Tim Cavanaugh Talks Bankruptcy (Fiscal and Ethical) with KOGO's Chris Reed, 6:33pm Pacific

Reason Senior Editor will talk about municipal bankruptcy and the delaying tactics of government employee unions with the San Diego Union Tribune's Chris Reed tonight on San Diego's KOGO 600 AM.

Topic: As more California towns look to bankruptcy as a way out of their crushing debts for public employee compensation, union flunkies in the state legislature are trying to find ways to force taxpayers to pay every penny of their million-dollar pension plans. The latest scheme is a roadblock for municipal banrkuptcy. The Sacramento Bee's Dan Walters explains: 

Assembly Bill 506 by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, is the latest incarnation of a political battle stemming from the bankruptcy of Vallejo and warnings by other local governments that they are flirting with insolvency.

Unions fear that contracts and even pension benefits could be abrogated by bankruptcy and have been seeking legislation for several years that that would make it more difficult. AB 506 would, if enacted, require local governments to have a "neutral evaluation process" completed before seeking bankruptcy and would assign the task to the state Debt and Advisory Commission. But critics say that agency is dominated by union-friendly Democrats.

Cavanaugh and Reed will liquidate all, for your listening pleasure. 

Time: Tonight, 6:33pm Pacific, 9:33pm Eastern

Place: San Diegans (Diegers?) can tune their Marconi sets to 600 on the AM dial.

Others can listen live on the worldwide cybertubes.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

San Diegoites.

[johnl]

Idiots.

[Sy]

San Diegouins

[Spiny Norman]

San Diegoids.

[Bruce]

Um, has any California municipality that has declared bankruptcy ever emerged with lower debts due to employee comp? (Presumably we're talking about pensions benefits here.) The poster city -- Vallejo -- has proved a ridiculous bust.

[montre pas cher]

The latest scheme is a roadblock for municipal banrkuptcy. The Sacramento Bee's Dan Walters explains:

[nike air max pas cher]

We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

[nike air max pas cher]

so thank you for sharing

[John]

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler.....i-semitic/

This can't be real. This is right out of the Third Reich. It is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen.

[Deep End]

Careful, John.

[John]

Fuck you dipshit. Explain it. That is disgusting.

[John]

Do you think it is ok ananonpussy? Justify it, explain it, condemn it or shut the fuck up.

[Ken Shultz]

I'll say this...

I think it's so bad--it almost seems like the most reasonable explanation is that somebody against the ban on circumcision created that comic to make the people for the ban look bad.

I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm saying it's so bad, that's a reasonable explanation.

I'll say this too. A lot of the culture war stuff we're seeing coming out of San Francisco is a reaction to the gay marriage ban.

Just like trying to get intelligent design into public schools was partially a reaction to public schools teaching fundie kids about evolution in public school. Just like abortion bans are in part a reaction to giving fundie kids abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent.

When gay marriage was banned by Proposition 8 in California, suddenly we started seeing especially pointed reactions directed at parents, children and religious people--coming out of San Francisco.

It may not seem related at first glance--other than who the intended victims are that these ridiculous culture war volleys are directed at, but the ban on McDonald's happy meals is a stab at "breeders" (as some gay people call them), which is basically a slur some gay people level at us heterosexuals and those who have children.

Anything that targets children, parents and religious people--to the extreme--scores big political points with the locals since Proposition 8 passed in 2008. So they try to ban McDonalds happy meals in San Francisco--because that's targeting children and parents with children.

They target churches and church organization to try to make them pay taxes--because that targets religious people.

They target children and people who have children when they try to ban circumcision...

I'm not here to justify any of that crap; I'm just calling it like it is.

I'm against banning McDonalds happy meals; I'm against taxing religious institutions; I'm against banning circumcision...

I agree with you--that comic is ridiculously anti-semitic, and that comic is completely indefensible.

However, I think we can expect more of the same sort of culture war issues out of San Francisco--so long as unscrupulous local politicians can score easy political points by targeting "breeders", children and religious people...

So long as enough religious people and people with families continue to support using the government to arbitrarily discriminate against gay people--these sorts of culture war volleys will continue to be fired...

There's no excuse for any anti-semitism, but I still think it's those who support the government discriminating against gay people that are probably the ultimate impetus behind what made this particular instance of anti-semitism possible.

How did you expect the gay community of San Francisco to react to Prop 8?!

[sloopyinca]

How did you expect the gay community of San Francisco to react to Prop 8?!

One would hope they would react in a rational way: fight for their rights instead of trying to destroy the rights of others in an expression of butthurt (no pun intended).

[Ken Shultz]

Well, that's what us libertarians do--but to be honest? I think we're more reasonable than a lot of other people.

There's always been a tension within the gay rights community too between those who primarily want to assimilate into straight society--and be accepted as just like everybody else. And, on the other hand, those who want to antagonize straight society...

I think this stuff is coming more from the side that wants to antagonize people--I think the antagonistic side of that argument won a chunk of support when Prop 8 passed.

Regardless, there is some logic to retaliation--because we're using the government to discriminate against them? They're gonna use the local government they control to discriminate against us!

Of course, they won't call it discrimination--they're not trying to discriminate at all! They're trying to save children from McDonalds making them fat! They think churches shouldn't have a special exemption from paying taxes! (The resentment against the Mormon Church for apparently bankrolling Prop 8 from Utah is especially fierce.) They're not trying to drive "breeders" out of the city by dictating their choices on circumcision! They're trying to defend children from trauma!

That's what they say.

But it is what it is. I against all of these weird issues they're pursuing, but it's unreasonable to expect people to accept the government openly discriminating against them. From a libertarian point of view, a gay riot in reaction to Prop 8 might have been better than using the law to attack other people's rights...

So, anyway, I see this as a big cluster-fuck, and the first rule of getting out of a cluster-fuck? Let go of whatever it is you're hangin' onto. If whoever happens to be the kind of person who likes playing naked twister with gay people--who likes getting into cluster-fuck situations over individual rights?

Then by all means, whoever should keep openly advocating government discrimination against gay people--because that road leads to banned happy meals, taxes on churches and bans on circumcision.

[John]

That is an interesting explanation. And there is a lot of truth to it. If you say the other side is taking your civil rights and oppressing you, then why not do the same to them?

And thank for admitting the obvious that it is really bad. I am frankly saddened and disappointed MNG or anyone would defend it.

[Ken Shultz]

It's indefensible.

It's so bad!

It's so bad--it makes me wonder if it was written to make the people who want to ban circumcision look bad.

It's so bad, it's reminiscent of blood libel.

It's so bad, it's hard to imagine how anyone could make something like that--thinking it would make their side of the argument look good?!

It's indefensible.

[MNG]

Oh good lord, as bad as the blood libels. Sheesh.

Let's get it straight, can we stipulate that the hero is not part of the 'blood libel?' It's not so shocking for a comic super hero to be a blonde, buff, well, 'super-man.'

