Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Mister Sean Hannity Explains It All for You
Talk radio rallies to defend those poor, persecuted AIG chiefs and their tax-funded riches:
GOP Congressional leaders have roundly condemned AIG and its executives, as part of a strategy to position themselves as heroic defenders of the taxpayers and to paint the Obama administration as weak and ineffectual....But increasingly, leading conservative media figures are moving in a different direction: Defending AIG.
Rush Limbaugh recently said: "I am all for the AIG bonuses" and attacked the Obama administration for trying to undo them. He also blasted Dem efforts to get the names of the AIG bonus recipients as "McCarthyism."
Fox News followed suit, also comparing Dems to "Joe McCarthy." And Sean Hannity has now derided efforts to tax the execs by saying: "In other words, we're going to just steal their money."
The money was stolen long ago, Hannity. Now the thieves are arguing about how a fraction of the loot gets spent.
|3.19.09 @ 10:35AM|#
The money was stolen long ago, Hannity. Now the thieves are
arguing about how a fraction of the loot gets spent.
Exactly. It's not their goddamn money!
How can these assholes go from hating the bailout on the grounds
that it was theft from the American people to supporting the very
people, in any capacity whatsoever, who are reaping the benefits of
that theft?!
What the hell?!
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 10:39AM|#
Now the thieves are arguing about how a fraction of the loot
gets spent.
Alternatively, the money was legally allocated to AIG, for good or
for ill, with the full knowledge where it would go from both the
White House and the supporters of the bill. Now, in the interest of
grandstanding, Congress is threatening de facto bills of
attainder and ex post facto penalties against a popular scapegoat
to cover their asses.
|3.19.09 @ 10:43AM|#
My blood runs cold when I hear the likes of Bawney Fwank
demanding the names of the AIGers who received retention
bonuses.
Are any of these congresscum familiar with the concepts of a "Bill
of Attainder" or "ex post facto" laws, both of which are
supposed to be unconstitutional?
Just watch. In order that any anti-AIG law pass constitutional
muster, its provisions will be wide enough that other folks who
received similar bonuses will get smashed by the same Visible
Foot.
Kevin
|3.19.09 @ 10:43AM|#
As long as AIG appeared to be healthy, "Countrywide" Chris Dodd was willing to prop them up. But once they become a liability (or could be made to look like a liability), under the bus they go. What a douchebag.
|3.19.09 @ 10:45AM|#
Alternatively, the money was legally allocated to AIG, for
good or for ill, with the full knowledge where it would go from
both the White House and the supporters of the bill.
What are your criteria for legal? (Seriously, I'm curious how
you're defining the word here)
|3.19.09 @ 10:49AM|#
I think it would be great if one of them would donate the money to charity. Certainly better than sending it back to the rathole.
Jerry|3.19.09 @ 10:50AM|#
@ten-seven
When AIG was healthy, they could still finance Dodd's reelection
campaign.
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 10:50AM|#
It passed both houses of Congress with a majority and was signed into law by the President, and has not yet been challenged as unconstitutional, and probably is (unfortunately due to Depression-era jurisprudence) "constitutional".
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 10:52AM|#
guys, this isn't Dodd's fault. It was Geithner and Larry Summers who insisted that the bill only restrain future bonus payouts, not retroactive ones. It's the Obama Administration throwing Dodd under the bus while using AIG as a scapegoat even though Obama signed the bill and the Treasury Dept. knew what was in there.
JiggleTits|3.19.09 @ 10:53AM|#
"I think it would be great if one of them would donate the money
to charity. Certainly better than sending it back to the
rathole."
Of course under Obama's new income tax plan, the donation won't be
fully deductable.
|3.19.09 @ 10:54AM|#
I have to agree with The Angry Optimist here. The bailout was a
big no-no in the first place, but it's too late to go back on it
now. Unless AIG is violating a specific condition made clear at the
outset, there is nothing the government can do but sit back and
watch their own shit storm unfold.
AIG should have learned by failure and did not; now the government
should have to learn the same lesson.
|3.19.09 @ 10:54AM|#
I'm fine with charity, as long as it goes to support the perverted arts. That's what I was going to do with my money anyway.
Elemenope|3.19.09 @ 10:54AM|#
TAO --
You're missing the point. The point is not whether the democrats
are being hypocritical scum here. The point is whether the GOP and
their pet chatterers can possibly usher the death of their party
even more quickly than everyone thought possible.
