "Jer, you have previously asserted in no uncertain terms, and in response to my direct question, that health care is a Right..In light of that, etc." That you did not do so speaks volumes. And it reveals a massive hole in your character.
Jer
/
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 07/24/2012 - 5:39pm.
/
that of the irritant.
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 7:26pm.
Like a hemorrhoid?
Or a leaky
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 10:48pm.
Or a leaky pustule...............
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 1:33pm.
I thought only Roberts treated the personal mandate as a Constitutional tax while the 4 other SCJ's "dissented" within the majority that ObamaCare was Constitutional for different reason.
So, if Obama calls a tail a leg, then Abraham Lincoln was wrong that a tail is still a tail?
I'm still waiting for one of you geniuses to explain Roberts' bizarre mentation.
No...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 4:56pm.
So, if Obama calls a tail a leg, then Abraham Lincoln was wrong that a tail is still a tail?
Congress can call a tax a kumquat, but a tax is still a tax.
Remember, there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to congressional legislation, and, if a law is sustainable even for reasons not asserted by the government [taxing authority was, however, advanced as an alternate theory] it will be upheld.
Roberts connected all the dots, but it was still a stretch.
Jer
Stretchmo Roberts
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 07/23/2012 - 6:40pm.
Still waiting for someone to explain how the dots connected. No one has been able to do that except to say the conclusion supports the conclusion, including you, Jer.
Explain how the dots were connected, please.
Roberts explicitly considered the personal mandate as a "penalty" for the purposes of getting around the Anti-Injunction Act, giving the reason that the Bill used the term "penalty" and not "tax". Then Roberts considered it a "tax" because, as you said, it doesn't matter what the Bill called it.
This is more than a stretch, and it avoids certain dots to square the circle.
I read that the Court brought in an attorney to argue the mandate as a tax, not one of the litigants. How often does that happen?
Did any other SCJ beside Roberts argue that the personal mandate was a tax, let alone a tax AND a penalty? I heard not.
Bravo Strat.
Submitted by Karma on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 3:28pm.
Thank you for explaining, in a way I could not articulate, why healthcare cannot be considered a right by a free people.
Jer, if you're reading this...you failed miserably in all of your posts. But on the bright side, I think you did as well as a liberal and lawyer could do. :)
Karma...I regret you
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 6:20pm.
and strat and others fail to understand this obsessive focus upon health care as a "right" is not only misdirected but cripples the debate with a classic straw man fallacy. If it were a constitutionally protected right the case would have eventually reached the Supreme Court via the appeal of one asserting the violation of same. Congress didn't and doesn't define and declare constitutional rights. It legislates what the majority of its members believe to be desirable social policy. And if an act of Congress which is signed into law is legally attacked on the alleged grounds of constitutional infirmity, the nation's highest court will decide whether or not the legislative body acted within the scope of the authority granted under the Constitution as originally prescribed within that document and as such powers have been interpreted over the ensuing two hundred years of jurisprudence.
So, for the purposes of this particular case at least--and as I have repeatedly pointed out--the issue of "rights" is irrelevant. The controlling question was and is simply one of Congressional powers. And it was that analysis to which the Roberts court confined itself.
Now, if strat believes he has heretofore enjoyed a constitutionally guaranteed right which has been improperly infringed upon by the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, he is free to pursue his grievance in a court of law. He can rely upon his own brilliant articulation and represent himself, or he may seek the legal assistance of one engaged in the profession he so bitterly despises.
A few closing thoughts:
--There have been many members of religious denominations who believed the guarantee of religious freedom invested them with a constitutionally protected right of polygamy or the right to withhold medical treatment from children. It does not.
--Governing entities force childless homeowners to fund the education of their neighbors' children. The atheist indirectly subsidizes the untaxed property of churches. How does this not impinge upon their "freedom" and their "rights" to the fruits of their labor?
--There are NO rights--not even ones explicitly guaranteed by the US Constitution--which are absolute, unlimited, and unqualified.
Jer
NO, NO, NO.....let Toesies stay
Submitted by creekrat on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:26am.
We need these deep thinking libs to stick around as a reminder to us cons of what makes em so smart!
And, in case you were wondering, yes, that was sarcasm!
Jer is short for Jer(koff)
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 3:36pm.