So I'm guessing what has people riled up is the depiction of the villian. So what is so anti-Semitic about the depiction? That he is Jewish and sinister looking? Newsflash: Mohel's (the natural target of a comic about circumcision btw, no anti-Semitism there) tend to be Jewish. Is it because he is depicted as an Orthodox jew? Comics deal in over-the-top stereotypes, i.e., all religious Christian figures are usually catholic clergy instead of Protestant ministers(the collar and usually accompanying cross necklace help re-enforce the visual archetype). Is it the combination, a orthodox jew played as a villian? In that case how do we make sense of issue one where a non-jewish doctor is the villian? A more sensible narrative to explain all this is that two commonly imagined performers of circumcision (delivery doctor and mohel) were chosen to be the villians and they were made to be sinister (since the guy opposes the process).

All you have left is there is something about the face or whatever that is anti-Semitic. Here's a cite making that case, but in classic deconstruction fashion I submit he undermines his own case. Look at the depiction of Monster Mohel. He is indeed sinister, but we've already supplied a rational non-prejudiced explanation for that. So what is anti-Semitic? Compare the pic to the Der Ewiger Jude one. Notice how the Mohel has been drawn with a noticeably smaller nose than the other one (a strange thing for an anti-Semitic depiction as anti-Semitic depictions throughout history have used a pronounced nose as one of their hateful devices) and a much more youthful and dynamic face.

I mean really, it's interesting to see those on the right be just as touchy as those on the left in finding prejudice under every bed. Everyone's a victim now, everything's an outrage.

[MNG]

The link I'm talking about above:

http://www.patheos.com/communi.....e-mystery/

[Ken Shultz]

"Oh good lord, as bad as the blood libels. Sheesh."

Actually, that's not what I wrote.

I wrote, "It's so bad, it's reminiscent of blood libel."

And it is.

The suggestion that evil Jews are out to harm our children as part of their ancient circumcision rituals is reminiscent of the suggestion that evil Jews are out to harm our children as part of their ancient rituals--that's blood libel.

If whoever made that "comic" didn't want to be mistaken for an anti-semite, then he or she should have made an effort not to be so obviously reminiscent of one of the most historically persistent anti-semitic myths!

You're wrong about this, and that's okay. It's okay to be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. I learn things from people around here--that's one of the reasons I hang around here. Subjecting my thinking to the criticism of smart people makes me effectively smarter!

What's not okay is to go about pretending you're right about something like this--even when you're wrong. That's how we ended up in Iraq for ten years.

You're wrong about this. You'll be wrong about a lot of other things in life too--and that's usually okay. But continuing to insist that an anti-semitic comic isn't anti-semitic despite all evidence to the contrary?

That's not okay.

You're carrying water for some really nasty people--and if you were doing that unwittingly, don't you want to know that's what you're doing?

This "comic" isn't about John, you know. It isn't about conservative Republicans either. It is what it is. ...and what it is is anti-semitic.

[MNG]

"If whoever made that "comic" didn't want to be mistaken for an anti-semite, then he or she should have made an effort not to be so obviously reminiscent of one of the most historically persistent anti-semitic myths!"

Dude, You really can't see an anti-Semitic explanation as to why he wrote about a jewish Mohel trying to circumcise a child? It was a comic meant to oppose circumcision. Mohels do circumcisions. They are jewish. They do it to kids.

I mean, once again I ask, how does the first issue with the non-Jewish delivery room doctor fit into your narrative? It fits nicely into mine (delivery room doctors, like mohels, are commonly conjured images when one talks about circumcision).

"Subjecting my thinking to the criticism of smart people makes me effectively smarter!"

You're welcome.

[Ken Shultz]

"You're welcome."

The only things I'm learning here from you today is that some people can't see the forest for the trees and that some people only see what they want to see.

[Ken Shultz]

"It was a comic meant to oppose circumcision. Mohels do circumcisions. They are jewish. They do it to kids."

If your emotional reaction to John or other conservatives is so out there--that it ends up making you defend anti-semitic propaganda?

Then you should put pictures of Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell up in your bedroom until you get over it.

[MNG]

Why do you think this has anything to do with conservatism? I don't know that this guy trying to ban circumcision is conservative or liberal or what not (do you?). I'm just saying, on several subjects actually, people should not jump to imflammatory conclusions about things when there are better, less imflammatory ones right in front of you. I notice you, like John, did not try to address anything I said about the comic, you just once again repeated the conclusory, seemingly self-evident charge. Is that how conservatives 'argue?'

Yawn.

[Ken Shultz]

"I'm just saying, on several subjects actually, people should not jump to imflammatory conclusions about things when there are better, less imflammatory ones right in front of you. I notice you, like John, did not try to address anything I said about the comic, you just once again repeated the conclusory, seemingly self-evident charge. Is that how conservatives 'argue?'"

Right, you just know that John is conservative--and so you defended anti-semitic propaganda? ...because he's against anti-semitic propaganda?

I guess that's what I'm trying to tell you, MNG--you don't have to do everything John tells you to do.

You have a choice!

Just because you hate conservatives--is no reason to defend anti-semitic propaganda.

Just for the record, I may be a fiscal conservative--but that's about as far as it goes. I've been arguing around here for years! ...for legalizing marijuana, in favor of Gay Marriage and although I think abortions are often ethically immoral, I think they should remain legal. If I'm a conservative, that's a really different kinda conservative... I've heard that when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail--do you imagine that everyone that disagrees with you is a conservative?

And as far as why I think it's anti-semitic, I've already made that abundantly clear...

The suggestion that Jewish people are coming after our children to use in their religious rites is about as old as anti-semitism itself--everybody in this thread who isn't blinded by hatred of all things John or conservative can see that.

[MNG]

Dude, get over yourself. I defended the comic because I'm a comic fan and for those familiar with comics there is a rational, non-inflammatory explanation apparent.

[Ken Shultz]

Oh, and a lot of this ridiculous "breeder" bashing local legislation goes away if self-described Christians start practicing a little more Christianity.

If you've done so unto the least of these. you've done so unto me.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Gay people don't do anything worse than the prostitutes and others with whom Jesus spent his spare time.

The Kingdom of God is a heavenly kingdom.

The Kingdom of God is within you.

I don't remember reading anything about how we're supposed to seize the levers of government and inflict our will on all the unbelievers.

I do remember something about how we're supposed to treat other people like they're worthy of Jesus' sacrifice--because Jesus died for them and to treat them otherwise would be to deny the fact of Jesus sacrifice.

A little more Christianity from self-described Christians might go a long way to alleviate some of this pointless cycle of hate that is the culture war.

Hate masquerading as Christianity is what it is.

[sloopyinca]

+John 3:16

[John]

The reason why the pharasies and the Jewish leaders hated Christ was that he wasn't there to start a political movement. "Render unto Ceaser" doesn't just mean pay your taxes. It means that in the grand scheme of things government doesn't mean anything. What matters is your soul.

From a Christian perspective, man is fatally flawed with sin and away from God. The world is always going to be evil. Dreaming you can somehow make it good is man's original sin.

[Ken Shultz]

That's right.

And heaven is a libertarian paradise, where everybody treats each other the way they would want to be treated--and they do it of their own free will.

Your average libertarians should be a lot less hostile to Christianity than I think we are.

[Fletch]

I think it's so bad--it almost seems like the most reasonable explanation is that somebody against the ban on circumcision created that comic to make the people for the ban look bad.

I first saw this "comic book" (on the internet) at least three years ago.

This is just some Joo-hater in Frisco recycling something they agree with.

