Occupy Wall Street

Rajaratnam and the "No One Has Gone to Prison" Myth


Raj Rajaratnam has health problems? How is that possible?

If there's one thing I know from listening to the Occupiers, the Oscar®-winning documentarians, the rageaholic Rolling Stone writers and other expert economists, it's that no Wall Street criminals ever go to jail.

Except when they do. 

Yesterday's sentencing of Galleon Group hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam set a punishment record – 11 years – for the dubiously defined crime of "insider trading." The investigation of Rajaratnam also set historical landmarks in terms of the length and expense of the investigation and the first-ever use of wiretap evidence in an insider trading case. Prosecutors were seeking an even bigger takedown of 19 to 24 years, but Rajaratnam's health concerns and history of charitable giving supposedly worked in his favor. 

Rajaratnam was a generous giver to Democratic and liberal causes, and media critics have pointed to this to imply that the case has been given less or different attention than it would have been had the defendant been a Republican. I think the mainstream media coverage has been pretty straightforward, and neither the investigation (which began under the Bush Justice Department) nor the prosecution (which began and concluded under the Obama Justice Department) show any signs of politicization. 

I worry more about the broad and nebulous state prerogatives created by the novel category of insider trading – a crime that was already prosecutable as fraud before Rudy Giuliani's career-making campaign against it in the 1980s – than I worry about losing money to a better-informed investor.  But at least Rajaratnam was actually convicted for the actual crime, unlike Martha Stewart, who fell into the perjury trap during a prosecutorial fishing trip. Billionaire currency trader George Soros has been unsuccessful in getting his ten-year-old insider trading conviction expunged. 

The idea that Wall Street criminals are getting away with a criminal conspiracy against the American people is a popular one. Nobody ever asks how the seemingly victimized American people managed to make so much of Wall Street's money disappear through their own deadbeat behavior. But the claim that nobody gets convicted of financial crimes is a lie.

NEXT: Conrad Murray Open Thread

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. 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. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s make a big deal of it!

    1. Premise Five:

      The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control?in everyday language, to make money?by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production.

      If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.

      ~Derrick Jensen

      1. This http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/ is probably going to suck

        1. The link certainly does.

          1. It works if you copy and paste – or click on this: Ender’s Game.

            1. I don’t know.. OSC was looking for producers for this for a while.. I think he was holding out for someone that didn’t want to buttfuck the storyline for cheesy graphics.

              1. The only way to tastefully do sci-fi is with a butt-ton of money and a great director (ex: Inception). Anything less and you’ll end up with Transformers.

                1. Has anyone told you (lately) that you’re full of shit?

      2. Men, you are about to embark on a great crusade to stamp out runaway decency in the west. Now you men will only be risking your lives, whilst I will be risking an almost certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Blog Commentator.

  2. …no Wall Street criminals ever go to jail.

    Well, they’re really looking for white fat cats.

    1. White Republican fatcats, FoE. Swarthy Democrats can’t be exploited by the Right People to make the Right Point about Wall Street greed this way.

      1. When was the last White Republican Wall Street Fatcat spotted? Sightings of Steve Smith are more common.

    2. These are not the rich class enemeies you’re looking for.

      1. Bees… char… yacht… uh… kitch… brass… Jen Amy’s… more… cooking… chore.


  3. Rajaratnam? Damn those Zionist Jewish bankers!!!!

    1. Oh, so if he’s not a Muslim he gets a pass? Well that’s called profiling, Mother, and I won’t stand for it.

      1. Uh, phrasing?

  4. “dubiously defined crime of ‘insider trading'”? There might be borderline cases of insider trading but this isn’t one of them. Rajnaratnam was bribing insiders and investing based on the information that they provided. He was not Martha Stewart.

    A prosecution for bribery and insider trading aren’t like the crimes that Wall Street will never be prosecuted for: lying to Congress, accounting fraud, mortgage fraud, etc.

    Fuld and Rajnaratnam didn’t commit the same crimes but that doesn’t mean that Fuld isn’t guilty of anything.

    1. I read too fast, and for a second I thought you said “bribery and insider trading are crimes Congress will never be prosecuted for.”

      It was better that way, I think.

      1. Truer, too, since the insider trading law doesn’t apply to congress, and you have to damn near get caught with bags of money hidden in your freezer to go to jail for bribery as a congressman.

    2. Actual fraud is completely different from making good investment decisions based on information. How do you “bribe” someone who is free to provide information or not on their own terms (aside from non disclosure).

  5. Michael Milken says Hi.

  6. “No Wall Street criminals ever go to jail.

    Except when they do.”

    Sam Waksal
    Charles Keating
    Michael Milkin
    Richard Scrushy
    Dennis Kozlowski
    Joseph Nacchio
    Ivan Boesky
    Jeffrey Skilling
    Lee Farkas
    Bernie Madoff
    James Margulies
    Deborah D’Anna

    And that’s just off the top of my head!

    1. Men, you are about to embark on a great crusade to stamp out runaway decency in the west. Now you men will only be risking your lives, whilst I will be risking an almost certain Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Blog Commentator.

      1. I believe that was a list of Wall Street people/CEOs who’ve actually gone to jail.

        There are hundreds of others who never get into the news.

        Now, you want to talk about a group of people who are basically unaccountable and hardly ever end up in jail?

        Yeah, I think you’re on the right track there–look at government officials and politicians! I can think of a lot more Wall Street people doing the perp walk than politicians.

        If I’m not mistaken, every single person involved in the Whitewater deal went to prison except for the lawyer who put it together and one investor.

        The lawyer was Hillary Clinton, and the investor was her husband, the governor! Somehow a bunch of taxpayer money the government meant to bail out widows and orphans who had their savings in Madison Guaranty ended up in Slick Willy’s campaign fund!

        He didn’t know how it got there! How could he know? He just worked there.

        I’m tryin’ to remember the last time some politician went to jail–probably that Bell guy Cavanaugh covered. Then there was somebody that got busted for wavin’ at the guy in the stall next to him. Other than that?

        You’ll see someone admonished every once in a while by the ethics committee, but the world would be a better place if a congressman or congresswoman went to jail every once in a while, you know?

        Maybe I’m missing some biggies here–when’s the last time a major politician or bureaucrat went to jail? We should compare that to how many Wall Street/CEOs went to jail in recent years and see who comes out ahead.

        1. Bill Jefferson
          Duke Cunningham
          James Traficant
          The governor of AL went to jail with Scrushy and got out on appeal IIRC. There was also a big federal case there with state legislators that was hung recently.
          Every governor of LA
          Tom Delay was convicted but I think he’s out on bail until his appeal.

          That’s off the top of my head. I’m going to drink more beer and see if I can think of any more.

          1. Every other governor of Illinois. Ryan, Blagojavich.

            1. Ryan and Blagojevich were consecutive. As far as I know neither Jim Thompson nor Jim Edgar were even accused of any crime.

              As to “every LA Gov.”? Can you name any other Governor charged with a crime other than Edwin Edwards. As far as I know Jimmie Davis, McKeithen, Dave Treen, Buddy Roemer and Mike Foster have never been charged with anything.

            2. Mel Reynolds

          2. Guiliani’s buddy with the mustache

              1. ^The win is strong with squisha.

          3. a bunch of political appointees and staffers connected to Abramoff

          4. “Every governor of LA”

            from what ive heard from my parents this is highly true. i was born in 89 but ive always heard stories about some governor who ran his campaign from prison and won

        2. Here in the Bronx:
          Mario Biaggi (illegal gratuity)
          Guy Velella (influence in contracts)
          the DA appointed by Cuomo after the dead Mario Merola got re-elected
          one of the Diazs I think

          Besides Biaggi, anybody remember who else they got to go to jail from Abscam?

          1. Well alrighty then!

            Looks like the cognitive bias cuts both ways. Maybe we tend to only remember the people we think should have gone to jail but didn’t–and tend to forget when things go exactly the way they should.

            Meanwhile, I still think being an extremely wealthy person who works on Wall Street is one of the very last demographics you want to be a member of when facing criminal charges…

            Works on Wall Street? Oh yeah, he belongs in jail.

            1. True. But to be fair, I think Youngstown or Chicago-based politicians should immediately be under investigation for some sort of corruption or impropriety.

              1. Yeah, with those guys? The presumption of innocence is more like the suspension of disbelief.

      2. RSI, I look forward to hearing that Obama has been charged with malfesence of office and impeached.

        1. I predict you’ll be eternally staring off into the distance – a thousand yard stare.

  7. Insider trading is like mail fraud. Its the crime you’ve committed when they can’t find another crime to charge you with.

  8. OT, but, nothing here yet?
    “The Obama administration Friday pulled the plug on a major program in the president’s signature health overhaul law ? a long-term care insurance plan dogged from the beginning by doubts over its financial solvency.”
    C’mon guys and gals, let’s pick it up!