Seriously, you have to have been *dropped on your head* at a tender
developmental age to go on the radio or TV and defend AIG execs
getting bonuses right now.
Jerry|3.19.09 @ 10:58AM|#
@SugarFree
Perverted art is great, what better way to hide money from the
IRS.
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 10:58AM|#
Either they get them or Congress uses despotic means to take
them back. I'd rather defend them getting the bonuses, El.
What other option do you have? You could say something like "Yes,
AIG getting these kinds of bonuses isn't a desirable outcome here,
but it's better than the alternative, which is retroactive 100%
outrage-tax rates."
Xeones|3.19.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Perverted art is great, what better way to hide money from
the IRS.
Well, depends on where you hide it.
Never been audited, but from what i hear about the IRS a
body-cavity search is not out of the question...
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 11:01AM|#
Here we go again. Trying to blame the inherited Bush
administration problems on Obama.
This is really getting tired.
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 11:03AM|#
Since when is art perverted? Prudes! As long as it is not exploiting women or minorities it should be fine for the government to promote it.
Other Matt|3.19.09 @ 11:03AM|#
Exactly. It's not their goddamn money!
Seems pretty clear. AIG had a contract, the govt gave AIG money
knowing that contract was legally enforceable, and later try to
create some special tax. Erego, it most certainly is their goddamn
money, legally (via a valid contract) given to them.
Now if you want to debate the legality of the govt giving money to
AIG, that might be a point of discussion. However, that would
result in fining AIG, not the individuals.
What you're saying is the equivalent of me, as a contractor,
building a new road for the DOT, and after the fact you decide to
tax my earnings as a result at a 90% rate simply because you didn't
like what your contract said. It's ridiculous.
Of course, if we apply that same logic and tax all congressional
earnings at 90%, as well as all executive branch earnings for, say,
GM's and above, then we might be getting somewhere.
|3.19.09 @ 11:03AM|#
I have to agree with The Angry Optimist here.
Me, too. This whole spectacle is a combination diversion/CYA
exercise.
Those bonuses were earned under contracts entered into long before
AIG took a single federal dollar. That should be the end of the
discussion.
If you must feel outrage, I suggest apportioning your outrage more
appropriately. 99.9% should be directed at the AIG bailout, and
only 0.1% to the bonuses, because that's the ratio of the AIG
bailout dollars to bonus dollars.
ed|3.19.09 @ 11:04AM|#
throwing Dodd under the bus
They always threaten it but nobody ever follows through. In the
case of Dodd, I'd be happy to provide the bus, the driver and a
gallon of diesel.
|3.19.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Again, TAO is right here. The bailout in the first place was a
fuck-up. Trying to backtrack like this would be just another
fuck-up on top of that.
Isn't there a saying somewhere about two wrongs making a right?
Jesse Walker|3.19.09 @ 11:05AM|#
Either they get them or Congress uses despotic means to take
them back. I'd rather defend them getting the bonuses,
El.
I'd rather use them to illustrate the much broader problems with
the bailout. I certainly wouldn't break out the "steal their money"
rhetoric a la Hannity.
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 11:06AM|#
Isn't there a saying somewhere about two wrongs making a
right?
Just when people with bad logic are trying to get away with
something.
Rectifying errors is always right.
|3.19.09 @ 11:07AM|#
What are your criteria for legal? (Seriously, I'm curious
how you're defining the word here)
When agents of government can void legal contracts for politically
expedient purposes that is a huge problem for everyone. I got my
annual Social Security statement the other day; it tells me exactly
what my benefit will be when I hit 68. I have no faith whatsoever
that the government will honor its end of the bargain.
Xeones|3.19.09 @ 11:07AM|#
SugarFree, storing cash in your dog might work, but wouldn't that pretty quickly lead to IRS auditors shooting dogs all willy-nilly like they was the po-leece? I don't want to go down that road.
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Xeones,
If we ban dogs you will not be able to hide your money in
them.
The only pets anybody needs are cats, fish and birds.
Elemenope|3.19.09 @ 11:12AM|#
Since when is art perverted? Prudes! As long as it is not
exploiting women or minorities it should be fine for the government
to promote it.
I like exploitative art. Who's the prude now, bitch?