[John]

It amazes me what pathetic pieces of human garbage many liberals are.

[rather]

I thought it was a joke
http://www.foreskinman.com/
The comic book was ? in 2010

[John]

If it is, it is a bad one. That is horrible.

[rather]

It isn't!

Gledson Barreto the illustrator is a boy from Brazil
Hess, Brazil....

Weird

[rather]

http://www.foreskinman.com/
WOW

[Deep End]

Boo hoo.

NEWS FLASH: There are bad people on the internet!

Get a grip, man.

[rather]

Deep end, yes there are bad people on and off the internet, including all political stripes.

The taxpayer does not need to pay for their opinion:
SF's publication of new campaign literature for the upcoming circumcision ban

[John]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....Descending

The comments on the SF Gate article are some scary stupid.

[John]

It is linked from the official website of the campaign for the ban. This is not "just some bad person on the internet". You are really a sick person ananopussy.

http://www.mgmbill.org/store.htm

[MNG]

Caution is always good when getting news from right-wing sources.

Take this instance. Yesterday John linked to a Fox news account of the federal judge prohibting student prayer at a Texas graduation ceremony. Here is the story he linked to:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011.....latestnews

Take a look at the article. Outrage followed it in the thread. Everyone seemed to acknowledge that official led or endorsed prayer could be stopped, but how could this mean ol' judge stop student's from just expressing themselves?

But quite a bit of context is left out. Here is the judge's actual order:

http://texaslegislativeupdate......-order.pdf

It's clear from the order that the judge was trying to stop a officially scheduled "benediction" and "invocation" as part of the official program. Students are allowed to express their personal beliefs but, given the official plan to have an invocation and benediction, they are told not to ask the audience to "stand," "join in prayer" etc., and to not end their remarks with typical prayer ending language ("amen").

So conservative fury was whipped up, all over terrible reporting.

But this ain't the first time, and sadly likely not the last.

[MNG]

More on the poor reporting of Fox.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201106010011

Lesson o' the day: One should be very catious before forming outraged conclusions based on premises supplied by right wing news sources.

Oh, and fire Shirley Sherrod!

[Fist of Etiquette]

I'm sure Media Research Center will come up with an article to refute your Media Matters article refuting Fox News. And so on...

[MNG]

I'm actually no big fan of Media Matters; one should look at the judge's actual order and the background on the case.

[rather]

Yes, we all need to dig deep. I believe the valedictorian's case was based on the fact that she had to submit her speech, and it was censured by her school.

I don't care is she got up there and recited 'bibbidi-bobbidi-boo', she earned the time, and audience

[Barack Obama]

Oh, and fire Shirley Sherrod!

I did

[MNG]

This is my fav retort from those who were duped by the Brietbart thing. They were duped, but hey, their hated enemy that the swear is an ineffective, craven idiot was duped too, so it's ok.

You were duped. Vilisack was duped. But lots of people weren't.

Most of the people in the latter category share the characterstic of not getting their news from people like Brietbart.

[Sy]

"The District, through its officials, shall instruct the students previously selected to deliver the "invocation" and "benediction" to modify their remarks to be statements of
their own beliefs as opposed to leading the audience in prayer. These students, and all other persons scheduled to speak during the graduation ceremony, shall be instructed not to present a prayer, to wit, they shall be instructed that they may not ask audience members to "stand," "join in prayer," or "bow their heads," they may not end their
remarks with "amen" or "in [a deity's name] we pray," and they shall not otherwise deliver a message that would commonly be understood to be a prayer , nor use the word
"prayer" unless it is used in the student's expression of the student's personal belief, as opposed to encouraging others who may not believe in the concept of prayer to join in and believe the same concept."

Seems to me, the judge is doing some pretty heavy-handed censuring with the students, not the school or district. I haven't seen anything yet on the official program for the graduation ceremony, so I could understand some weird strong-atheist outrage over being asked to "bow their heads" or "give thanks" or to "pray" if the school program called for it. If the school chose to give the students the platform to deliver the speech and the student(s) ask(s) for the prayer , then I would imagine the option to simply, you know, NOT do it would also be available to the "aggrieved". I don't disagree with the ruling on the principle of any type of religious persecution but as a free-speech issue.

[MNG]

You deconstruct yourself. The only students that are ordered to modify their statements are the ones originally chosen to deliver a formal invocation and benediction. They are explicitly granted the permission to talk about their religious beliefs, they just cannot perform the equivalent of a benediction or invocation.

[sloopyinca]

Caution is always good when getting news from right-wing sources.

You're right, minge. That SFGate website, a notorious hotbed of right-wing propagandists, linking to and quoting the actual comic artist really just fuels the SoCon hatred like no other website I can think of.

Nice try, though.

[rather]

http://texaslegislativeupdate......-order.pdf

(a) The District shall remove the terms "invocation" and "benediction" from the program

of ceremonies for the graduation exercises. These terms shall be replaced with "opening

remarks" and "closing remarks."

(b) The District, through its officials, shall instruct the students previously selected to

deliver the "invocation" and "benediction" to modify their remarks to be statements of

their own beliefs as opposed to leading the audience in prayer. These students, and all

other persons scheduled to speak during the graduation ceremony, shall be instructed not

to present a prayer, to wit, they shall be instructed that they may not ask audience

members to "stand," "join in prayer," or "bow their heads," they may not end their

remarks with "amen" or "in [a deity's name] we pray," and they shall not otherwise

deliver a message that would commonly be understood to be a prayer, nor use the word

"prayer" unless it is used in the student's expression of the student's personal belief, as

opposed to encouraging others who may not believe in the concept of prayer to join in

and believe the same concept. The students may in stating their own personal beliefs

speak through conduct such as kneeling to face Mecca, the wearing of a yarmulke or

hijab or making the sign of the cross.

(c) The District, through its officials, shall review, and make any necessary changes to, the

3

Case 5:11-cv-00422-FB Document 18 Filed 06/01/11 Page 3 of 4

students' revised remarks to ensure that those remarks comply with this Order, and shall

instruct the students that they must not deviate from the approved remarks in making

their presentations.

Because this suit seeks to enforce fundamental constitutional norms, it is further ORDERED

that the security requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived, and that this injunctive

order shall be effective immediately and shall be enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for

contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official and their agents.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 1st day of June, 2011.

_____________________________________

FRED BIERY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

[sloopyinca]

Since the students aren't agents or officers of the school board, would this order prevent one of them from going to the podium and saying, "I'm going to pray now as a sign of my faith and in accordance to the 1A. You can do what you want for the next 30 seconds." As long as the school did not schedule it, would that pass muster?

[MNG]

They could also have rode a unicorn on stage.

But what does that have to do with what actually was going on there?

[sloopyinca]

Um, everything. Not allowing a school to sanction religion at a graduation ceremony is one thing. Telling a student they can not exercise their 1A rights because it might offend someone else is something else entirely.

My question was, could the court hold a student in contempt if they exercised their right directly when they were given the podium (that they had earned by being valedictorian) vs the school scheduling a prayer during the ceremony.

[MNG]

John's original link was to pajamas media.com. Nice try though!