      1. You beat me to it.

          1. Sevo with the reverse hat tip.

  9. history of charitable giving supposedly worked in his favor. Rajaratnam was a generous giver to Democratic and liberal causes

    A veritable modern-day Robin Hood, then.

    1. He looks more like Friar Tuck

  10. I work for a telecom. I am an hourly worker.

    If my sister asks me, “What are you doing this day, brother”?

    “We are busy. I setting up new serving areas and ordering a lot of numbers.”

    This is insider trading.

  11. And this true. We’ve lectured about this.

  12. Rajaratnam was a generous giver to Democratic and liberal causes,

    Hm. Apparently not generous enough.

    1. Well, it sure helped him get a light sentence.

      I bet the Occupiers have no problem with him at all. Especially as he doesn’t appear to be a Zionist Jew.

  13. Replying my comment at 10.14.11 @ 11:58PM

  14. TIMMEH! Why do you hate the 99%?

    /#OMG #OWS derp hurrdurrhurr

  15. Does this look like a white dude to you?


    Well, that is how he is listed.


    Funny, his brother is listed correctly in the entry just before his entry. There are dozens incorrectly listed. It wouldn’t be a big deal but these county reports are the basis for criminology stats. Due to cop clerical errors there exist a vast under reporting of Polynesian murderers in America!

    1. …there exist[s] a vast under reporting of Polynesian murderers in America!

      Straight outta Tahiti, crazy motherfucka named Alie’iti…

  16. Totally conjugal visitable!


  17. No one has gone to prison

    There are several civil suits pending against the banks by private investors and insurance companies.

    I’m not as concerned about these precious CEOs going to prison as I am about these banks being sued into insolvency.

    Oh, wait…..

  18. Nobody ever asks how the seemingly victimized American people managed to make so much of Wall Street’s money disappear

    Wall Street’s money

    Only in Reason could someone write that little bit of sociopathy and not get called-out on it right away.

    1. He’s using synecdoche, and what do you think a loan is, exactly?

      1. He’s using synecdoche

        Personally, I really don’t care what type of douche Cavanaugh is using.

        1. Well, the only brand I can think of is Summer’s Eve.

          1. I swear I thought that said “sunnydouche” when I first looked at it.

            1. Sounds like a Japanese brand.

              1. “You’ll smell as fresh as an octopus’s tentacle.”

              2. Nothing beats radioactivity for freshness and afterglow.

      2. I’m reminded of the Simpsons takeoff on It’s a Wonderful Life when Bart starts a whispering campaign about a run on the local bank. The Jimmy Stewart-like banker, as in the classic film, tells all the customers that the money is in John’s house, Fred’s business, and the like.

        In the Simpsons’ parody, the customers start fighting each other, telling them to give their money back.

      3. He’s using synecdoche

        You sure about that?

        1. Yeah. Obviously. I mean, Wall Street is not one entity except in the abstract and he’s not saying the asphalt has money.

          1. Ah, I get it. But how does “it’s synedoche” act as an argument against Todd S.’s point?

            1. Well, he’s actually talking about the loans and credit cards that the Wall Street banks were “forced” to give away to any dingbat with a pulse – the ones where the bankers were given huge rewards for – during the 90’s.

              1. What is Todd S.’s point?

                1. Well, you gave the appearance of knowing when you replied to it. I think he was merely pointing out that the use of the possessive implies that Wall Street owned the money, and he was criticizing that assumption.

    2. I bet you are an insufferable prick at thanksgiving.

      Oh and drink.

  19. If the Occupiers got their way, there’d be no one left to donate to Democrats.

  20. Your friend tells you about a hot new product they’re working on that hasn’t been announced yet. You then buy their stock.

    Regardless of whether you offer some incentive for your friend to tell you, where’s the criminality? Where’s the tangible involuntary harm of damage to body or property?

    If the company wants to take action (like fire the employee) or the stock exchange wants to penalize them, that’s fine. Everything is between the share holders, the company, the exchange. It should remain in the civil courts and be treated like a contractual dispute.

    1. But it’s not faaaaaaiiiiiiiirrrrrrrr

  21. Threadjack.

    White House: US advisers to aid fight against infamous Lord’s Resistance Army

    The United States is venturing into one of Africa’s bloodiest conflicts, sending about 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to support a years-long fight against a guerrilla group accused of horrific atrocities.

    The Obama administration said the troops will advise, not engage in combat, unless forced to defend themselves.

    War #4. Kiss the Peace Prize, bitches!

    1. It’s a good thing that ‘military advisors’ historically ends up being ‘mandatory service’ and ’10 years in a fucking endless/unwinnable war’, or else I’d worry that we’re setting ourselves up for another occupation.

      1. Joseph Kony is Barack’s Slobodan Milosevic. He poses no military threat to the US, he’s in a place most Americans can’t find on a map, and he does bad stuff to people. He wants a nice, clean little war to bump up his ratings and probably hopes it turns out more like Kosovo than Vietnam.

        1. curious if their oil debates have anything to do with it.

  22. News from the Euro Death March.
    TIMMEH tells eurocrats that they won’t get a bailout from the US [YET!].
    The Hun and Frog are going to present a totally double-good plan on the 23rd. The problem is that the German’s plan is for each country to bailout their own banks and the French plan is for everyone, as United Eurowienees, to stand together in bailing out the French banks.
    ~also Greece is hosed~

    I’m wondering how los Occupados are going to react in three or four weeks, as the Eurozone implodes and we find out how exposed the US banks are to that whirlpool of debt, when BarryO goes to beg Congress for another trillion in bailouts [or the Galactic economy will crash]? I’m sure they, like the Tea Baggers, will react with calm – even sheep like – acquiescence.

    1. It will involve plans to recapitalize banks, make Greek’s debt mountain more sustainable and ramp up the firepower of the bloc’s rescue fund.

      With all due respect, what does any of this even mean?

      1. I could explain it to you, but it’s easier to just say “Lie, lie, lie.” Sort of like Joe Biden encouraging us to buy US Savings Bonds. http://www.savingsbonds.gov/

        Or shorter: buy ammo, gold and canned goods [BEER].

      2. It means the EU has to come up with a couple trillion euros to give to European banks & to fund the EFSF (the rescue fund.) Greek bondholders will get a haircut of ~39% to 50% (after euro inflation it will probably be more like ~75%.) The problem, of course, is no one has this money to give.


    2. I find it amazing that while all of this is happening in Europe, the American left is still insisting that the only thing to do is to imitate European style socialism-lite. Crazy.

      1. You ought not say that out loud, because the inevitable response is “what we need here in America is MORE socialism than they had in Europe” not realizing that not only has that been tried and shown to fail miserably, but it killed tens of millions in the process.

        The utter lack of historical perspective on the left is strong. And even if they do acknowledge the atrocity that is socialism, it’s always justified because apparently it wasn’t the Right People? running the show.

    3. When they come a knockin’, just remember:

      “The American banks are well capitalized.”

      “The fundamentals are strong.”

      “American banks do not have much exposure to the EU debt crisis.”

      “The assets have been sanitized.”

      “The bond market is not in a bubble.”

      “It’s not a trader’s market.”

      “There are some good buys out there.”

  23. How will the collapse of the Euro affect the Ascended One’s plans to magically double American exports in the next few years?


    When will Eric Holder’s minions start tapping the phones of Congressmen and Senators? I knew a guy, a long time ago, who was a Congressional page in the sixties. At the time, he said, he received “investment advice” from Representatives all the time. He’s quite wealthy.

    1. See, that’s the kind of shit that should piss people off, but noooo, these poop-stains want to give the government more power.


    2. What would be the point? It’s legal for them.

    3. How will the collapse of the Euro affect the Ascended One’s plans to magically double American exports in the next few years?

      The left is apparently incapable of figuring out that economics is not a zero-sum game, but politics is. If anything, they’ve convinced themselves of exactly the opposite. The idea that allowing imports to compete can make us rich is inconceivable to them.

  24. Bloody reboots of your favorite pop culture icons.

    1. ‘Scumby’ for the win.

    2. My buddy in high school had a scumby tshirt (I’m class of 1992). It was a bit more refined that that pic, though. I do like how he’s pissing blood on a baby.

      1. It’s logical that Gumby would have a square penis, but I never would have thought about it being so before.

        I guess that’s what art is: creative expression that opens up new avenues of thought in the observer.

        1. Dr. Whoxtable…yes…

          This is good stuff.