If you must feel outrage, I suggest apportioning your outrage
more appropriately. 99.9% should be directed at the AIG bailout,
and only 0.1% to the bonuses, because that's the ratio of the AIG
bailout dollars to bonus dollars.
I agree with this. My point is, for those who are watching this
spectacle on TV without their Libertarian decoder pin (which would
roughly be 98% of Americans), defending AIG's bonuses is a
disgusting exercise in sophistry.
|3.19.09 @ 11:13AM|#
X,
Damn you, Law of Unintended Consequences!
Why is it that Congresspeople are the only ones who can avoid your
steely grasp?
Jerry|3.19.09 @ 11:14AM|#
@Xeones
How about on the wall of my living room. It also keeps the
mother-in-law away.
the innominate one|3.19.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Dodd originally put in an amendment forbidding the use of the bailout money for bonuses. It was the Treasury dept that insisted the bonuses be allowed.
Xeones|3.19.09 @ 11:23AM|#
Sorry, Jerry, i thought we were talking about the money itself, not the art. Personally, i like my perverted art painted on the hood of an El Camino.
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 11:23AM|#
I certainly wouldn't break out the "steal their money"
rhetoric a la Hannity.
Well, Other Matt does have a point. As much as we hate bailouts,
isn't this AIG's money?
I readily grant that the thin line that is between
Minarchist/Anarchist TAO recognizes that this is all ill-gotten
loot. At the same time, I would rather ill-gotten loot be disbursed
the way the original contract spelled out, rather than allowing
Congress to gin up outrage to void that part of the deal, knowing
full well that it was in the original K in the first place.
JB|3.19.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Jesse,
There is a point of principle involved. Ex post facto laws that
single out a few individuals should frighten thinking people when
used at all, and even more when used by a huge, powerful government
against scape-goated individuals.
I'm not defending these people, AIG, or the stupid government. They
all can burn in my book. Anyone who gets into bed with the
government deserves a venereal disease.
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 11:28AM|#
*ahem* K = contract. Don't ask me why I wrote it that way, because you don't want to know.
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 11:31AM|#
TAO,
Isn't that the Federal abbreviation for Contracts and
Contracting?
Spin Liberals, SPIN!|3.19.09 @ 11:34AM|#
And you all laughed when Sarah Palin said Obama was a
socialist.
Well look at where we are now.
|3.19.09 @ 11:35AM|#
@TofuSushi: Rectifying errors is always right.
Even when the methods used to rectify those errors are in
themselves illegal?
|3.19.09 @ 11:38AM|#
My anger will be directed solely at the government for fucking us over. AIG was just a company that should have been allowed to fail. I don't care what they did or what they do. None of it matters to me unless the government sends men with guns after my money.
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 11:39AM|#
Even when the methods used to rectify those errors are in
themselves illegal?
You can't make an omlet without breaking some eggs.
|3.19.09 @ 11:42AM|#
@Tofu: You can't make an omlet without breaking some
eggs.
That's a pretty lighthearted way to view this situation. I would
say that unconstitutional government interference is a little more
severe than breaking an egg. It sets a precedent.
They already screwed up once. They shouldn't screw up again to fix
the first screw-up.
|3.19.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Ah, gah. The joy of it! The deliciousness!
Hyper-liberals complaining about high taxes.
Jesse Walker|3.19.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Ex post facto laws that single out a few individuals should
frighten thinking people when used at all, and even more when used
by a huge, powerful government against scape-goated
individuals.
Sure. I'm not defending the tax proposal. The last sentence of my
post was aimed at the congressmen as much as the executives.
But Hannity didn't make that argument. He didn't talk about
unintended consequences or constitutional questions or
scapegoating. He pulled out the old "taxation is theft" rhetoric,
and deployed it on behalf of a bunch of people who just got a ton
of money from the government.
The public anger over this is perfectly legitimate. It makes much
more sense to argue You're right to be mad about the bonuses,
but they aren't even half of the problem than Looters want
to take money from these poor embattled executives.
|3.19.09 @ 11:46AM|#
So is the solution to throw out contract law to improve the
bailout mess? I'm not getting the point of this other than to paint
Hannity and Rush as somehow cheerleading this thing.
They were not fans of it from the start. Whatever.
Jesse Walker|3.19.09 @ 11:46AM|#
I just wrote:
He didn't talk about unintended consequences or constitutional
questions or scapegoating.