[MNG]

Actually, I can say that it looks like media outlets across the board did a relatively poor job of reporting the Texas flap. Often it is said that the real bias in the news is towards cheap, polarizing sensationalism. "Judge Bans Religion From Students" sound so much more argue-worthy than "Judge's Order Contains Nuanced, Thoughtful Attempt to Balance Free Exercise and Establishment Concerns."

As a tip to John and other conservatives here, once the facts become more nuanced their position often becomes quite thoughtful. This goes for me too, on several occasions as more facts become known to me I change my position. I think this shows there is a good deal of agreement on many principles once the facts can get squared. As the latter are more or less empirical things that means there is a much wider area of potential agreement than some might at first think.

[rather]

The judge's order was a STFU to the valedictorian
-it is a simple free speech case

[MNG]

The case was Shultz v. Medina School District. The District originally had scheduled students to deliver a benediction and invocation as an official part of the ceremony. The judge orders 1. they have to remove that and 2. no equivalent of that can be done. And he takes care to try to re-inforce that the students can talk about their religious beliefs, they just cannot do the equivalent of a benediction or invocation.

[John]

Fuck you condscending stupid bastard. the opinon said exactly what I said it did, "no one speaking at the graduation can mention religion."

And you have never had a nuanced opinion in your life that wasn't for the purpose of obfiscating wrongs committed by your political side.

This thread is a great example. Here we have an example of the most horrific and shocking anti-semetic bullshit I have ever seen in my lifetime on American soil. And it is being put out by a group in liberal San Fransisco and defended by the ultra liberal readers of teh SF Gate. And your response is not "OMFG what the hell". It is insteaed to pullute the entire thread talking about your Fox News and Andrew Breitbart neorosis.

Thanks for fucking up the thread douchebag. Mabe no one will notice the horrible cartoons and your mission will have been successful

[MNG]

I certainly don't have a dog in the circumcision fight. I do have a dog in the careful analysis before jumping to outraged conclusions fight.

The opinion is right there John, it explicitly defends the right of the students to speak about their personal religious beliefs, they just cannot do so in an official invocation or benediction or, given it was part of the original official program, they cannot get up and do something that is the equivalent of that.

[John]

You should have a dog in the fight against racism and anti-semetism. But oh I forgot, you are MNG< anything no matter how vile is okay as long as liberals do it.

[MNG]

I guess this guy Hess is supposed to be a liberal in your mind because, what, his bill is a referendum in San Francisco? See, this is the carelessness I'm talking about.

I actually just finished reading the comic in question, along with issue number 1. I'll provide the links to both below so others can see them before jumping to conclusions like you.

I can see where someone might find it anti-Semitic, especially if they are the easy-to-outrage type (it's funny that movement conservatives pick on pc liberals for being easy to outrage, noone manufactures easy over-the-top outrage like a movement conservative, witness John's numerous OMG outrage posts on this very thread).

If you know a lot about comics and more about this topic in particular, a more careful approach is warranted. Comics often deal in archetypes and stereotypes, so the buff blonde hero need not suggest an Aryan superman. And since many people think of Orthodox Jewish Mohels when the topic of circumcision comes up it's no suprise that such a character is in the book (and no suprise that they are depicted in an over-the-top stereotypical fashion).

Check out Foreskin Man Issue no. 1. The villian is not a Jewish Mohel but a doctor. Look at how he is depcited. Is that an anti-doctor depiction? It's a typical super-villian comic depiction though.

But hey, get your careless outrage on!

http://www.foreskinman.com/foreskinmanno2.pdf

http://www.foreskinman.com/no1panel02.htm

[John]

It doesn't matter if Hess is a liberal or not. The liberals on SFGATE are endorsing this horrible cartoon and defending it. That is the point, not Hess.

And "might be anti semetic". My God, you can't mean that. You can't be that far gone. Look at the cartoon. It speaks for itself. It is straight out of the Third Reich.

[MNG]

To anyone with a lot of experience in comics I don't think it would come off as anti-Semitic. What makes it so? That the hero is buff and blonde? That's a common superhero archetype. That the bad guy is depicted as a Stereotypical Orthodox Mohel? That kind of steroetyping is common enough in comics.

Like I said, look at issue number one. It has the same buff, blonde hero battling a non-Jewish doctor. The doctor looks like Mojo from x-men. He's called "Dr. Mutilator" (an obvious, and common, comics use of familiar over-the-top language critical to that profession).

But hey, rage agains the machine you sensitive soul! You put feminists and pcers to shame.

[John]

By your logic MNG, just becuase the Nazis hated Gypsys they really were not anti-semetic? The cartoon shows this aryan attack these horrible stereo type of a Jewish holy man. The Jews all look evil. Only someone who is anti-Semetic would defend that. If it were Muslims or Blacks or any other group you would be as outraged as I am.

I am really saddened MNG. I didn't think you were a bad person. Just misguided. But wow. I don't even know what to say in response to this. I feel sorry for you.

[MNG]

Your first sentence is non-sensical.

John, was that episode of Seinfeld anti-semitic? It had a non-Jewish hero saving a baby from a drunken, butchering Jewish holy man.

Is the comic different because the non-Jewish hero is blonde and buff? But it's commone to have such an archetypical depiction of a hero in comics, no? Is it different because the Jewish holy man is depcited as Orthodox? Well, are not the image in many folks mind of a Mohel an orthodox jew? And isn't it common for a comic to deal in over-the-top steroetypes?

And how about issue number 1. The same hero battles an over-the-top depicted non-Jewish villian. So what does that mean?

See, gather all the facts young man, take a careful look. Don't jump to the first outraged conclusion like an animal rights feminist caricature.

[John]

Go to hell you miserable piece of shit. Reason ought to ban you from these boards. I am not argueing with a lunatic who will look at that and think it is okay.

[MNG]

Meds, John, meds. Deep breaths.

[John]

and they shall not otherwise

deliver a message that would commonly be understood to be a prayer, nor use the word

"prayer" unless it is used in the student's

Yeah, the opinion is right there. No one denies the obvious with more tenacity than you.

But the whole point of this was to destract from the horrific anti-semetism of SF Gate readers and change the subject. So what do you care right.

[MNG]

That's right, they may not lead a prayer, but they can speak about their personal religious beliefs (they can even make the sign of a cross or face Mecca, etc., he says explicitly).

Your quote:
""the opinon said exactly what I said it did, "no one speaking at the graduation can mention religion.""

Want to back down on it now?

[MNG]

"the opinon said exactly what I said it did, "no one speaking at the graduation can mention religion.""

Wow, you're easier pickin's than even usual today John. Directly from the order:

"The District, through its officials, shall instruct the students previously selected to deliver the "invocation" and "benediction" to modify their remarks to be statements of their own beliefs as opposed to leading the audience in prayer...."

So they can give all the personal statements of religious belief they want, they just can't lead the audience in prayer.

[sloopyinca]

Caution is always good when getting news from right-wing sources.

Yes it was linked to PJ Media, but before you made this remark, it had also been linked to SFGate and the organizers website to support it's veracity. If anything, this disproves your meme of "right-wing sources are deceptive in their reporting." Also, both the organizers site as well as the SFGate story are linked by PJMedia.

Sorry, but this square peg doesn't fit into your round hole.