          1. I knew someone here would like that one, so I picked Scumby.

    1. I had no problem with anything Asham did – and I am neither a Pens or Caps fan, just a hockey fan.

  25. The Rolling Stone article linked to as evidence that people are claiming that no Wall Street criminals ever go to prison does not claim that no Wall Street criminals ever go to prison. It is clearly focused on the crisis surrounding the financial meltdown and on the destruction of evidence by the SEC and on problems in the SEC related to prosecution of these sorts of cases.

    It seems like a problem worth discussing, but I guess it’s just easier to claim that those on the other side of the issue are just blind and irrational. With another straw man dead, we can all go home with our prejudices intact. Thanks again, Tim, for keeping all our synapses factory-fresh.

    1. Oh please. Those assholes want anyone with a suit that works in the area to be rounded up and sent to a death camp. That’s their gripe. The only problem is that once they do that and their policies are still keeping a shitload of people in poverty, who will they blame then?

      1. Wow, you’ve really found your way deep into the labyrinth, haven’t you? Death camps? Poverty? All I said was that the SEC’s destruction of records is an issue worth discussing and that the Rolling Stone author didn’t claim that no Wall Street criminal has ever gone to prison. I’d say more against your strange response, but I suspect you might have clicked on the wrong “reply to this”.

        I will add to my previous post: I think that a post like Tim’s does a disservice to our discourse because it just adds fuel to the notion that the other side doesn’t care about what’s true. Yes, you might be able to find a few people out there who take the extreme (and untrue) position that no one on Wall Street ever served time, but that isn’t a fair representation of what is a much more prevalent notion: that the prosecution of Wall Street crimes has not been as aggressive as it should be. That’s what we should be discussing. But Tim chose to take the easy route and attack the straw man position. The post is not an attempt to clarify an issue or to offer insight, but rather to portray as wildly irrational those people who think about these issues differently.

        1. that isn’t a fair representation of what is a much more prevalent notion: that the prosecution of Wall Street crimes has not been as aggressive as it should be

          When every leftist figure stops saying, “No one from Wall Street has gone to jail” or variations on that wording in all their speeches and instead says, “the prosecution of Wall Street crimes has not been as aggressive as it should be” come back to us and ask Tim to update his post.

          I get emails from Bernie Sanders and the guys at Moveon.org saying “No one on Wall Street has gone to jail” a couple of times a week. Get them to stop and then get back to me.

          1. You didn’t bother to address the point that the example Tim brings forth is not a case in point. So he’s left with a band and a documentary, the latter focused on a specific event, not the history of Wall Street generally.

            I think that we have to take the “no one has gone to jail” meme in context. The obvious reference is to the financial meltdown in particular.

        2. I was just giving you some real strawmen. Tim is responding to assertions that people actually make. Maybe he should be the one replying here, but perhaps what the RS writer is getting at is that The Right People have not swung from ropes yet. When someone we’ve never heard of goes to jail it’s no biggie. We want a Soros or a Koch to do a perp walk and spend life in an 8 X 10.

          1. He may be responding to assertions that some people actually make, but the Rolling Stone article he cites in support isn’t an example.

        3. that the prosecution of Wall Street crimes has not been as aggressive as it should be. That’s what we should be discussing.

          The fact is, Obama had the opportunity to liquidate the TBTF, and to appoint a bulldog like Bill Black to go after the banksters in a meaningful way. But, he didn’t. Instead, he made Timmmmmaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy SoT who was in charge of the NY Fed, and the ultimate regulator of the banks during the time leading up to the crisis. There is no reason to discuss the SEC. We all know they fucked up, and have been fucking up. They are a “captured” regulatory agency. Besides, they are federal employees and can not be held accountable by any meaningful standards. The Fed needs its feet held to the fire, along with Geithner.

          So, what do you want to discuss? What the next, upcoming failure of this administration will be? We both know nobody in this administration has the balls to do what is necessary. But don’t you worry, Obama is “behind” the occupiers. He’s behind them, alright. Maybe he could, at least, use a little lube or give them a reach-around, or something.

          1. I thank you for actually responding to the substance of my post, sort of. Still, I contend that the claim that the SEC is destroying documents is worth discussing/verifying and that this is a problem distinct from the claim that no one from Wall Street has ever gone to jail, and that Tim conflates the two by citing the Rolling Stone article as an example of the latter.

      2. The only problem is that once they do that and their policies are still keeping a shitload of people in poverty, who will they blame then?

        The Joooos!!!!

    2. I took a shit on the Floor once.

      1. Don’t think that you are going to distract me from the issue with your inane comm…oh, wait! Why you…you…ragamuffin!

        Have a good day, Sandi. Try and get some outside time.

        1. Oh ho ho, Sandi gets plenty of outside time; all over the world, in fact.

          1. Too cryptic for me, L. I’d ask you what you mean (does he mean there’s shit everywhere? is it a play on the “sand” in “Sandi”? does he know who Sandi is?) but I’ve gotta get on with things. I admit that I really don’t get the Internet.


            1. Sandi|7.26.11 @ 1:47PM|#
              I took a shit in San Francisco once, but not in a outside doorway like the locals do.

              Sandi|9.24.09 @ 3:29PM|#
              I took a shit in Iran once.

              Sandi|8.4.09 @ 3:09PM|#
              I took a shit in New Babylonia once.

              Brandi|7.15.09 @ 4:03PM|#
              I took a shit in SW GA once.

              Don’t know who ‘Brandi’ is. Maybe Sandi’s sister?

              Sandi|8.7.09 @ 11:37AM|#
              I took a shit in the capital once.

              Sandi|3.3.11 @ 10:20AM|#
              At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I took a shit in Ohio once.

              etc, etc…

              1. I took a shit in my pants, once.

            2. No one really does. We all just pretend to. It is a weird chaos that some how manages to organize itself. Best to just roll with it.

  26. They don’t call him “Special Ed” for nothing.

    Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s the Ed Show, believes that Republican presidential contender Herman Cain is pandering to “white Republicans out there who don’t like black folks” and accused Sen. Jim Demint, R-S.C., of using racist langauge in his opposition to Obamacare.

    On his show last night, Schultz said that Demint, whom Cain has mentioned as a potential running mate, repeated an “old southern racist term when talking about defeating President Obama during the health care debate.” Schultz’s example? He quoted Demint saying that “If we are able to stop Obama on this [health care law], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” For clarity, Schultz repeated the offending line, “It will break him.”


    Love the stupid. Feel the stupid. Be the stupid.

    1. I’m not a Herman Cain fan, but I’d like to see him get the nomination for the lulz alone.

      1. I don’t like Perry ’cause he seems like a Dubya retread.

        I don’t like Romney because he worked so hard to beat Obama in the race to enact ObamaCare first.

        I recently watched a video of Cain standing up to oppose Bill Clinton, when Bill Clinton was trying to impose HillaryCare. …back when Cain was CEO of the Godfather’s.


        Watch that video! Watch what Clinton says back to him. Watch his response to Clinton. I love this guy!

        I’m tryin’ to think of what I don’t like about this guy. …and if he’s clearly against ObamaCare–and has been demonstrably since 1994–and he’s not a Dubya retread? Then I’m not sure there’s anything major to dislike about this guy!

        The other day, I heard him say that unemployed people shouldn’t blame the government if they’re unemployed–they should blame themselves!

        I had to sit on my hands for fear I might go to my computer and send him some money for that!

        1. Here’s the clip!


          “Don’t blame Wall Street. Don’t blame the big banks. If you don’t have a job, and you’re not rich–blame yourself!”

          —-Herman Cain, October 6, 2011

          Makes me want to forget everything I ever said about principled non-voting.

          If we gotta have somebody in the White House? Please, God, let it be this guy!

          1. It does sound good, and I admire the guy for telling it like it is, but I’m way too jaded anymore to get excited over any politician and his words.

        2. He was the head of a Federal Reserve Bank which is at least something to think about. He also is a full on socon retard on social issues.

          Still, beyond the two libertarian candidates hes definitely the best.

        3. Romney or Perry would be just Bush and Obama continued yet again.

          Cain at least has shown that he can run a business.

          1. I love the part in the confrontation with Clinton, where Clinton tells him that his costs should only go up by 2.5% of his gross–and Cain counters that his profit margin is only about 1.5%!

            Talk about a president who doesn’t understand shit. “Why can’t you just raise your prices?”, Clinton says.

            “Why are you trying to drive everybody except for the big players out of business?”, Cain replies.

            Is there another candidate that understands what running a business is like so well? This is the stuff I’m always trying to explain to people! Obama, Perry…maybe all the rest? They’re gonna save the economy for us businessmen–but they don’t understand the first thing about running a business.

            Why should we have to explain to policy makers why pushing us into the red might be a bad idea? I’ve had this conversation with local city people, state agencies, people from federal agencies! “Well, just pass the costs on to your customers!”

            Actually, you can price your customers right out of the market! Turns out, people can live without Pizza. I’ve seen ’em do it–why should somebody have to explain that to the President of the United States?