In fairness to Hannity, I should say that he didn't talk about
those topics in the clip I heard. It's conceivable that he raised
one or more of them at another time.
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 11:51AM|#
Jesse, here is the full clip:
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200903180015?show=1
The preceding line from Hannity goes something like "whether you
like the bonuses or not...". Despite being grammatically incorrect,
I think that he is closer to your view.
|3.19.09 @ 11:51AM|#
Rectifying errors is always right.
We had to burn the village in order to save it?
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Anyway, conservative media is much more admirable in this mess
than either Party, who are acting in a way that has outraged
normally phlegmatic ol' me.
Ha.
max hats|3.19.09 @ 11:55AM|#
Not receiving a bonus you've been promised? Unheard of!
Sounds to me like a lot of people aren't very familiar with actual
private industry. Ownership means the right to do whatever the fuck
you want. We, the people, own AIG. We can say no we will not give
bonuses, they can sue for their bonuses, and maybe they'll win,
maybe they won't. Oh my the humanity, it's another day in American
industry. This stuff happens all the time.
Also: weren't a lot of people here in favor of renegotiating the
union contracts in the auto industry?
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 11:56AM|#
max hats - don't sprain your mind; the mental gymnastics it takes to equate "renegotiation" with "100% tax rates unless you fork that shit over voluntarily" must have strained you more than a 12-year-old Chinese Olympian.
|3.19.09 @ 11:59AM|#
@max hats: Where in the bailout provisions does it say that the
government owns AIG, and is granted with all of the powers
entailed in said ownership?
Look, I get your point: they're using taxpayer money here, and the
taxpayers should have a say. Unfortunately for us, our dickhole
government was in such a rush that problems like this weren't
considered. To go back now and demand performance that wasn't
required in the agreed-upon bailout provisions would only serve to
exacerbate the issue.
Gilbert Martin|3.19.09 @ 12:02PM|#
"and deployed it on behalf of a bunch of people who just got a
ton of money from the government."
Well I would say that is arguable as well.
Cash is fungible.
100% of the cash that AIG had or has didn't come from the
government.
Who is to say that the bonuses DIDN'T come from the portion of cash
that AIG already had beforehand?
@|3.19.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Libs like Max Hats are never going to understand the
Constitution.
Hey, why don't you quit your BO worshipping and google "ex post
facto" and "bill of attainder", max?
max hats|3.19.09 @ 12:05PM|#
max hats - don't sprain your mind; the mental gymnastics it takes to equate "renegotiation" with "100% tax rates unless you fork that shit over voluntarily" must have strained you more than a 12-year-old Chinese Olympian.
I agree the tax is just bad damage control, but it doesn't strike
me as particularly unjust considering they shouldn't have gotten
the bonuses anyway, contract or no. As de facto owner of AIG with
something like an 80% stake, the government had all the authority
and power it needed to say "no bonuses" and make those who feel so
owed sue for it or take their lumps and move on.
|3.19.09 @ 12:05PM|#
Once again, the Congress has passed a law which was
ill-conceived; now that the actual terms of the thing are becoming
obvious, they have to distract the rubes, somehow.
And, of course, every one of those worthless fuckers will be
re-elected next time around.
And we'll still be getting the government we deserve.
Good and Hard.
max hats|3.19.09 @ 12:06PM|#
Hey, why don't you quit your BO worshipping and google "ex post facto" and "bill of attainder", max?
You deal, if you agree to google "civil law" and "criminal law" and
learn the difference.
Tyler|3.19.09 @ 12:08PM|#
What's really silly is all the focus on these stupid bonuses.
It's what, like $150 million? That's a mere 50 cents for every
American.
How much mony did the government just give to AIG? $30 billion.
Now, this might not seem like a lot compared to the trillions that
are being thrown around. But seriously, let's have some sense of
scale here. That's $100 per American, and everyone's upset about
this piddly bonuses thing that amounts to 50 damn cents per
American? Sure, there's a moral dilemna BUT WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU
EXPECT FROM A COMPANY THAT JUST RAN ITSELF INTO THE GROUND?
And now, the federal government is $11 trillion in debt, excluding
unfunded liabilities. Soon to be over $12 trillion this year, and
that's if things go well. That's over $36,000 per American.