All (s)he does is litter the boards with her incessant bickering.
How droll.
What a pedantic gerbil.
Please go back to hitting your transgendered Life Partner with your purse so I don't have to wade through any more of your incessant, unending drivel.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
JERHOGGEN THREAD MONSTER LAST GASPS OF THE OLD STYLE NB
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 3:43pm.
DISQUS will end that foreverrrr!
You Didn't Build That.
Disqus Sucks
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 3:48pm.
No more titles.
How lame.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Give it a chance
Submitted by creekrat on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 3:55pm.
This changeover is new and will take some adjusting on both sides. Believe the change was needed or they would not have done it.
Hey, back off on Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 3:59pm.
Jer is the one lib you can engage in a conversation. Your post above smacks more of what we get from most libs on here. Jer takes a lot of guff from some on here and simply gives it back.
I for one, hope he sticks around.
I appreciate that, creekrat...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 7:48pm.
It's an interesting phenomenon. I make a comment, and the usual crowd shows up with the usual insults [Matthew Dean gets a pass however since he will engage in friendly bantering and needling. Plus, I occasionally learn a new word from him.] and if I defend myself, or, God forbid, push back, the accusations start flying about my "littering theads with incessant bickering and making it all about "me".
But, ucw is right. For better or worse, Disqus will (mostly) put an end to it.
Jer
First time in 5 years and 6 weaks, You EVER SAID anything like
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:03pm.
this: But, ucw is right.
Thanks I think er guess.
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...I believe a long time ago I agreed you
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:11pm.
were right about something you posted regarding stealth technology. Other than that, yeah, you've been pretty much wrong about everything you've ever said.
;-)
Jer
Lol brat...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:17pm.
then there was this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQL9Kxxd88s&feature=plcp
You Didn't Build That.
Thanks for reposting the vid, ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:22pm.
That was a good one.
Jer
YEA way back then, all the THEIR side arms were FULLY LOADED
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:51pm.
And Clinton disarmed, law abiding Military persons. Now some hand ringing anxiety over, shaving some Kook Killer.. emptying his weapons in, a bullet free zone.
You voted for that azzhatster, (billy Clinton ) and that doesn't bug you?
Seriously???
You Didn't Build That.
Then I assume Bush/Cheney
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:03pm.
rearmed them. Right?
Jer
Yea Jer, good point I'm curiously puzzled. about that
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 2:43am.
?
You Didn't Build That.
That is a great video, UCW.
Submitted by 26CX on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:32pm.
Thanks!
I'M REALLY BIG ON AIRCRAFT...Throttle up baby..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:22pm.
And well, out of this world...too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQl2e2rySUc
I did shake hands with X-15 pilot Scott Crossfield....
My only name dropping claim to fame..
As present trends continue, 50 years from now, you will be be-headed for believing that Men ever FLEW.
NASA 'N mosslem , oil and water..
You Didn't Build That.
That's one thing we have [or had] in common, ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 12:43am.
At least as far as my passion for jet combat aircraft--an interest which was intense from the mid-50's to late-60's. As a child, my bed time ritual each night was falling asleep while alternately pretending I was America's top Korean War ace flying Sabres and dog fighting in MiG Alley (or a dashing Confederate cavalry officer outwitting and outfighting the yankees).
On family summer vacations--pile in the car and drive across country--I would insist we pull over to the side of the road whenever near an airbase so I could just maybe catch a glimpse of whatever type of planes were stationed there. I bought every military aircraft manual and magazine I could lay my hands on and could recite the performance characteristics of just about every jet fighter and bomber in service with any country's air force in the world during that era. Once, I would guess around 1954, there was a tremendous but instantly recognizable noise of jet aircraft-and a lot of them--that literally rattled the windows of our house. Running outside, there must have been over 20 B-47's flying in formation at a fairly low altitude (highly unusual for the area where we lived.) Spectacular!
I vaguely recall reading an account in TIME magazine around 1958 about an incident where a number of F-100s were being flown to Taiwan for service with the Chinese Nationalist air force, and as they neared their destination in the Straits of Taiwan were jumped by perhaps as many as 100 MiGs, mostly 17s. My recollection is that several MiGs were shot down with little or no US losses. As the years passed however, I began to wonder if that memory was accurate--perhaps it was one of my dreams? Now, with voluminous information available on the internet, I may try to check that one out.