            I have doubts about whether Obama could manage a Pizza Hut successfully–and I mean a single franchise. I stack stuff like that–even in the other candidates–against whether Cain believes in this or that on some morality issue?

            And it just doesn’t bother me that much. I’m not saying he’s a libertarian–but we’re starvin’ for the lack of basic competence here! I’ll take common sense over anything else we see on offer right now.

            And I think Cain’s got that. It’s just kinda weird that the one guy that I think really has common sense–is seen as kinda eccentric.

            Wow, you think unemployed people should take whatever job they can find? That seems crazy to people! It’s the ideologues who have no freakin’ idea what they’re talkin’ about–they’re the ones everybody’s comfortable with.

            1. It’s because the ideologues became “successful” ideologues through the study of rhetoric, whereas guys like Cain and Johnson were too busy becoming successful in their chosen fields of business to worry about engaging in the study of how to persuade people to buy in to BS ideologies. Rhetoric is part and parcel with politics because it’s the only way politicians can get people to swallow the shit they’re selling.

              Guys like Obama and Perry have had to learn to swindle people; guys like Cain and Johnson were too busy trying to figure out ways to ACTUALLY come up with a product or service that will be useful to their customers.

              1. It gets back to that weird idea the voters have…about politicians being more responsive to people than businesses are.

                You want to talk about somebody who’s really concerned about me and my problems? Let’s talk about the grocery store down the street, and the deli/pizza place on the corner. That guy delivers pizza while I’m watching football!

                Those people stay up all night tryin’ to think up new and better ways to solve my problems. I don’t care about some damn politician who’s never had a job*–they don’t give a crap about me or my problems! …not even if I’m campin’ on Wall Street.

                That’s my whole mission when I approach new projects. My edge is that I’m good at figuring out what’s in other people’s best interest–and then I try to sell them on letting me help them do that! I use logic and persuasion, my track record, my reputation and my references…

                If we reject a front-runner that has all that stuff–for some PR machine that doesn’t? Then we deserve what we get.

                *Has Obama ever had a job? You know, one with, like, real customers?

            2. What really worries me is that the field of candidates consists, time and again, of career politicians who managed to make a political career despite having no clue and being nutjobs. The kind of people you wouldn’t hire to babysit your kids. Seems that having no clue and being a nutjob are essential requirements to become elected.

            3. There’s the classic story of George McGovern retiring to run a bed and breakfast and later admitting that he had no idea how difficult it was to run a business.

        4. I apologize to Texas in advance, but after LBJ and W, please, no more Presidents from your state. It’s a lovely state, a spacious state, and a relatively business-friendly state, but you’ve dropped a couple of serious turds in the punch bowl.

          1. Uh, Ron Paul anyone? Last I checked, he’s from Texas.

            1. Point taken. Second apology offered.

              Ron Paul 2012.

            2. It applies to him, too.

              1. Well, I’d forgive Texas if Ron Paul got into the Oval Office. Probably not otherwise, though.

        5. I didnt sit on my hands. I sent a hundred bucks.

    2. I read that one yesterday and it filled me with the good old ultrarage.

      In order to read that quote and believe that it’s not a military reference to a line breaking in battle (especially given the proximity of the Waterloo part of the quote) you have to be retarded, impossibly self-absorbed, or dishonest.

      I have to assume that this pseudoprofessor is all three.

  27. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar…..e-personal

    The solicitor general’s emails to the White House on a government e-mail system are deemed “person”. Yeah, we are ruled by a bunch of corrupt petty thugs.

    1. Haven’t these fucking people heard of gmail or yahoo or hotmail or outlook or whatever?

      Isn’t the expectation of privacy for a govt email the same as for a corporate one, i.e. none?

      Aaaaand, how the fuck is a govt employee’s email sent to another govt employee regarding govt business using the govt email system “personal”?


      Yeah, let’s give these cum-dumpsters more fucking power.

    2. The solicitor general’s emails to the White House on a government e-mail system are deemed “person”.

      Unbelievable. Emails have a right to life but fetuses don’t?

      1. Someone could mention how nice the weather is today and you’d come back with an answer about the injustice of abortion. And, no, fetuses don’t have a right to life. They exist at the discretion of their host.

    3. Remember when the socialists claimed that Palin’s personal emails while governor should not be private because she may have incidentally mentioned government business in them?

      1. Yeah. Kind of like when the same people who claimed the military tribunals were wrong but were perfectly okay with Obama assassinating an American citizen.

        1. Name one liberal opinion-holder who has ever made this claim.

          1. Name one liberal opinion-holder who has ever made this claim.

            Obama himself.

            1. PWND

    4. They must be hiding some seriously juicy stuff if they’re going through this charade. If there weren’t smoking guns in those emails they would just release it and let the story lose steam over a year in advance of the elections.

      Either that or this is an elaborate diversion from some other story, but I don’t think they’re that clever.

  28. Speaking of dishonest rhetoric:

    Meanwhile, Williams said, wealthier Americans would get a tax cut.

    “On the top end, 9% is a lot better deal than what people at the top end are paying,” he said, adding that the Urban Institute estimates that those who make more than $1 million pay 18% in personal income taxes.

    “Going to 9% is going to save them half; that’s a nice savings,” Williams said. “That’s the income tax side: The rich will pay less; the poor will pay more.”

    I am not a fan of Cain’s tax program, but completely ignoring the effect of the sales tax on the overall effective tax rate of “teh RICHIE RICHES” of the world is pretty underhanded.

    1. They also never mention that it would get rid of the SS and medicare taxes, which is an effective 15+% tax on everyone’s income under 100K.

  29. Occupy Pittsburgh has begun.

    Great, between the tea fuckers, the dead baby fuckers, and the stoopid goddamn president coming to speak to empty fucking rooms you won’t be able to get around this backwards ass fucking city.

    1. The second Obama photo has to be from an invitation only event or something. There are easily enough people in Pittsburgh who would walk barefoot over broken glass to see him to fill that room.

      Hell, the other day I was accused of being unpatriotic for saying I didn’t want to go see him during his visit to the natural gas car conversion place in the Strip District a few weeks ago.

    2. Pittsburgh is awesome. Like it or not, you are stuck with that fact.

      If you don’t believe it, try living in Philly.

  30. Did it just get colder in here?

    At a recent fundraiser for President Obama’s re-election campaign in Providence, Rhode Island, the first lady told her audience:

    “We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. You’re here because you know that in just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come ? let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices ? let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

    I don’t feel so good.

    1. And now, a word from the President!

      Damn it feels good to be a gangsta
      Gettin voted into the White House
      Everything lookin good to the people of the world
      But the Mafia family is my boss
      So every now and then I owe a favor gettin’ down like lettin’ a big drug shipment through
      And send ’em to the poor community
      So we can bust you know who
      So voters of the world keep supportin’ me
      Other leaders better not upset me
      Or I’ll send a million troops to die at war
      To all you Republicans, that helped me win
      I sincerely like to thank you
      Cuz now I got the world swingin’ from my nuts
      And damn it feels good to be a gangsta

    2. Anybody else just keep hearing ‘for decades to come’ in their heads accompanied by a sick, sinking feeling?

    3. And now I’m off on another lavish, tax-payer-funded vacation with the girls. My Barack will stay home to hear petitions and play golf.

    4. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Souter and Stevens pair and that of Kagan and Sotomayor. The only difference they make is that those two seats will be “safe” from conservative replacements.

    5. Barry wears the ugliest beard i have ever seen.

  31. From the last election(just imagine more current pols):

    20 ways to make the debates watchable.

  32. [ SOS ] Complaint about Human Rights Violations by IBM China on Centennial

    Please Google:

    Tragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China
    How Much IBM Can Get Away with is the Responsibility of the Media
    IBM detained mother of ex-employee on the day of centennial

  33. So I’m hearing that the Paul campaign will put out a proposed budget on Monday that is NOT “completely zero for everything”.

    I’m not entirely sure how to take this.

    On the one hand, I suppose you can look at it and say, “OK, Paul is trying to show that he would be a realist and try to compromise if he actually got elected.”

    OTOH, since he has said for decades that certain types of spending are unconstitutional, there’s no way to avoid noting that he is effectively promising to send a budget he personally thinks is unconstitutional to the Congress on purpose.

    1. In can be constitutional without being zero on everything.

      Just lots of things.

      1. Apparently it keeps, for example, Pell grants.

        I’m pretty sure Congressman Paul considers those unconstitutional.

  34. I think that a post like Tim’s does a disservice to our discourse

    Okay, we get it.

    You’re concerned.