[John]

The SF Gate story must have really hti a nerve with MNG. It is the most shocking thing I have seen in a while. He went bizzerk and did everything he could to change the subject and cover up the originl link as much as possible.

Oh well, I will re post it in Monday's morning links. But I have to admit, I never expected this. I kind of expected even him to condemn it. I am really kind of saddened and disapointed in him. I know he is a vicious partisan. But I didn't think he was that bad.

[MNG]

When John gets really frothing at the mouth all spelling and grammar escape him. Look at that last post! Take some meds dude!

There's no cover-up intended, in fact I've just posted how careless you are (yet again) being in the San Fran story. But I pointed to the Texas case as an example, all of a day old, of you jumping to outrage carelessly.

Don't you get tired of being misled like this?

[sloopyinca]

His original link may have been to PJMedia, but before you made this comment:

Caution is always good when getting news from right-wing sources.

the SFGate story was linked as was a link to the actual sites of both the cartoonists and .org who commissioned him.

Hell, PJMedia linked to all three in their story. You know, actually giving sources tends to lend credence to a story, and they did just that. I know it doesn't play into your "right-wing media outlets are always evil" meme, but that's just too bad.

[MNG]

Right wing news sources tend to cherry pick stories to manufacture outrage, whatever the original source is (of course they rarely do original reporting, hell most papers don't even do that anymore).

[John]

There isn't any outrage here MNG. There is only outrage for people who are not Anti-Semetic. You have really hit a low I never thought you would go to. And if you are really this bad, how many other people? Damn

[MNG]

Yes John, you have no nuance and no argument. Post after post of "it's an outrage, how can you not see the outrage, if you don't see it you must be outrageous yourself!"

How tiresome movement conservatives are, but fun to poke!

[sloopyinca]

Right wing All news sources tend to cherry pick stories to manufacture outrage, whatever the original source is (of course they rarely do original reporting, hell most papers don't even do that anymore).

I know it doesn't fit your bullshit narrative, but I had to FIFY. Ever read HuffPo, Kos, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, LAT, AJC, NYPost, MM, Politico, etc, etc, etc...?

[rather]

sloopyinca, you forgot to add libertarian publications 😉

[sloopyinca]

That's a fair statement. I just listed some lefty sites to see how minge would react. In typical fashion, he ran away as soon as he saw an argument he couldn't win. It's happened about three different places on this thread alone today.

[John]

I am appalled sloopy. I always knew MNG was a horrible parisan. But to defend that cartoon and claim a cartoon that shows a blond super hero saving babies from menacing religious Jews is not anti-Semetic is just amazing even for him.

[Rock Action]

If -- if -- it's the campaign brochure (or part of it) for SF's initiative, it's a lot more relevant than you're making it. It's not just trawling the internet to be offended if it's government sanctioned and distributed. Forget the grip, get some reading comprehension, you fucking pussy.

[Rock Action]

That was for anonypussy upthread, obviously.

[sloopyinca]

I don't think it's government sanctioned or distributed. It comes from mgmbill.org, which is a group organized to stop what they call "male genital mutilation."

I respect their right to publish this misinformed tripe. I also hope they will respect my right to tell them that it is anti-Semitic rubbish and that they should die in a fire.

And yes, minge, I did look at the first issue. Their portrayal of the doctor was that of a typical comic villain. That does not excuse them for their grotesque portrayal of Jews in this issue. Each should be looked at and judged on their own merits. Sorry, but if he had portrayed a black man as a caricature of every racial stereotype from the past (exaggeratedly large lips, nose, long arms and simian appearance), I would say the same. I will direct you to the Marvel Super-villain Man-Ape, who is hardly exaggerated into any simian form. Your analogy fails miserably.

[Rock Action]

Not so sure, sloop. There seems to be at least some sort of affiliation. Regardless, it's noxious.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....0251&tsp=1

Saunders interviewed Matthew Hess, author of the upcoming anti-circumcision referendum this week.

His website, mgmbill.org -- which pushes "a bill to end male genital mutilation in the United States" --also pushes his literature and merchandise starring "Foreskin Man," shown here at right.

[sloopyinca]

Yeah, I had to look it up. A referendum can be put on the ballot by voters* in the city. FTA: "Schofield has until April 26 to submit 7,168 valid signatures to make it onto the ballot."

That's not to say he doesn't have sympathetic ears on the BoS. I've not heard any of their views on the referendum.

*This was linked from the San Francisco Examiner.

[Rock Action]

Ahh, I think I see. It's just that he has enough signatures to get the referendum on the ballot, which doesn't necessarily mean that there's government support or sanction.

[Deep End]

In my ass!

[MNG]

You didn't see the anti-Semitic overtones of the anti-circumcising debate way back in the Seinfeld episode where the non-Jewish Kosmo Kramer saves the poor infant from the inebriated, butchering Jewish Mohel?

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

[Ken Shultz]

We call ourselves "San Diegans".

We surf. We still listen to Slightly Stoopid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ature=fvst

...and we're better than you.

Sorry I missed the broadcast.

[John]

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2.....-city.html

The stupid in Wisconsin becomes overwhelming. These people really have no lives.

[Deep End]

Stupid is as stupid does. I wonder if they spend their hours and days trawling the internet, looking for ways to be offended.

[rather]

Now, I know you are one of the bored assholes

[MNG]

+1

The irony of John's statement is delicious.

[John]

You say that as the person who posts on here more than I do and as the person that I am constantly told should not respond to and whose arguments with are said to hog the threads.

+ double irony there MNG

[MNG]

Yeah, but it was you, with three outrage posts on this one thread so far, talking about people trolling the internet looking for outrage.

[John]

No, they spend it making stupid comments and defending the indefensible, like all liberals do.

[First Annual Episiarch Awards]

And the winner for Best Resort to Vulgarity When Losing an Argument goes to...John!

John|6.4.11 @ 11:45AM|#
Fuck you condscending stupid bastard.

John|6.4.11 @ 12:26PM|#
Go to hell you miserable piece of shit. Reason ought to ban you from these boards.

[John]

I feel sorry for you MNG

[MNG]

That wasn't me that posted that my fevered paranoid friend. I'm not the only one that can notice that you quickly devolve a discussion into paranoid hyperbole and insulting cursing. I imagine it has something to with the paucity of your arguments.

[Deep End]

No, really, put it in my ass!

[Logfile]

They named it San Diago, which of course in German means A Whale's Vagina.

[rather]

A Whale's Vagina

WTF, blame it on a woman?

[rather retarded]

If it smells like a beached whale, is the size of a beached whale, and sounds like a beached whale, it's my vagina.

[sloopyinca]

Hahahahahaha.
[catches breath]
Hahahahahahahahaha.

[Ted S.]

Leggo my Sandy Eggo!

[Jess]

Win The Future indeed.

[John]

Pravaa on the Potomac finally admits the economy sucks and that is bad news for Obama. But it is just the result of bad luck.

"Behind the economic distress is a series of unexpected events, including the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the European debt crisis and rising gasoline prices. As a result of the unemployment rate turning back up and the housing market reaching new lows since the slump began in 2006, numerous economists have reduced their expectations for economic growth this year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html

I can't help but think of the famous Heinlein quote.

""Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.This is known as "bad luck."."

[MNG]

"Pravaa on the Potomac finally admits the economy sucks and that is bad news for Obama."