Anyway, my interest gradually waned in the 70's and afterwards, not completely disappearing, but clearly my current knowledge level is only moderately above average these days.
Jer
edit. Okay, before Professor Dean shows up with his red pencil, yes "current" and "these days" is redundant [or is it "are redundant"?] Sit on it.
Less than 5,000 ft from the ATLAS 64-D launch
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:36am.
That would be my.. Peak in the soon to be lost era, of space, loudest noise I ever heard.... Well that ICBM era. Lots of trouble with the "pressure pulse", there was even a Perry Mason episode about all sorts of Atlases blowing up it ... Can't find a yt clip..
Major Jerry Reynolds is in charge of a rocket project at the Vandenberg Air Force base and they are having major problems. Their most recent launch failed and another attempt is scheduled. It will be the last try for Dan Morgan whose company will lose it's contract to George Huxley's firm if they fail again. Reynolds also has to put up with Captain Mike Caldwell from the Inspector General's office who is there to look into the project. Caldwell blames Reynolds for not being promoted so there is a chill in the air. When Caldwell is found dead, Reynolds is charged with murder. His old World War II friend Perry Mason agrees to defend him
Dad dropped by the base a month later and found a piece of skin of the exploded Atlas, I used that piece in lots of elementary school and junior high and share and tells..
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...There's a cable station available in Atlanta which
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 2:21am.
telecasts a bunch of the 50's, 60's, and 70's sitcom and drama favorites, including every Perry Mason episode. [from '57 to '65, I think] It's ME TV. Also Hallmark Channel airs some on occasion. Oddly enough, I thought I had seen every single episode, but I don't recall the one about the Atlas missiles. I'll be on the lookout for it.
When we toured Cape Canaveral a few years ago, I recall the guide mentioning the controlling factor in proximity restrictions is that the overwhelming shock of sound and vibration during a shuttle launch can literally stop the heart.
Jer
That would be supersonic air flows, exiting the rocket engines.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 3:06am.
A tad louder than a KISS concert..
So a continuous sound of exploding dynamite, rattling every bone in your body. Heart pounding, yes luckily not heart stopping...
You Didn't Build That.
Precisely why I've never gotten any closer than 600 yds. to a
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 3:10am.
KISS concert.
Jer
There's black out in far west asia..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 4:25am.
"Me-TV is currently unavailable in your area"...
Stuck on an island in paradise does have it's draw backs..
No worries I lived here when UPS didn't function here.
You Didn't Build That.
But I must tell you, ucw, just how much your
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 4:24am.
post brings to mind my cousin "Biggie" McGhee shortly after finishing off his third massive helping of baked beans at our annual church picnic. The imagery is eerily similar.
Jer
Motormouth...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 7:19pm.
There was a time I read your comments, patiently awaiting a glimmer of insight, a flash of intelligence, a refreshing moment of reason. Alas, it was not to be. Consequently, I simply wrote you off as an idiot whose blather wasn't worth one more second of my time or attention. And with the exception of a few unfortunate lapses I have adhered to that commitment.
That same option is available to you with respect to my posts. Given your equally poor or even worse opinion of me, I suggest you exercise it.
Jer
This is exactly why people respond to you in this manor Jer
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 8:10pm.
You pretend to be responsive, when anyone who has been here for more then a year, knows your not. Well unless were talking petty insults/whining and the like.
This particular thread is full of examples of this.
So, Boudin, my above response to Karma
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 8:25pm.
which I posted a little earlier is an example of my petty insulting and whining in what way exactly?
Jer
1 post out of how many here Jer?
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 8:30pm.
Give me and everyone else a freakin break, eh?
Give ME a break, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 8:41pm.
Read Motormouth's post. You know it's a cheap, disgusting smear. Why aren't you, like creekrat did, taking HIM to task? Yet you completely ignore him in order to pile on me. How come?
Jer
A break? Let me check,,,,,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 8:49pm.
Seems I am fresh out.
Is that more whining I hear?
The typical Boudin response.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:01pm.
Do you really expect folks to take you seriously?
Jer
Well,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:08pm.
No. Do you?
Once again, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 8:58pm.