  35. Could Shikhia Dalmia column on Iran’s attempted act of war look any stupider? When probably juxtaposed it can!


    Key quotes: But after spending months following Ahani, Canadian intelligence officers came to a startling conclusion: He was a highly trained Iranian government assassin whose handlers were planning an attack on the British author Salman Rushdie.

    Soon after the Islamic regime came to power in 1979, a security guard at the Iranian mission in the United States was recruited to assassinate a critic in Maryland. Iranian agents killed scores of dissidents in Europe in the 1990s. They also helped bomb a Jewish centre in Argentina in 1994 (one of the men wanted for the attack is now Iran’s Defence Minister).

    1. I propose we raise money to buy Cytotoxic an air carrier rental, two Desert Eagles, sufficient ammo, a cam mounted helmet and a parachute, and then drop him on the outskirts of Tehran.

      You know he’ll do it!

      And it would be hugely entertaining regardless of the outcome. Like a live action first person shooter.

      1. Naaaah, I would be surprised if Cyto agreed to do it. I think he knows he’d end up repeating the spectacular flamout of his hero Che Gueverra, finishing with some gunshots administered by the people he would be trying to ‘help’.

        1. When will Hollywood get the balls to turn Gueverra’s death into a screwball comedy? It is there for the taking.

      2. Since my only combat training comes from Battlefield Bad Company and US taxpayers already pay for the US government to protect their rights for them, I will decline. I expect US-precipitated regime change in Tehran, and I demand it now since it has already been paid for in taxes.

        1. We’ve also paid for all those med MJ dispensaries in California to be obliterated from the face of the earth. I want my money’s worth!

          1. Ah, but MJ obliteration isn’t consistent with government’s only prerogative: protecting citizens’ rights. Only government’s that do that and only the actions related to that are legitimate.

            Which is why America and other (basically) free nations have the right to kill to protect the rights of their citizens while unfree nations like Iran just don’t have rights at all.

            In any event, I was really just shitting all over Shikhia’s shitty argument that Iran’s incompetence made it harmless. It’s many innocent victims say otherwise.

    2. It’s about time we showed the world what happens to a national government that arrogantly arranges assassinations in another country’s territory.

      1. We’ve been doing that for 100 years now.

  36. There are easily enough people in Pittsburgh who would walk barefoot over broken glass to see him to fill that room.

    But will they actually pay money to do it? Thousands of dollars for a plate of cold rubbery chicken is a lot, when you’re all downtrodden and oppressed, you know.

    1. It was a talk at the local electrician’s union, and I’m pretty sure that members were offered free tix.

      Thing is, Obama comes here about twice a week and mostly the visits just fuck up traffic and cause a mess.

      The union visit above had me coming home late as they blocked shit off, and one visit he made in the summer almost made me late for jury duty.

      It gets really old after a while.

      1. May the Lord bless and keep the president.

        …far away from us.

        1. Love that soundtrack.

  37. Cain at least has shown that he can run a business.

    When you’re running a business, you can shitcan the people who are actively trying to undermine your every move. Ask Jimmy Carter how easy it is to run roughshod over those guys down the street.

    Not that I have anything against seeing the entire government come to a shuddering, grinding, smoky halt.

    1. You will have something against it if it happens. Or do you not like running fresh water?

      The problem isn’t internet tough guys, it’s that internet tough guys like Paul Ryan are the intellectual core of our government.

      1. I think running water is a function of state and local governments and utility companies and not so much what the House of Representatives does.

        1. You guys like to draw all sorts of arbitrary distinctions. Like state governments, even oppressive ones, are legitimate but the feds aren’t.

          1. Not when it comes to bringing me my water they aren’t.

            Besides, my water is brought to me by a private company.

          2. Your Team’s disdain for state governments is evident in many of your musings, Tony.

          3. You can always move to another state if yours get too oppressive or retarded, just look at the migration of californians to Texas. You can’t just up and renounce your citizenship of the US. Thats a pretty big fucking distinction.

      2. I thought the “intellectual core” was Barry, being as he’s in charge and all.

        You know, the enlightened one who will stop the seas from rising and all that. The one so intellectually powerful that his speeches alone will fix the problems in the world.

        You’re such a Team Douche, Tony.

      3. My running water comes from an artesian aquifer and an electric pump in my basement. But the city FORCED everybody to hook into their water lines, at their own expense, so that everybody can have “cheap”, “clean” water.

        Yeah, right.

  38. I am the 1%

    1. He’s from TEAM BLUE, so he gets a pass. From the protesters anyway. And the unions. And the MSM.

      1. Nice. Pointing out hypocrisy is an important part of a balanced breakfast.

  39. In other news, Krugabe is still foaming-at-the-mouth crazy.

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  40. Hurclean Hoople or whatever the verbose dude is called is gonna loved this

    German Ghost City of China


    Seriously, the company that designed it is named Speer? Wow.

    1. “Speer Villa Apartments: Now with real showers!”

      I seem to remember reading an article lately about these boomtown cities built in China that now have like 600 people living in them. When I say built I mean that they built the entire city at once all shiny and new.

      1. Oh that’s just BAD…

        I laughed.

    2. Yeah, it’s that Speer. From the article:

      “The district was designed in 2001 by the Frankfurt-based architecture firm Albert Speer & Partner. Speer is the son of the eponymous architect who was Hitler’s chief architect and minister of armaments and war production during World War II.”

  41. Looks like I’ve been added to the Reasonable auto-troll list. I’m assuming the 31 indicates 31 people marked me as a troll? So less than 1/6 of the users wanting to block you means you get blocked for everyone using the add-on.

    I advise everyone to stick to the party line and not question anyone’s deeply held beliefs unless you want to get blanked by the cloud brain or whatever it’s called.

    1. Where did you even find that list thingy?

      1. The author of the addon posted the link a couple of weeks ago and I bookmarked it because I knew some garbage like this was going to happen. Some people around here have no honor.

        1. I didn’t even know there was a report list. I don’t even know how to get somebody’s name there (mine isn’t!). Yeah you’re right there are some shitty people here. I guess that might be why Hercules Triathlon guy left. Man I loved his posts.

          1. It’s a problem with a lot of the anti-troll systems that aren’t supervised…the “mark as inappropriate” or “flag comment” button starts getting used as an “I disagree with this comment” button really quick.

            1. “It’s a problem…”

              Uh, you frequent a forum which is *really* loosely monitored.
              Then you add your own ‘monitoring’ process.
              And then you gripe that there’s a problem?

              1. When you throw the fetus out with the bathwater, there’s a problem.

    2. Haha, I unignored and ignored myself and the count went up to 32. Excellent monitoring system you folks have there. One user could just do that 30 times and blank someone all by themselves.

      1. No, because un-ignoring someone subtracts a point. So every user can only add one point per troll.

      2. And that doesn’t necessarily mean 31 people put you on ignore. Some users are on a whitelist, and they get a few more votes than others.

        Also, the system is not universal. Those who want to read your comments can simply unignore you and they will always be able to read your comments. So it’s not like the system is censoring you for everyone just because some people are blocking you.

        1. Yeah, I would absolutely unblock you if you came up blocked.

    3. “I’m assuming the 31 indicates 31 people marked me as a troll? So less than 1/6 of the users wanting to block you means you get blocked for everyone using the add-on.”

      OK, and?
      Why did you even bother to look?

      1. Because I use the same add-on and noticed that all my posts were blanked when I came here tonight.

        1. Patient: Doc, when I bend my arm backwards it hurts!
          Doctor: Well, don’t bend your arm backwards.

        2. So turn off the auto-ignore and STFU.

    4. Dunphy too. So I’ll have to change my preferences for Dunphy. Tulpa I’ll take under advisement.

    5. Alan Venneman is on there.

    6. That’s pretty crappy Tulpa.

      For me, I’ve never undrestood the pussy mindset that tries to ban or even ignore (incif and such) posts they don’t like. I mean, what kind of a cowardly, unstable fanatic is so horrified by an opinion they disagree with or even find stupid (usually the same thing for most people) that they cannot even find the strength to gave upon it? Jesus, scroll down you pussies.

      1. That should be “gaze upon it”

        1. Meh. To each his/her own.

          I don’t use a filter, but sometimes I regret even seeing the posts of o2 and White Indian. I just keep scrolling.

      2. I understand (and since I’m using Reasonable obviously support in my own life) the desire to not read content-free comments by trolls or insult-spewing by rageaholic immature twits. People who merely disagree with me but actually make an effort to argue their point and don’t spew insults are fine by me.

        Which is my problem with “uprank-downrank” distributed troll detection systems, compared to moderation: lots of people will downrank anyone who disagrees with them or who they don’t like for some other reason.