Look, I'm young and in college. I'm already in dept. Other
countries aren't going to lend us money for our idiotic spending
spree for much longer. What the fuck is going to happen when my
parent's generation tries to collect their Social Security
checks?
And the news just goes on and on about this bullshit AIG bonuses
story. It's all our President talks about. Meanwhile, my generation
is getting the worst damn raping in history, while most of my peers
go along with it, applauding the Change!
It's a fucking circus. Freakshows and ringleaders, cheering
audiences. But it's guys like me that are going to get shot out of
the cannon when it's all over, and there's no net to catch
us.
Ok, rant over. At least if the dollar fails, maybe I won't have to
pay back my student loans. Always try to be optimistic, right?
Jesse Walker|3.19.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Gilbert: If it weren't for the bailout, the company would have
gone bankrupt and there wouldn't have been any bonuses.
TAO: I understood Hannity's argument to be, in essence, "Maybe you
don't like the bonuses, but if the government can take these guy's
property it can take anyone's property." Whereas to me, this is the
last place you want to be deploying a property rights argument.
|3.19.09 @ 12:10PM|#
As de facto owner of AIG with something like an 80% stake,
the government had all the authority and power it needed to say "no
bonuses"
If the government had received shares of common (voting) stock, you
could say that. But that's not how it happened.
|3.19.09 @ 12:16PM|#
@max hats: But that's just you saying they have de
facto ownership. I'm not so sure that, given the provisions in
place, that is actually the case.
That's what this whole thing hinges on. If there is a legitimate,
legal grounds for the government to pursue getting these bonuses
back, then they should. If it's perverting the agreed-upon terms
for the purpose of political grandstanding (which, as far as I
understand, is the case), then they have absolutely no right to do
anything but sit back and realize how fucking stupid they are.
The Angry Optimist|3.19.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Mr. Walker - I concede your point.
As de facto owner of AIG with something like an 80% stake, the government had all the authority and power it needed to say "no bonuses"
Well, no. The government did not acquire 80% of AIG shares until
September of 2008. The compensation contract started December 1st,
2007 and goes to November 30th, 2008.
The government acquired AIG with full knowledge of its outstanding
obligations. Voiding those obligations would just give those who
had the contract reason to sue. If that's what the government
wanted to do, fine, but to acquire AIG, then reaffirm the bonus
structure in the February 11th bill, THEN CLAIM you had NO IDEA
this was coming is a lie, lie, lie.
JiggleTits|3.19.09 @ 12:20PM|#
"And the news just goes on and on about this bullshit AIG
bonuses story. It's all our President talks about."
No. He also talks about his college hoops picks.
|3.19.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Remember just a few weeks ago when the liberal spin around here
was that the government wasn't nationalizing industries with the
bailout money? (To deny Omaba as socialist.) Now the liberal spin
is that because the government owns AIG it's just fine to dictate
compensation policy.
Don't you guys ever get dizzy?
|3.19.09 @ 12:24PM|#
If we had just let AIG fail (which is OK in my book), you also
have to brace yourself for a potential failure of Goldman, Merrill
Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Etc...
Lehman Brothers failure, which is about 1/4 the size of AIG in
terms of counterparty credit risk took the DOW down from 12,000 to
6,500.
What would an event 4 times as large do?
The real lesson of the great depression, was not the Keynesian
stimulus solves the problem. It is that allowing huge numbers of
private banks to fail, will excerbate a severe 1-3 year recession,
into a 10 year period of hugely negative economic performance. That
is why they saved AIG in its private form.
I mean shareholders were basically wiped out anyway, we are saving
the counterparties and as a result the financial system as a
whole.
The bonuses were a small payment to accomplish that goal and the
populist outrage is a deeply disturbing sideshow.
JiggleTits|3.19.09 @ 12:25PM|#
"Lehman Brothers failure, which is about 1/4 the size of AIG in
terms of counterparty credit risk took the DOW down from 12,000 to
6,500."
Bullshit.
|3.19.09 @ 12:25PM|#
I should have been more clear, I am OK letting AIG fail. I.E. I couldn't care less if the executives get paid, or the shareholders lose everything. I do think it is important to save the private financial system.
Gilbert Martin|3.19.09 @ 12:26PM|#
"Gilbert: If it weren't for the bailout, the company would have
gone bankrupt and there wouldn't have been any bonuses."