Every reasonable question which you have posed to me in a reasonable manner--i.e. not the "when did you stop beating your wife" or "why are you dimwits so stupid" variety--have been answered accordingly, unless there are those of which I am unaware.
Now, I have repeatedly asked that you furnish an example of my ducking a reasonable question from you. You have repeatedly declined to do so. Are you still refusing the invitation?
Jer
After 5 years,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:32pm.
You want me to produce every/any question I ever posed to you? No
You have repeatedly declined to do so
So, after posting them originally, the onus is back on me. Is that how it works Jer?
Are you still refusing the invitation?
Yes,
Jer, I may ask you questions in the future. I doubt you will answer them either. So why should I trouble myself to re-asking any from the past? I answer yours, without any extra prodding from you. I would simply call it courtesy. But then I aint a lib.
Ever have that whining in your ear, man I hate that!!
YOU have repeatedly made the claim, Boudin.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:38pm.
I have repeatedly asked you to provide ONE example to support your claim. THAT'S how it works. You have declined, posting every mealy mouthed, lameass excuse you can think of, including the classic "I don't fetch for libs".
You've been busted, big time. Deal with it.
Jer
Sniff, sniff,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:46pm.
Busted? I dont feel busted.
Deal with it!
Wonder why Jer wants me to post questions to him?
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:57pm.
Could it be he looks like a complete nitwit in this thread, and needs a scapegoat? Nah, must be me.
So, considering Strat, Creekrat and others had asked some very pointed questions to Jer. I am inclined to solicit questions from the ol NB's crowd. But I feel more then likely Jer will share with us his typical obfuscation and maybe even some insults. I also (not trying to be insulting) doubt Jer has an original thought I dont know.
So I decline the "ask Jer a question" challenge. Sorry,
Smokey The Bear's advice on extinguishing the last embers
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:07pm.
of what was the last non-Disqus NB thread forever:
"When you're ready to put out your fire and call it a night, follow these guidelines:
Allow the wood to burn completely to ash, if possible.
Pour lots of water on the fire, drown ALL embers, not just the red ones.
Pour until hissing sound stops.
Stir the campfire ashes and embers with a shovel.
Scrape the sticks and logs to remove any embers.
Stir and make sure everything is wet and they are cold to the touch If you do not have water, use dirt.
Mix enough dirt or sand with the embers.
Continue adding and stirring until all material is cool. Remember to pack the sand hard, pack it tight, and smooth it off.
Remember: do NOT bury the fire as the fire will continue to smolder and could catch roots on fire that will eventually get to the surface and start a wildfire."
Over and out, friends. It's been a swell ride.
EDIT: what a moron I am, I forgot to link the source.
Sure has SoL,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:09pm.
Gonna miss it.
Me too, my friend.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:15pm.
Me too.
Me too guys*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:21pm.
we are already lonesome for the loss of the best part of NB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNo-gEPWVnM
That it has, SoL...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:21pm.
As I told you long ago, your wit always brightened my day. I hope all traces of it won't be erased this time.
Jer
SoL, Make me drop one tear...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:52pm.
You BETTER sign up over here on, the presidents fav comment venue. What could go wrong, heh heh...
You Didn't Build That.
SoL ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 9:59pm.
What upcountry said.
Never been to Joisey; don't know that I could even find it --- but if I don't see you posting on Disqus, I WILL find you. :o)
MD
Yea one could fit 12 Joisey's in your county...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:22pm.
That would be a bankrupt county. Sorry man.
You Didn't Build That.
Only San Bernardino City, for now, ucw ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:34pm.
but with politicos in charge, it is sure to get worse.
MD
Wealth evaporation
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 12:42am.
Worser is will get, garins ball bearings ...
Sorry My friend....
You Didn't Build That.
This is depressing....
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 12:38am.
Yeah, this is really the swan song thread, huh?
My redesign started the series of changes that squeezed us NB old-timers out. Please throw all tomatoes and eggs this way :p
Although I do have twitter and facebook, so I'll just have to get to know your other screen names.
- sad shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Well shiite, Shy..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 12:46am.
Join up dude....
You Didn't Build That.
Dare I say it? I'll even miss you, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:02am.
I just don't think the Disqus format will be appealing enough for me to comment except very sporadically, if at all. On the other hand, that may be a good reason for some who were wavering to take the plunge.