  42. @Floor makes some of the most reasoned remarks in the thread. The core critique many have is that they believe the there has been very little legal or economic accountability for major wall street figures. That is a topic worth reasoning about together, I can see points on either side worth weighing. To instead focus on “some people say ‘nobody’ has gone to prison but actually at least one has” is pretty blatent misdirection onto relatively trivial nit picking – a cheap shot with nothing illuminating or insightful to it. It’s a strawman in that the contention is that virtually none of the high profile architects of the economic meltdown (as it is perceived) have been held accountable – NOT that nobody on Wall Street has ever been convicted of insider trading, as obviously that kind of prosecution long predates the collapse and has nothing to do with accountability for said collapse, it’s just routine business as usual.

    Note that I’m not saying that the big banker were or were not criminally culpable for malfeasance – that would beg the question. I’m just saying that some people would rather avoid reasoning about that question, and would prefer to misrepresent and then “discredit” the phrasing of a fraction of “the other side” than to engage in real discussion of the real issues.

    Would it be useful to avoid any substantive questions raised by the Tea Party, in favor of critiquing the accuracy of (our selective interpretation of) the bumper stickers a few of their members use?

    1. “To instead focus on “some people say ‘nobody’ has gone to prison….”

      To admit you didn’t bother to read the links makes you look silly.

    2. a cheap shot with nothing illuminating or insightful to it

      Welcome to reason.

      1. Yet you keep coming back, Tony. Just admit to yourself that either you have a libertarian streak or you’re a masochist.

        1. I am not libertarian, I value individual liberty too much.

          1. Oh, that’s funny, Tony. You’re a knee-slappin’ laugh-producing machine.

  43. “It’s a strawman in that the contention is that virtually none of the high profile architects of the economic meltdown (as it is perceived) have been held accountable”

    The problem is that you don’t hold people accountable for bad business decisions by sending them to prison, you hold them accountable by having them lose their money because of such decisions.

    Where we failed is by shoveling taxpayer money at them to prevent the latter from happening. And if I were looking to someone to blame for that, Wall Street wouldn’t be the first place I looked. AIG and Goldman Sachs, as far as I can tell, did nothing criminal. They just asked for a handout and got it.

  44. I read that the Eurozone’s inflation is a full percentage point above the ECB’s target of 2% (so 3%). That inflation rate has been above target for over 50 of the past 60 months. Not good, especially considering that a slowing economy should see a lower inflation rate. Britain’s ‘core’ inflation is 4.5% with an RPI (?) of just over 5%. That is bad. I think Britain will be the next to start going funky, maybe just after Spain and/or Italy. That continent is fucked. When holders of German Bundesbonds start getting inflation-boned, they are going to get antsy. When those Bunds start losing yield, then that continent is super-fucked.

    1. “But Europe’s been handing out free stuff and it hasn’t caused any problems there!” (Tony, et al)
      Right now, it looks like bond traders are grabbing some real dough, riding the increase as the gov’t’s claim to be able to juggle the books enough for a bail-out. The question is who won’t find the chair when the music ends.
      That is unless the US gets to be sugar-daddy, as we have been providing the Euros with their defense at our cost for the last, oh, 60 years.

      1. America can’t afford that anymore. Even if the GOP didn’t control the House, there’s no money.

        1. I’m not about to argue.
          For all his faults, Eisenhower tried to get the Euros to provide some of their own defense; no go.
          I’m tired of paying for ‘retire at 50’ or whatever they’re now protesting.

    2. I also tend to think that the German electorate will in noway tolerate any sort of bailout of the PIIGS at their expense. Too many fresh memories of economic turmoil, and all that brings bubbling to the surface.

      1. Merkel sold it last week, but now I see she’s in protection mode over the taxes required to do so:
        “Merkel Says Won’t Accept U.S. Balking at Finance Transaction Tax”
        I wonder what “won’t accept” means; is she going to hold her breath?

      2. If there is any justice in the world, the politicians of Solvakia and Germany who voted against this shit will be empowered and rewarded. A German Tea Party…could be awesomely frightening.

        {Scene: Massive German anti-EU rally with tens of thousands of participants}


        {Next scene: Liberals all over the world shit themselves}

        1. {Scene: Massive Liberal rallies with hundreds of thousands of participants}


          {Next scene: Liberals all over the world break lots of windows}

          1. Vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

  45. you must be joking
    for example:

  46. Nobody ever asks how the seemingly victimized American people managed to make so much of Wall Street’s money disappear through their own deadbeat behavior.

    So you really think the explanation for our economic situation is a random epidemic of “deadbeat behavior”?


  47. So is anyone else worried about this “global occupy” shit?

    Looks like the freeloaders are starting to riot in places. I really should have bought more guns and ammo this year…

    1. I’m sure that Rousseau is smiling in Hell even as we speak.

    2. That’s just in Italy and that’s pretty normal for that stupid country.

  48. How many people are going to jail over robosigning? Must be thousands at least, right?

    1. Robosigning was the result of efforts to keep costs down, combined with an unprecedented wave of deadbeat behavior.

  49. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10…..l?_r=1&hp;
    WASHINGTON ? President Obama is pressing United Nations nuclear inspectors to release classified intelligence information showing that Iran is designing and experimenting with nuclear weapons technology. The president’s push is part of a larger American effort to further isolate and increase pressure on Iran after accusing it of a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States.

    UN inspections. WMDs, intelligence estimates, war. Don’t tell me God doesn’t have a sense of humor.

    1. I didn’t see the word “war” in that paragraph John.

      Is that wishful thinking on your part?

      1. You are such a humorless prick.

      2. Come on MNG, you know when Obama starts wars you are second only to Joe from Lowell and your drum beating patriotism.

        1. Nice try John, since I’ve detalied my disgust at Obama’s handling of Afghanistan and Iraq and called his Libya action unconstitutional many times here.

          But hey, sorry to remind everyone what a war-monger (at least when a GOPer is in office) you are so early in the morning. You can go back to singing “Bomb, bomb, Iran” and other tunes on GOP’s Jingoistic Warmongering Greatest Hits.

          1. Show where you ever called in unconstitutional. I don’t recall that but maybe you did.

            Moreover, where did you ever object to the war for any reason than it not getting Congressional authorization. I recall you defending the war on substance and thinking it was a good idea even if it did need Congressional authorization.

            Don’t call other people war mongers and then defend wars yourself. That makes you the dishonest hypocrite everyone says you are.

            1. “Show where you ever called in unconstitutional. I don’t recall that but maybe you did.”

              I know I did, you don’t, so if you want to go on this limb, let’s put something at stake. You don’t just get to make your usual half-assed assumptions as assertions without some price. So, I’ll produce it, but you promise to respond “I’m sorry MNG, I assumed wrongly again.” Just that. Deal?

              1. I didn’t say you didn’t. If you did, produce it. I said I don’t remember. I don’t keep score at home. But I do definitely recall you defending the war in Libya on its merits. And again, don’t call other people war mongers and then defend wars yourself.

            2. “I recall you defending the war on substance and thinking it was a good idea even if it did need Congressional authorization.”

              Wrong again. I decried it as “adventurism” from the start. I did defend it from the charge that it was as egregious as the Iraq invasion and that there was no defensible rationale offered for it, two distinctions I wouldn’t expect a sloppy, careless thinker like you to remember though.

              You really are a horribly sloppy thinker John, wtf, are you a morning drinker?

              1. Wrong again. I decried it as “adventurism”

                That is not what I remember. Produce your posts saying it was adventurism. You can use the search function just as well as I can. Show us what you said, or shut up.

                1. No, like fluffy said you have to start having some integrity and backing up your half assed assertions. Now, do you have any balls or what? Since you posted that I defended it when I did not, if I produce it will you man up and post “Sorry MNG, I assumed wrong again?”

                  Don’t pussy out John, own your mistakes like a grown up man.

                  1. In other words that is not what you said and you can’t produce the posts. If you could, there is no way you wouldn’t have by now.

                    1. John, you are an integrity-less, careless POS.

                      MNG|3.23.11 @ 8:38PM|#
                      I have some serious problems with this action (i.e., these kind of operations have a tendency to expand into dangerous adventurism, we should always be reluctant to use force, no approval from Congress, and the timing could not have been worse).

                      “MNG|3.19.11 @ 9:00AM|#
                      On the no-fly zone: I guess I can see an argument that using force to prevent a dictator’s use of superior arms to slaughter those bravely rising against him can actually be seen as a move towards peace (or at least a move toward ending a lopsided slaughter). On the other hand, no-fly zones and such often turn into extended operations. My beef is that they waited this long. Doing this when the rebels had the Big Mo would at least have had the advantage of maybe actually help topple the regime, but doing it now that the rebels are barely holding on strikes me as having all the disadvantages of adventurism when little of the benefits can be gained.”