Do you want to go up this hill that the WaPo has not hitherto reported on how bad the economy is and how that is bad news for Obama? Remember I subscribe to and read the WaPo every day.

And I don't know what you find so awful in the quoted section. I guess you wanted them to say "this economic bad news can be attributed to Obama's FascistSocialist policies" and anything less than that is "MSM bias" in your eyes...

The thing is, as a responsible news agency, they can't say that since there is widespread disagreement about how or whether Obama's policies are harmful. On the other hand there is more widespread agreement that the problems in Japan, Europe's debt crisis and rising gas prices likely have negatively impacted the economy (do you dispute any of that?).

Conservative carelessness is breathtaking, and then they castigate more careful reporting as "TEH MSM Leftist-Bias Dudes!"

[CoyoteBlue]

I blame Bush.

[Barack Obama]

It was like that when I got here.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I think the main complaint on either side is the differences in coverage of this administration and the last. The bias for something is not always as obvious until you compare it to examples of bias against another, and vice versa.

[John]

Yeah MNG, ignore the real life example of Heinlein. they are saying the economy is bad because of bad luck no anything Obama did. I am sure they would do the same for a Republican President. Nothing to see here. Let's talk about Shirley Sherrod.

Who oh by the way was exactly what Breitbart said she was. The original story was about the fact that the audience cheered when she said she stuck it to whitey. The point was not so much that Sherod was a racist, but that the audience thought it was great she was. Brietbart always released the full tape including the part (that didn't get cheered) where she explained she didn't hate whitey anymore.

But you have rewritten this one incident in your mind that you will never believe otherwise. You can be in your own way more nasty and irrational than even Tony.

[MNG]

John, you are aware that you backed off that meme about Sherrod, defending yourself with the "well, Obama fell for it too" thing. There is a search thing here, don't make me embarrass you further.

You were duped because you rely carelessly on questionable sources. It's happened over and over.

[John]

The facts are what they are. The audience is clearly seen cheering her "I used to hate whitey" remarks. That was the point of the story.

Look I am sorry there is a 1st Amendment and people like Breitbart got to set up an alternative media thanks to the internet. I am sure someday, after Obama runs the country broke and we live under the leftwing authoritarian government you have always dreamed of, they will shut the internet down and your delicate sensibilities won't be offend anymore.

[MNG]

John, you called for her firing. Remember? You came back later and said she should not be fired.

You were duped dude.

[John]

She should have been fired. Sorry but "i was once racist but now am better" is not an inspiring story.

I know you think anti Semetism and racism is okay. But that is not how I roll.

[MNG]

But you backed off that she should be fired, you even criticized Obama for being so craven as to do so. Your defense of your self was "well at least I didn't fire someone without checking out the facts first!"

You really don't remember do you? I guess that helps with the cognitive dissonance thing.

[MNG]

Ah, poor John, to be a hack in a world where records are kept.

Rolling back the tape we find these comments from John during the Sherrod controversy:

John|7.21.10 @ 11:20AM|#
The USDA should have never fired her. But she was never the point of his story. The audience was.

reply to this
MNG|7.21.10 @ 11:22AM|#
John, you didn't call for her firing?

reply to this
John|7.21.10 @ 11:26AM|#
Of course I did. But the fact that I took that from the story doesn't mean it was the point of the story. I hadn't seen the whole video. But seeing the whole video made feel better about this woman not the NAACP.

So to recap, today John says

John|6.4.11 @ 12:24PM|#
She should have been fired.

Then John said:
John|7.21.10 @ 11:20AM|#
The USDA should have never fired her.

Poor John, how he longs for a memory hole!

I'm going to enjoy the day now John, you can return and stream forth cheap outrage, careless fanning of selective facts and innuendo, and hurling insults while raping the art of spelling. Your hackery has been demonstrated for all to see.

[MNG]

Note that THEN he said the tape exonerated Sherrod in his opinion ("But seeing the whole video made feel better about this woman") whereas today his story is different ("She should have been fired. Sorry but "i was once racist but now am better" is not an inspiring story.")

Oh, Proteus!

[John]

Yes, MNG continue to ignore the rediculous claim that the economy is bad because of "bad luck" not Obama's policies. Lets talk about Fox News.

[MNG]

You really think that unless the article had said "the economy is bad because of Obama's policies" it is an example of bias?

WTF?

If that were the case, how were they supposed to report the causes of the economic downturns under Bush?

[John]

Saying the economy is bad because of "bad luck" is a perfect example of what Heinlein was talking about. Amazingly perfect. It could never be a result of bad policy. Nope,just bad luck. The point of the post was not so much bias as just how amazingly close the Post hit what Heinlein was talking about. You made it about bias because that is all you have to talk about. Oh that and the Jooos.

[MNG]

If you're done spluttering your spelling mistake-laden outrage and insults, can you try to gather yourself together and offer some answer to my question:

If that were the case, how were they supposed to report the causes of the economic downturns under Bush?

[John]

And if you will defend that cartoon, you are an Anti Semetic piece of shit and no longer worth responding to.

[MNG]

Yes John, you lose, but we knew that after my first response to you!

[Anonypussy?]

John|6.4.11 @ 12:23PM|#
you are an Anti Semetic piece of shit and no longer worth responding to.

Promise?

[Promise]

In your ass!

[sloopyinca]

Conservative carelessness is breathtaking, and then they castigate more careful reporting as "TEH MSM Leftist-Bias Dudes!"

And in this case, the "more careful reporting" you are referring to is simply a reprint, verbatim, of the WH press release on the shitty jobs report.

[Progressive douchebag]

It can't possibly be BHO's fault because he's a black man. You're a racist for even suggesting that black men are capable of responsibility.

[MNG]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z5

"More than 40 years after feminists tossed their bras and high heels into a trash can at the 1968 Miss America pageant ? kicking off the bra-burning myth that will never die ? some young women are taking to the streets to protest sexual assault, wearing not much more than what their foremothers once dubbed "objects of female oppression" in marches called SlutWalks.

In a feminist movement that is often fighting simply to hold ground, SlutWalks stand out as a reminder of feminism's more grass-roots past and point to what the future could look like."

May I submit it is events and mindsets like this that are making the feminist movement lose ground? It's 1. silly 2. stupid (people like the cop in the article don't seem to be suggesting that women 'deserve' rape when they dress a certainw way, they are simply giving advice much in the same way you might tell someone 'don't cut through that park at night' and not suggest that if he does so he 'deserves' a mugging).

[sloopyinca]

You don't see any difference in, "Don't cut through that park, it's a dangerous part of the city at night," and "If you don't want to get raped, don't dress like a slut?"

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

[MNG]

The first comment is advice "don't cut through that park" based on some idea of how things are "people get mugged in that park a lot." To the extent that dressing like a slut makes one a more attractive target of sexual assault then I think my comment is totally analogous. But perhaps you'd care to offer something like an argument along with your conclusory statement + ad hominen?

[sloopyinca]

May I submit it is events and mindsets like this that are making the feminist movement lose ground? It's 1. silly 2. stupid (people like the cop in the article don't seem to be suggesting that women 'deserve' rape when they dress a certainw way, they are simply giving advice much in the same way you might tell someone 'don't cut through that park at night' and not suggest that if he does so he 'deserves' a mugging).