Jer
I've been using it, Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 9:34am.
Disqus is not horrible and I'm sure they are working hard on improvements. One thing that is neat is replies come in your e mail inbox. Guess that could be problematic if you post a lot, but so far so good.
I'm not sure why I don't want you leaving as I rarely agree with you, still think the discourse is important, and, still hoping for your position statement. Except for Toesies, no one has made the effort, and his response was beyond belief. I think even you will agree on that.
Regards, Creekrat
creekrat...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 5:33pm.
I wasn't sure my PMs were coming through properly. If they are, I'll send you another.
Jer
I'm not sure either, Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 7:09pm.
Last pm was 730 onTuesday, according to my message page?
Regards
No tomatoes and eggs coming your way, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:25am.
After a bit of a rough patch, the redesign worked out nicely. And you were a stand-up guy answering every question and addressing every concern raised in the interim, while others who should have been available were nowhere to be found.
The only lasting disappointment was the erasure of all previous comments which occurred without warning. And once again information about its possible recurrence as part of the final transition to Disqus is hard to come by.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:42am.
Ya' lib / occu / prog / nobama- tard. :) JK
And gosh, no, I was hardly that helpful with the exception of a few replies, as I recall, but thank you. I agree that the higher-ups weren't as responsive as they probably should have been -- or it took them a while.
I really had nothing to do with the lose of pre-'10 comments. I was unfortunately cut from the development process, because of red tape issues beyond MRC's control.
- #shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I guess my point, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:54am.
Is that you at least made yourself available and didn't duck any questions even if you might not have a definitive answer to every single one thrown at you.
And I didn't mean to suggest you were to blame for the loss of comments. I never thought you were responsible for that. Advance notification from Matt would have been helpful.
Jer
The old NB comments will not be erased
Submitted by Matthew Sheffield on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 12:27pm.
In a few weeks, we're going to make all the older, pre-Disqus blog posts read-only for comments. They will all be preserved. I've already answered this question before, you just did not see it apparently.
Thanks, Matt...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 5:17pm.
That's good news. I'm sorry for missing your earlier response.
Jer
Hello Matt
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 7:36pm.
Browsing new comments has become impossible. Are we going to get those links on the front page again? Also comment counts and new comments.
Thanks in advance,
Yes, comment counts are going to return to homepage
Submitted by Matthew Sheffield on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 10:42pm.
I had them there before but actually, we had so many registered users browsing the site at the same time it was putting load on our servers.
Our choice was to spend significantly more on servers to keep up with the demand, cache the comment counts so they'd be out of date but less demanding on the servers, or move to an external commenting system. We chose the latter.
Pack the sand hard. Pack it tight. Leave it smooth.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 12:57am.
Where have I heard that before?
[ Like ] And tweet. And
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:03am.
[ Like ]
And tweet. And social network. And # (hashtag).
:)
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I immediately thought of you, Vet, when I saw that in SoL's
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:05am.
post. I had always wondered about its origin. I thought it might have been a Vet original.
Jer
Hah ! ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:05am.
I think that was in the Troll Slayer's Handbook; in the section describing proper troll grave preparation and finishing.
MD
Jer, MD, Vet, UCW, et al
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 1:26am.
To raise a glass to this final old-school thread, let's all tweet and retweet over at twitterbooklinkedinflickrgoogleplus.
- #shy_turns_out_the_lights
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Hey, boyz and gurlz, I'm
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 2:32am.
Hey, boyz and gurlz, I'm STILL here...........and, evidently, this is the 'Alamo' with regards to being the last of the 'normal' threads that can be 'commented' on.........................and, as I said a few days ago, I've got nothing to say, so I'm only going to say it once!!!! But I'm happy to find a place where I can at least say something - even if it's nothing!!!! I don't tweet............I don't twit.............I don't twat..............I don't do the 'your face or mine'...............and I sure as hell don't do the Disquetech thangy either!!!!
But I am getting a big kick out of Boy Baraka - and his handlers - trying to spin his 'you didn't build that' dumb-ass comment , into some kind of 'political advantage'............and the way the StateRun Media is covering his stupid half-black ass for it!!! Hey, all you need to do is WATCH him when he is making those comments....................after that, there is NOTHING more that needs to be said!!!!