                      MNG|4.11.11 @ 8:11AM|#
                      Obama’s failure to go to Congress for authorization was bad, but he compounded it by not even engaging in any meaningful informing of them after the fact. To make matters worse he took his sweet time coming to the American people to explain himself. He acted every bit the aloof, elitist President-knows-best image that he is oft criticized for.

                    2. MNG|8.24.11 @ 8:20AM|#
                      Sure, I think Obama violated the WPA, and that is a big, big problem. My point is that if he had the proper permission I think things are very complicated.

                      MNG|8.24.11 @ 8:04AM|#
                      I think Obama’s handling of the war was a violation of the War Powers Act, somethingt that, after decades of conservative opposition and liberal defense of the Act, really undercuts the act. That’s terrible.

                  2. MNG|3.23.11 @ 1:38PM|#

                    I still don’t get why a minarchist who would support having a tax funded police department to intervene to protect the rights of someone surrounded and attacked by thugs but not support a tax funded military strike to aid a foriegner in similar peril. I thought this nation stuff was ‘lines on a map?’

                    MNG|3.23.11 @ 1:41PM|#

                    Don’t get me wrong, I can understand a minarchist being opposed because all too often “war is the health of the state” and because it leads to entangling alliances and hatreds that can cause blowback and also because we very likely will make things worse, but it strikes me that if minarchist libertarianism is about more than just “hey don’t touch my stuff” then protecting and promoting liberty based rights of all people would not be off the table.

                    MNG|3.23.11 @ 2:01PM|#

                    Well, we are willing members of international organizations that have jurisdiction over these humanitarian crises.

                    More importantly, should jurisdictional matters trump the prmotion and protection of basic libert rights for someone who calls themselves a “libertarian?”


                    MNG|6.2.11 @ 8:08AM|#

                    What does it mean to say Powers is a stupid transnationalist bitch? I thought we agreed she wanted to get into this to prevent another Rawanda or Bosnia? Would you have opposed us stopping another Rawanda or Bosnia? Remember, you supported Iraq.

                    1. Pitiful, pitiful.

                      I invite anyone to go back and see what we were talking about re the first three quotes. I said, and I still say, I don’t understand why a minarchist has to oppose any and every’humanitarian’ intervention on principle (and I said they could imo oppose it because they felt it always backfires or things or too complicated). I still don’t. That’s hardly an endorsement of this conflict.

                      The last qoute is me pointing our your hypocrisy John. I opposed Kosovo and Iraq, but you seemed to approve (heartily I might add) of at least the later. You condemned Susan Powers for advocating humanitarian interventions and I replied “why would you, who’ve often supported them, oppose that?”

                      You have no memory, no carefulness, nothing but slop to sling.

                      I’ve got a day of football ahead, I’ll leave my fairly unequivocal quotes asserting Obama’s breaking the law and venturing into adventurism on Libya, if that be defending the war in your mind, then so be it fool. Everyone here knows your warmongering, there’s no dispute about that at all, Iraq defense was your raison d’etre for years here.

                    2. You support war in support of humanitarian intervention. That prevents you from calling other people who do the same “war mongers”.

                      I don’t know why I bothered to look. It is not like you would ever believe your lying eyes or anything.

                    3. You’re an idiot, I never said I support war for humanitarian reasons. I said “I don’t see why a minarchist would have to be opposed to them.” I still don’t.

                      But of course I am not a minarchist.

                      Is there no end to your sloppy thinking?

                    4. You were just being ironic. Right MNG. I have to admit, you actually have me laughing right now. You have slipped into performance art.

                    5. I guess you don’t know the difference between ironic and hypothetical. When someone says “why would a libertarian be opposed to all humanitarian interventions” only a fool or hack or, in your case both, reads that as “I endorse specific humanitarian intervention X.” This is doubly true when the person is avowedly not a libertarian!

                      But, this is how your Drudge-baked brain works, we all know.

                    6. You’re saying that minarchists should be okay with the Libya adventure, and then accuse John of sloppy thinking. Herp that Derp MNG. Herp it good.

                    7. Like I said in that discussion I honestly don’t see why, apart from the other possible objections I gave, minarchists who support a tax-funded police force to protect people from domestic thugs have to oppose a tax funded force to protect non-citizens abroad from thugs, especially given that many minarchist are less than enthusiastic about strict national borders.

                      Now, maybe you disagree. But hopefully you are at least not so stupid as to see in that stance an endorsement of the Libya intervention.

                    8. It is sure as hell an endorsement of war in the name of humanitarian intervention. And that prevents from you from calling anyone a war monger. If you don’t like that, stop defending wars and the people who start them.

                    9. You’re saying that minarchists should be okay with the Libya adventure

                      Actually he said minarchists shouldn’t have to be against it. In other words, that it was possible for some minarchist somewhere to support it.

                      I would tend to agree, since imho libertarianism ends at the national borders, though I’m definitely against Libya because it’s stupid and immoral for non-libertarian reasons.

            3. I recall MNG being against it…I don’t remember if he thought it was unconstitutional. I don’t doubt it.

              Ken Shultz was the only regular poster who seemed to be for the Libya KMA.

              1. Easy, Tulpa. You’re going to get anti-trolled some more.

      3. http://www.saudinewstoday.com/article/84188__Iran‘s+former+president+warns+of+possible+US+attack

        And read the other link on Drudge this morning. The Iranians seem to think it is possible. They tried to set off a bomb in Washington. They are building nuclear weapons. I think there is distinct possibility we could be at war with Iran in the next year. It is not like we have a President who has a problem with bombing things and killing people, including American citizens.

        1. “And read the other link on Drudge this morning.”

          Yeah, I mean if it is on Drudge it must be true. Not like you’ve ever had to embarrisingly walk back from something on that site! Sigh, just can’t quite him despite all the abuse and humiliation, eh John? Is it the fedora?
          “I think there is distinct possibility we could be at war with Iran in the next year.”

          If you replace “I think” with “I hope” I think you’d be correct, you guys have wanted war with Iran for a loooong time.

          1. Durdge isn’t a source. It just links to other articles. It is in the Saudi News not Drudge. If you have any reason to disbelieve the Saudi News, tell it. But attacking Drudge, doesn’t mean anything.

            1. Er, yeah I have plenty reason to doubt the Saudi News, WTF?

              John, John, poor John, so easily misled…

              John|10.7.11 @ 10:22AM|#
              the guns did not have trackers on them

              John|9.29.11 @ 10:54AM|#
              The guns had GPS trackers on them

              1. Why do you have plenty of reason to doubt the Saudi News? I don’t. What you don’t like Arabs? Are you racist? Maybe they made this up. But I don’t see any reason why they would have. And further it is a quote for the former President of Iran. Kind of hard to make up quotes by living people who can refute them. If the former President didn’t say that, then show us where. I would like to know.

                Again, give a good shot and you too can have an honest discussion about something. You just might learn something.

                1. John, since you posted something from there and are now defending the source, why don’t you tell us about the Saudi News. I mean, surely you know a lot about it since you are here repeatedly defending it as a source? Or did you do that for a source you actually know little about?

                  1. There is no reason not to believe this. Just because it is the Saudi News doesn’t always make it a lie. It is not Lillian Hellman for God’s sake. If the President of Iran didn’t say that, the by all means show us where he didn’t. Otherwise, the point stands.

                    1. What a sloppy, terrible thinker. This is the third time today where you make an assertion about what someone said and then you say “well, prove they didn’t see that!” when challenged.

                      If you can’t see why that is goofy I really suggest you find a logic course at your nearest community college.

                      Here’s your hint: hey John, Sarah Palin just said she hates America.

                      Prove she didn’t!

                    2. No this is the third time you have made a baseless assertion and I have said “prove it” and you have gotten bitchy and started insulting me, like you always do.

          2. Who the fuck are “you guys”, fuckface? Even if John has been beating the “Let’s attack Iran” war drum when Team RED was in power, and even if he will continue to do so when they get power again, John is singular, dickhead.

            1. When I said “you guys” I meant John and his fellow conservatives. I know libertarians oppose nearly every war (hence my comment about “why do minarchists oppose any humanitarian intervention” above). Virtually every libertarian here has opposed the rush to war with Iran John and his ilk have hoped for for so long.

    2. President Obama is pressing United Nations nuclear inspectors to release classified intelligence information showing that Iran is designing and experimenting with nuclear weapons technology.

      Or he could just cut out the (weak) middleman and ask Israel about such intelligence. Though I’m inclined to think that would be too much to ask of him, given his spectacular hubris.

  50. Perhaps some people make the goofy, hyperbolic statement that “no” person goes to prison for financial crime, but for most people you’re thinking of the claim is just that the perps of financial crime usually get off lighter due to more lenient treatment/better resources to fight the rap. Stuff like this:


    1. That is a state crime. Right or wrong, it really isn’t comparable to federal crimes. Different sovereign and all. And there are a lot of white collar “criminals” in federal prison. And there is a litany of people sent to prison for ridiculous things.