Well, I'll ignore you calling them "silly" without stating why.

As far as the rest goes, I fail to equate telling someone an area is dangerous and they should stay away with don't dress like a slut and you won't get raped. In one, the person's behavior and the way they dress have nothing to do with causing a crime against their person. They are simply a victim of choosing poor geography. In the other, their taste in clothing and the way they present themselves to the opposite sex is, in fact, inviting criminal behavior.

You really don't see the difference?

[MNG]

What I called silly is the Slutwalk. What a silly way to protest something.

In both cases a person's behavior (dressing slutty, walking through the park) is said to increase the chances they will be the victim of a crime. No?

[sloopyinca]

I must have misread this statement:

May I submit it is events and mindsets like this that are making the feminist movement lose ground? It's 1. silly 2. stupid ...

Location and style of dress are also a pretty poor comparison. Telling someone to watch where they walk because an area is unsafe at certain hours and telling another person that if they dress a certain way they are more likely to be raped is in no way, shape or form the same. Sorry, but telling someone to modify their style of dress so as not to intice criminal behavior is vastly different from telling someone a park is dangerous after dark.

You are either ignorant or unable to admit your equation is absurd.

[MNG]

"but telling someone to modify their style of dress so as not to intice criminal behavior is vastly different from telling someone a park is dangerous after dark."

You realize that every one of your posts on this issue is just some formulation of this conclusory statement that you find so obvious with nothing else? Whereas I've pointed out what I think the analogies are with a high degree of specificity.

[SIV]

kicking off the bra-burning myth that will never die

The WaPo thinks bra burning at the 1968 Miss America Pageant is a myth?

Some fine newspaper you got there.Is there any internet hoax they won't fall for? Do they deny the Holocaust too?

[MNG]

She must be referring to something else as she explicitly acknowledges that right before:

"More than 40 years after feminists tossed their bras and high heels into a trash can at the 1968 Miss America pageant "

[SIV]

Caution is always good when getting news from right-wingcenter-left establishment media sources.

Lamestream is right. Does the WaPo revive that "most women are beaten/killed during Superbowl" story every year?

[SIV]

Primary source you bra-burning Bitchez:

"As the bras, girdles, falsies, curlers, and copies of popular women's magazines burned in the 'Freedom Trash Can,'" it said, "the demonstration reached the pinnacle of ridicule when the participants paraded a small lamb wearing a gold banner worded 'Miss America.'"

Unsuprisingly, Snopes is wrong

[Slap the Enlightened!]

Leaked U.S. cable lays out North American 'integration' strategy

[John]

Wow. that is rather scandalous. Lets talk about now while we can before MNG fucks up the thread with 25 posts on Andrew Beitbart.

The nuts accuse these people of being transnationalists who don't give a shit about the country and you think it can't be that bad. Well maybe the nuts are right.

[Pilt-down Man]

Shirley Sherrod!

[Shirley Sherrod]

Pilt-down Man !

[Slap the Enlightened!]

Well, perhaps the nuts are owed an apology, at a minimum. I haven't really followed the North American Union conspiracy stories closely enough to have an opinion, either way.

What interests me mostly is that some of the "anti-statists" - that is, open-borders enthusiasts, tend to regard the creation of superstates such as the EU or the NAU as a Good Thing, and disdain nationalists as "statist facists".

That would seem to me to be ass-backwards - a nation is generally defined as an organic entity of people sharing a common culture, ethnicity, language, traditions, etc. The nation exists prior to the state. The state, in that case, is the legitimate political representation of the people of the nation.

The superstates, on the other hand, purport to represent the interests of aggregations of nations and peoples. You can see how well that's working out by the myriad anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action hiring quotas, hate crime laws, etc. those interests have generated (and which are entirely unknown in monocultural countries such as Japan).

That is to say, I consider the "cosmopolitan" conception of the state to be a defective libertarian model, since it invariably results in heavy-handed state intervention to mediate disputes between the contending "nations" within it.

There's a reason that at least 20% of the membership of any nationalist forum I've ever seen describes themselves as "recovering libertarians".

[capitol l]

Were you born a racist piece of shit scumbag, or do you practice at it?

[Slap the Enlightened!]

capitol l, articulating his views...

[Enlightened Cosmopolitans?]

You associate with A3P, but capitol 1 is the angry one. Interesting.

[Slap the Enlightened!]

....and a squirrel, to boot!

[capitol l]

You're a piece of shit, slappy. There ain't no way to fancy the language up without losing something.

[tarran]

The amazing thing about slappy is that he thinks he wins arguments despite the fact he invariably gets his ass handed to him.

He usually links to the squirrel video just before he starts shitting himself by posting links that contradict or fail to back up his arguments.

It's kind of an angry version of Stuart Smalley's mantra that he's good enough and smart enough.

[Slap the Enlightened!]

Presumably, you can link to an example of that. You didn't do so hot the last time.

[tarran]

ROFL

You utter moron! You thought you won that argument?

Good lord... You pitiable, simple-minded creature.

[tarran]

BTW, I encourage everyone to read the thread which Slappy links to.

Watch as he establishes arbitrary criteria for entry into the U.S. which he does not meet!

Thrill as he links to articles that contradict the point he's trying to make!

Pucker your sphincters and tremble as he promotes an organization that counts Steve Smith as one of its members!

[capitol l]

Every minute that you spend arguing with slappy is a minute that he isn't violating barnyard animals.

The sheep thank you.

[heller]

We already know you're a dumb piece of shit, stop reminding us.

[tarran]

Hmm, I wonder which libertarian open-border enthusiasts who support the creation of superstates you are talking about because I have yet to meet one (then again, when you have Eric Dondero, Bill Maher and Wayne Allne Root calling htemselves libertarian, I'm sure you can come up with a few idjits who say anything)

The overwhelming number of open borders libertarians are not fans of superstates, but are fans of the sort of free trade that nominally exists between the states of the Union. In other words, we want to maximize economic integration with the whole world, but minimize political integration.

For anarchists like me, that means we all have our own countries, including you slappy!

Imagine that! You could ban non-whites from your property and nobody would try to stop you. It would be paradise! All you have to do is abandon your collectivist impulse to control others. Let go of the hate and you can start building your own personal paradise.

Join us slappy, and together we can put an end to this destructive conflict.

[Slap the Enlightened!]

Hmm, I wonder which libertarian open-border enthusiasts who support the creation of superstates you are talking about because I have yet to meet one

Try to keep up, would you?

[tarran]

Wow, you found one of the promoters of liberaltarianism! Good for you, Slappy!

[tarran]

Scandalous how?

Reducing tarrifs and rules that restrict trade is a good thing.

They don't really talk about political integration other then something about sharing data for security purposes. Yes that's bad, but U.S. states do that shit all the time, and I don't hear either you or Slappy demanding that the FBI be abolished.

[John]

You haven't been listening. i can't stand the FBI.

[tarran]

True, but you aren't calling for the abolishment of the Federal Govt, so there! Whaddya mean I can't move the goalposts?!?

[P Brooks]

David Brooks is your go-to guy for vapid pointless maundering.

Thought you'd like to know.