Yes it's true that AIG would have gone bankrupt and there wouldn't
have been any bonuses. There also wouldn't have been full payoffs
to counterparties such as Goldman Sachs, foreign banks and hedge
funds on credit default swaps for far greater sums than is involved
with these bonues. Both are contractual relationships entered into
by AIG.
But none of that negates my point. Bankruptcy doesn't mean a
company has zero cash on hand at the time it is declared to be
bankrupt. It means it does not have enough assets to meet it's
contractual obligations. The cash and other assets are then
liquidated and allocated to creditors in order to satisfy part of
the debts owed for some and most likely none for others not high up
in the capital structure.
As I said, cash is fungible. Who is to say that 100% of the
government money received by AIG didn't go to pay off those credit
default swaps and that the bonuses are therefore coming out of the
pre-exiting cash that AIG had on hand?
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 12:30PM|#
If it were not for the government we would not have any money or anything else. So stop trying to destroy Obama while he tries to save your ungrateful hides.
max hats|3.19.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Remember just a few weeks ago when the liberal spin around here was that the government wasn't nationalizing industries with the bailout money? (To deny Omaba as socialist.)
Not really, no. But these things do happen when you have different
people with different ideas posting on the same message board.
@|3.19.09 @ 12:33PM|#
I love watching Max Hats defend his miserable failure TOTUS
(Teleprompter of the United States).
Spin boy, spin!
robc|3.19.09 @ 12:34PM|#
lmnop,
You're missing the point. The point is not whether the
democrats are being hypocritical scum here. The point is whether
the GOP and their pet chatterers can possibly usher the death of
their party even more quickly than everyone thought
possible.
You got it backwards. We had an election in Nov. We voted to bash
democrats for the next 4 to 8 years.
This is all about the dems being hypocritical scum.
stuartl|3.19.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Hey, why don't you quit your BO worshipping and google "ex
post facto" and "bill of attainder", max?
From the wikipedia article on ex post
facto:
In the 1994 opinion United States v. Carlton, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that retroactive tax laws did not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation.
@, all money belongs to the government, we just hold it at their
whim.
@|3.19.09 @ 12:35PM|#
How does it feel to find out your messiah was just a Jimmy Carter redux, max hats? Must suck.
@|3.19.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Stuartl, the Supreme Court is wrong about a lot of things thanks to far-left judges.
Stagman|3.19.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Jimmy Carter is the god that Obama could be and
surpass.
Trolling is an art sir. You have to be somewhat believable.
TofuSushi|3.19.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Stagman,
Blaming every failure in the US on Carter is getting pretty old. He
had great successes and we would have ben better off with him than
Ronnie Ray-gun.
Gilbert Martin|3.19.09 @ 12:55PM|#
"Jimmy Carter is the god that Obama could be and surpass."
Obama already IS a god - in his own mind.
Stagman|3.19.09 @ 1:00PM|#
You're missing the point. The successful troll must make himself believable, even if what he actually believes sounds too crazy to be believable. Otherwise you get ignored. Notice how I haven't even talked about any of your points.
stuartl|3.19.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Stuartl, the Supreme Court is wrong about a lot of things
thanks to far-left judges.
From the same wiki article:
"The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. ...." (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13th, 1813)
@ I agree that these punitive tax laws are horrid, but your
constitutional argument is weak.
Stagman, I believe You're missing the point. Tofusushi is
by far and away the funniest and least irritating troll HnR has
had. Nobody could say:
"Jimmy Carter is the god that Obama could be and surpass."
except in jest. The only thing close is the Jaunita spoofs.
Stagman|3.19.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Stagman, I believe You're missing the point.
Fair enough. I am nothing if not hypocritical.
But I also like a good argument. To have a good argument you can't
begin with stuff like "Blaming every failure in the US on Carter is
getting pretty old. He had great successes and we would have ben
better off with him than Ronnie Ray-gun." It's a non-starter.
kinnath|3.19.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Tofusushi is by far and away the funniest and least
irritating troll HnR has had.
You have very low standards.
|3.19.09 @ 2:20PM|#
This whole story is pretty enraging, but I have to say, the 90% tax being proposed today really chills my blood. Do we REALLY want to set the precedent of punitive taxation?
stuartl|3.19.09 @ 2:24PM|#
You have very low standards.