As I've said many times before - this guy is the biggest scam EVER perpetrated on this country, and he is also the biggest threat EVER encountered by this country. Wake up, America..............it's staring you right in the face!!!!
Mr. Shyster Whaaat, I'm just upcountrywater on twitter...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 2:35am.
FYI I'm all twitterpated over there on twitter... all that "#" I just don't get....I'm upcountrywater on youtube too, however Google seizure of YT and all that, vacuuming of too much information and I have failed to, surrender enough personal to data sign in to YT for almost 2 years....
I am a DISQUS commenter slug and can EVEN comment on the whitehouse thread, and NB if I want. My avatar is a snake... There are no real snakes in Hawaii.. Surfs Up...
As in poor folk..
You Didn't Build That.
Jeeeeeez. no ka
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 2:44am.
Jeeeeeez. no ka oi..............ol' Jer accused you of being drunk the other night............now, I'm not accusin' (Obamaspeak) you of being drunk, but you sure as hell seem to be 'speakin' in tongues'!!! Of course, that's OK with me............I know how to speak pidgen, and I understand twisted and depraved minds too!!!
I feel like Davy Crockett out here..............I've got my Bowie knife and my Winchester..............but I know that I'm not gonna survive!!!! But I'm not gonna give in either......................
To be fair, killa...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 3:04am.
It wasn't an accusation, but rather a question based on the fact it wasn't exactly a masterpiece of posting prowess. ucw has ripped me apart far more eloquently on other occasions. :-)
And, for the record, I certainly have no standing to complain about someone having a few drinks.
Jer
Ahhhhhhhhhh,
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 3:21am.
Ahhhhhhhhhh, Jer...............at this point - I'm just happy that there is someone to communicate with!!! I've been thrown out with the bathwater allready.................and I was CLEANER than the damn bathwater!!!!
As for ol' no ka oi..........................he DOES have an original style of communication, so I don't try and make any excuses for it.
After all, I've been accused ot being a little 'animated' myself, and of having an 'abnormal' writin' (Obamaspeak) style........but most people don't seem to have a problem understandin' me........whether they agree with me or not.
There was a learning curve in getting a handle on killatalk...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 3:46am.
and its unique blending of blues riffin', scat smackin', island jivin', mixed with the King's English. But after that, it was a breeze.
Jer
Killa, Jer n' I have ricocheted off each other for 5 years
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 3:48am.
Thanks the tongues, I do that, I did slip into some Yodanese, and Jer Didn't get it.. no worries...We have had worser exchanges... To bad you missed out on bogus links I sent him, years ago, to boaster an argument he was having ... man oh man was he PISSED....when they were from a kook website lolz...funny thing he never liked another link I sent him.
Winchester? got fresh ammo for that sucker? way out here in far west Asia?
You Didn't Build That.
Don't forget, I also blew a Star Trek reference
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 4:39am.
a couple of years ago. And now this.
I will have to bear the humiliation for the rest of my life.
Very sad.
Jer
Yeah, I recall someone sending a link to a bogus
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 4:51am.
site which installed malware on my computer. I had to pay a tech service to have it removed. I don't know that it was yours. Pretty juvenile though.
Jer
Doing my part to keep the
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 8:58am.
Doing my part to keep the last vestiges of the old NB format alive. Definitely will be missing this as Disqus is a little to much at times.
Remember:
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 07/26/2012 - 9:14am.
The artist formerly known as Unsane is "Ctch ThrtyThr33" on Disqus.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Twil miss it
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 07/27/2012 - 2:33am.
Even though I haven't posted much. Going back to me old name. Have to give up being the awesome lawyer that never lost!
We Are The 53%
'S okay, Anthony, cuz ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 07/27/2012 - 2:40am.
whether appearing as Denny Crane, toneyuki, or the Samurai Swordsman, you be da bees knees. :o)
MD
Well, I guess that means now there's
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/27/2012 - 3:45am.
only one of us.
Jer
*
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/27/2012 - 11:03am.
*
Well Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 07/30/2012 - 1:17pm.
Like they say: "There can be only one"
We Are The 53%
Well what do you know the DISQUS is down...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 09/02/2012 - 10:17pm.
Just checking to see if the old,but functioning NB system is still working...
EDIT: yup still working
You Didn't Build That.