[J[o]h[nn]y L[o][n]gt[o]rs[o]]

More CA news:

Amazon Tax Bill Passes [CA] State Assembly

In California, Many Police and Firefighters Get $100,000 Pensions
At least 9,000 public employees earn almost double the median income every year of their retirement

[P Brooks]

The vicious oppression of our noble degreed educators continues apace.

Today, teachers can be suspended, and even fired, for what they write on Facebook.

Just ask Christine Rubino, the New York City math teacher who may soon be dismissed for posting angry messages about her students. Last June, just before summer vacation began, a Harlem schoolgirl drowned during a field trip to a beach. Ms. Rubino had nothing to do with that incident, but the following afternoon, she typed a quick note on Facebook about a particularly rowdy group of Brooklyn fifth graders in her charge.

"After today, I'm thinking the beach is a good trip for my class," she wrote. "I hate their guts."

One of Ms. Rubino's Facebook friends then asked, "Wouldn't you throw a life jacket to little Kwami?"

"No, I wouldn't for a million dollars," Ms. Rubino replied. She was pulled from the classroom in February and faced termination hearings; the case is now with an arbitrator.

I realize this is a silly question, but if this stupid cunt hates her students (and by extension, her job), why has she called upon the collectivized might of the union to force the school to keep her on?

Seriously, what in the fuck leads these people to believe they should be guaranteed employment for life, no matter how much they suck at it, or might benefit from getting into another line of work, like being a forklift operator?

[John]

She needs a paycheck. And if her students are typical of children in New York City, if you had her students you would probably hate them to.

[sloopyinca]

Actually, I think this is what her union should actually be used for if there is no clause in her contract the forbids her to post on her own facebook page.

Making an offhand comment to friends after having a bad day should never be cause for termination unless it is part of one's contract. Unless her performance can be called into question, I think she should win this.

The unions protect shitbag teachers every day that shouldn't be anywhere near a classroom or a job. NYC alone has thousands of them on the payroll that can't even be allowed in a classroom because of convictions. There is a big difference in that and this case, IMHO.

[P Brooks]

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, state legislatures are moving to restrict or eliminate teachers' collective bargaining rights. That means unions will have a more difficult time defending teachers' freedom of speech.

Bummer.

Especially if "freedom of speech" means openly demonstrating their complete lack of interest in doing their jobs well.

[P Brooks]

She needs a paycheck.

Good for her. She can suck cocks on streetcorners to pay her rent.

[P Brooks]

Who will speak for the downtrodden?

Corporations aren't hurting. They're hoarding.

Republicans have taken an untenable position on taxation that threatens to not only undermine the country's credit worthiness and push us to the brink of default, it is antithetical to the health and sustenance of a just and striving society.

The full stealing from the plates of the starving simply isn't an American ideal.

If only we knew how those evul kkkorporations got all those corporate loopholes, shelters and special tax breaks. If we only knew how those evil banksters managed to keep from losing money in the last two years.

If only...

[Tncm]

Corporations aren't hurting. They're hoarding.

What does this even mean? Are the evil capitalists putting money in plastic bins and hiding them under their beds?

Republicans have taken an untenable position on taxation that threatens to not only undermine the country's credit worthiness

As opposed to reckless deficit spending which is funded by printing dollars and taking on debt. That actually helps our credit rating.

and push us to the brink of default

Doesn't the federal government get something in the area of two hundred billion dollars of tax revenue every month? We could just, you know, use that to pay the debt.

it is antithetical to the health and sustenance of a just and striving society.

I take your one talking point and raise you a bland platitude!

The full stealing from the plates of the starving simply isn't an American ideal.

Plain old poor writing. If people are starving doesn't that mean by definition that they don't have any food? So if that's true, what's there for Warren Buffet to steal off their plates to begin with?

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Blaming the kulak hoarders and wreckers for all of society's ills will never go out of style, it seems.

[P Brooks]

Excellent fearmongering from CNN, with bonus call for "standardization" of pharmacies. Get Waxman on it!

Unlike banks, though, most pharmacies do not have the high-tech security or armed guards to prevent robberies.

"They want to be known as the neighborhood pharmacy where you know your pharmacist," Conklin said. "They don't want to have to buzz customers in or talk to them through bulletproof glass."

For criminals addicted to powerful narcotics, Conklin said, even small-town drugstores can offer a supply of high-grade painkillers.

"There is the myth that pharmaceutical drugs are safer," Conklin said. "But these are drugs you are supposed to be taking under a doctor's supervision."

For many robbers, holding up pharmacies has also become a lucrative business. OxyContin, the popular painkiller, can be stolen and resold for a dollar a milligram, said Detective Mike Magan of the Seattle Police Department.

A bottle of 60 80-milligram pills could bring in close to $5,000.

Factoring in the money made reselling the drugs, Magan said, pharmacy thieves in Seattle are stealing as much as bank robbers.

"Some of the bank robbers have now actually stopped robbing banks and cut out the middle men and gone directly to the source," he said. "And that's robbing the pharmacy."

Magan said hunting down the robbers is complicated by the fact that many pharmacies do not have sophisticated cameras placed where they can photograph the robbers' faces.

"They are easy targets," he said. "There needs to be some of kind of standardization: ... better counters, the drugs more secured. Some of the pharmacies have taken substantial steps in doing that, and it's deterred robberies."

[sloopyinca]

"There needs to be some of kind of standardization: ... better counters, the drugs more secured. Some of the pharmacies have taken substantial steps in doing that, and it's deterred robberies."

So, pharmacies have made themselves safer without government regulation, and that is a reason why we need government regulation? Got it.

[Mr. Chartreuse]

Good for them (property rights being a big theme here)

Sheriff's deputies, movers, and the Nyergers' attorney went to the bank and foreclosed on it. The attorney gave instructions to to remove desks, computers, copiers, filing cabinets and any cash in the teller's drawers.

After about an hour of being locked out of the bank, the bank manager handed the attorney a check for the legal fees.

purpose for check: Deputies are taking our shit!

[Conservatives4DeMint]

Please help draft Sen. Jim DeMint for President on Facebook: search Conservatives for Jim DeMint

[SIV]

I don't think clicking on facebook would convince the second-most libertarian US Senator to run for President.

[??]

Remember, you need 270 friends to be elected president.

[Almanian]

Can they be from Scotland and Australia?

[Pro Libertate]

Only if they're in AC/DC.

[WotZoo]

OK, should be very interesting to see how thats all gonna turn out. Amazing.

http://www.hide-your-ip.at.tc

[Almanian]

John and Minge, get a fucking room.

I just came here to say, Fuck California.

That is all.

[rather]

There can be only one Elizabeth Taylor and epi Burton!

[heller]

Shorter version of this thread:

Token Liberal: Token Conservative is dumb!

Token Conservative: Token Liberal is stupid!

Repeat 300 times.

Repeat

[WotZoo]

Should be interesting to see how that turns out.

http://www.hide-your-ip.at.tc

[califronian]

If the state won't let a city go bankrupt,and the city can't afford the bills, what happens?

[Nike Dunk High]

Greetings Now i'm for that reason happy I stubled onto any site,Nike Dunk High Prefer came across you will just by error, at the same time Document was first Nike Dunk 2008 Gold Black browsing relating to Bing just for something.

[Nike Dunk High]

thanks