No, we have very dim trolls. Tofu and Juanita are at least trying
to be funny. C'mon, calling Carter a God and having people take you
seriously! What's not to like?
|3.19.09 @ 2:24PM|#
SugarFree | March 19, 2009, 12:23pm | #
Remember just a few weeks ago when the liberal spin around here was that the government wasn't nationalizing industries with the bailout money? (To deny Omaba as socialist.) Now the liberal spin is that because the government owns AIG it's just fine to dictate compensation policy.
Don't you guys ever get dizzy?
.. for the win.
kinnath|3.19.09 @ 2:31PM|#
You have very low standards.
No, we have very dim trolls.
As I said, you must have very low standards to appreciate anything
that bean curd boy postst.
|3.19.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Tofusushi is by far and away the funniest and least
irritating troll HnR has had.
I think I'd call him more of an "art troll".
|3.19.09 @ 2:34PM|#
I don't think you guys "get" TofuSushi. He's a very subtle spoofer/performance-artist.
kinnath|3.19.09 @ 2:42PM|#
He's a very subtle spoofer/performance-artist.
I disagree. He merely posts random inflammatory comments. He has no
consistent, discernable personality from which peformance art must
come.
He is a waste of electons, nothing more.
robc|3.19.09 @ 2:43PM|#
electons
Is that the fundamental particle in elections?
How many electons make up a chad?
*|3.19.09 @ 3:28PM|#
"But I also like a good argument. To have a good argument you
can't begin with stuff like "Blaming every failure in the US on
Carter is getting pretty old. He had great successes and we would
have ben better off with him than Ronnie Ray-gun." It's a
non-starter."
I agree. Crabs can be considered something that are stimulating to
one's genitals, but you know, they're not really stimulating in the
good way.
The Angry Optimist (as Mirror |3.19.09 @ 3:49PM|#
Guys, come on, you need to have better taste. The standard for trolling was set by Cesar dba "Neil". TS comes nowhere close to that.
|3.19.09 @ 3:59PM|#
LET THEM FAIL! Jeebus H Cripes, let them fail! None of this
would have been a problem if we had flushed those turds!
Don't squash the bonuses, STOP THE F*CKING CHECK! Call the bank and
tell the stop the check you wrote them! Call up MasterCard and
reverse the charges!
THEN LET THEM FAIL!
|3.19.09 @ 9:36PM|#
Copied from
elsewhere:
"Senator Dodd, who personally benefitted from AIG largesse (top
recipient--Obama #2), personally iserts language which allows these
bonuses but you are following Rahm's lead by focusing on Rush
Limbaugh (or Sean Hannity).
Representative Frank, who has a boyfriend at Fannie and Freddie,
encourages unsafe lending practices, but is in charge of acting
outraged at their unsafe lending practices. But, he says we should
be mad about deregulation, so we are.
Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelik get huge bonuses from Fannie and
Freddie, but Obama says we should be mad about AIG smaller bonuses,
so we are.
Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, and other top Dems don't pay their
taxes, but say we should give them a pass and be outraged that the
Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy instead, so we are.
Chuck Schumer on a public servant's salary has cushy lending deals
on all sorts of properties both domestic and international, but
says we should be outraged about Sarah Palin's wardrobe, so we
are.
Do you ever feel like you're being played for a
fool???"
Psst. Hey Jessie, that's you.
Jesse Walker|3.19.09 @ 10:02PM|#
Psst. Hey Jessie, that's you.
Who's "Jessie"? Did she write something somewhere that supported
Congress' CYA routine?
Jesse Walker|3.19.09 @ 11:59PM|#
Does a little alarm sound when you backpedal? I always
wondered.
Please point to the alleged backpedaling, using before-and-after
quotes.
MJ|3.20.09 @ 12:09AM|#
"The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right
is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State
constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal
constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases
only;..."
So, in Jefferson's time, ex post facto laws were so obviously
unjust that few people saw a need to actually prohibit them as no
responsible government official would consider such a thing. Too
bad the founding generation did not realize what type of goons
would eventually succeed them.
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders
itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit
suicide."
John Adams
Chris|4.1.09 @ 12:45AM|#
it was the democrates that put the bonus in the stimulus plan under the dod amendment! and the constitution says that the government can not go after one person or a group of people (businesses). thats what hannity and rush are following. whats in the constitution...why dont you idiots learn a thing or two
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245