      To wit

      n 2009, Mr. Anderson loaned his son some tools to dig for arrowheads near a favorite campground of theirs. Unfortunately, they were on federal land. Authorities “notified me to get a lawyer and a damn good one,” Mr. Anderson recalls.

      There is no evidence the Andersons intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed, according to court records and interviews. But the law, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, doesn’t require criminal intent and makes it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to attempt to take artifacts off federal land without a permit.

      Faced with that reality, the two men, who didn’t find arrowheads that day, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and got a year’s probation and a $1,500 penalty each. “We kind of wonder why it got took to the level that it did,” says Mr. Anderson, 68 years old.

      With the growing number of federal crimes, the number of people sentenced to federal prison has risen nearly threefold over the past 30 years to 83,000 annually. The U.S. population grew only about 36% in that period. The total federal prison population, over 200,000, grew more than eightfold?twice the growth rate of the state prison population, now at 2 million, according the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics

      Tougher federal drug laws account for about 30% of people sentenced, a decline from over 40% two decades ago. The proportion of people sentenced for most other crimes, such as firearms possession, fraud and other non-violent offenses, has doubled in the past 20 years.

      Last September, retired race-car champion Bobby Unser told a congressional hearing about his 1996 misdemeanor conviction for accidentally driving a snowmobile onto protected federal land, violating the Wilderness Act, while lost in a snowstorm. Though the judge gave him only a $75 fine, the 77-year-old racing legend got a criminal record.

      Mr. Unser says he was charged after he went to authorities for help finding his abandoned snowmobile. “The criminal doesn’t usually call the police for help,” he says.

      A Justice Department spokesman cited the age of the case in declining to comment. The U.S. Attorney at the time said he didn’t remember the case.

      Some jurists are disturbed by the diminished requirement to show criminal intent in order to convict. In a 1998 decision, federal appellate judge Richard Posner, a noted conservative, attacked a 1994 federal law under which an Illinois man went to prison for three years for possessing guns while under a state restraining order taken out by his estranged wife. He possessed the guns otherwise legally, they posed no immediate threat to the spouse, and the restraining order didn’t mention any weapons bar.

      Occasionally, Americans are going to prison in the U.S. for violating the laws and rules of other countries. Last year, Abner Schoenwetter finished 69 months in federal prison for conspiracy and smuggling. His conviction was related to importing the wrong kinds of lobsters and bulk packaging them in plastic, rather than separately in boxes, in violation of Honduran laws.

      According to court records and interviews, Mr. Schoenwetter had been importing lobsters from Honduras since the mid-1980s. In early 1999, federal officials seized a 70,000-pound shipment after a tip that the load violated a Honduran statute setting a minimum size on lobsters that could be caught. Such a shipment, in turn, violated a U.S. law, the Lacey Act, which makes it a felony to import fish or wildlife if it breaks another country’s laws. Roughly 2% of the seized shipment was clearly undersized, and records indicated other shipments carried much higher percentages, federal officials said.

      In an interview, Mr. Schoenwetter, 65 years old, said he and other buyers routinely accepted a percentage of undersized lobsters since the deliveries from the fishermen inevitably included smaller ones. He also said he didn’t believe bringing in some undersized lobsters was illegal, noting that previous shipments had routinely passed through U.S. Customs.

      Robert Kern, a 62-year-old Virginia hunting-trip organizer, was also prosecuted in the U.S. for allegedly breaking the law of another country. Instead of lobsters from Honduras, Mr. Kern’s troubles stemmed from moose from Russia.

      He faced a 2008 Lacey Act prosecution for allegedly violating Russian law after some of his clients shot game from a helicopter in that country. In the end, he was acquitted after a Russian official testified the hunters had an exemption from the helicopter hunting ban. Still, legal bills totaling more than $860,000 essentially wiped out his retirement savings, Mr. Kern says.

      Many of the EPA rules carry potential criminal penalties. Krister Evertson, a would-be inventor, recently spent 15 months in prison for environmental crimes where there was no evidence he harmed anyone, or intended to.

      In May 2004 he was arrested near Wasilla, Alaska, and charged with illegally shipping sodium metal, a potentially flammable material, without proper packaging or labeling.

      He told federal authorities he had been in Idaho working to develop a better hydrogen fuel cell but had run out of money. He had moved some sodium and other chemicals to a storage site near his workshop in Salmon, Idaho, before traveling back to his hometown of Wasilla to raise money by gold-mining.

      Mr. Evertson said he believed he had shipped the sodium legally. A jury acquitted him in January 2006.

      However, Idaho prosecutors, using information Mr. Evertson provided to federal authorities in Alaska, charged him with violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a 1976 federal law that regulates handling of toxic waste. The government contended Mr. Evertson had told federal investigators he had abandoned the chemicals. It also said the landlord of the Idaho storage site claimed he was owed back rent and couldn’t find the inventor?allegations Mr. Evertson disputed.

      Once the government deemed the chemicals “abandoned,” they became “waste” and subject to RCRA. He was charged under a separate federal law with illegally moving the chemicals about a half-mile to the storage site.

      “If I had abandoned the chemicals, why would I have told the investigators about them?” said Mr. Evertson in an interview. He added that he spent $100,000 on the material and always planned to resume his experiments.

      Critics contend that federal criminal law is increasingly, and unconstitutionally, impinging on the sovereignty of the states. The question recently came before the Supreme Court in the case of Carol Bond, a Pennsylvania woman who is fighting a six-year prison sentence arising out of violating a 1998 federal chemical-weapons law tied to an international arms-control treaty. The law makes it a crime for an average citizen to possess a “chemical weapon” for other than a “peaceful purpose.” The statute defines such a weapon as any chemical that could harm humans or animals.

      Ms. Bond’s criminal case stemmed from having spread some chemicals, including an arsenic-based one, on the car, front-door handle and mailbox of a woman who had had an affair with her husband. The victim suffered a burn on her thumb.

      In court filings, Ms. Bond’s attorneys argued the chemical-weapons law unconstitutionally intruded into what should have been a state criminal matter. The state didn’t file charges on the chemicals, but under state law she likely would have gotten a less harsh sentence, her attorneys said.


      To me the most shocking statistic in that article is the decline in the percentage of offenders in federal prison for drug offenses. It is only 30%. I would have never guessed that.

      We are filling our prisons with people who have done things that either shouldn’t be crimes or if they are crimes should be federal ones.

      It is horrible. And the very people who should by their claims care the most about it, liberals, don’t seem to care. Your story about the homeless guy sucks. But there are a lot worse things going on in the federal system.

      1. Jesus John, too long. Take a breath.

        I didn’t read it but I have to wonder, is this going to be like the bear story where within a span of thirty minutes you had to flaty contradict yourself?

        1. Of course you didn’t read it. It contains facts that you don’t like. This is surprising or noteworthy why?

        2. John|9.2.11 @ 9:48AM|#
          There is no self defense except to the ESA.

          John|9.2.11 @ 10:33AM|#
          Yes there is a self defense exception.

          1. And this has to do with anything why? It is why I am the only person who has the patience (and I think sometimes I must be Job) to engage your post. Now you can yell Shirley Sherod because you don’t have any response to make to something you don’t like. It is just sad. You can occasionally engage in honest discussion. But you are so insecure and so afraid of your world view coming down around you, you just can’t do it sometimes.

            1. and I think sometimes I must be Job

              Masochistic is probably more accurate.

              1. Probably. Or just hard headed.

            2. “And this has to do with anything why?”

              It has to do with you having a demonstrable track record of being wrong. You’re an unreliable narrator peddling false premises, conjecture and assumptions. If you had any integrity you’d do some soul searching and feel some embarrassment, but as a partisan you were only hoping to get something you threw on the wall to stick so who cares if much of it is demonstrably false?

              With your record the presumption of proof on everything you suggest is, I’m afraid, on you.

              1. You are just such a dick MNG. You really are. Joe Boyle was an ignorant fool. But you are really just kind of bad guy. In some ways I look upon you charitably because I know your smugness is just a way to overcome your insecurities. But at some point everyone is responsible for how they act and what they say regardless of their personal foibles.

                You have not made a single substantive response to what I said. All you do is insult me and bring up petty bitches. It is because you don’t have a response and I caught you with your ass showing. The more you insult me, the more obvious that is to everyone reading this thread.

                1. In some ways I look upon you charitably because I know your smugness is just a way to overcome your insecurities.

                  And thus it was for every liberal.

                  Mingy, while John does make mistakes sometimes, you really shouldn’t soapbox about it after you made a grand ass of yourself regarding John’s thesis. Does anyone have a link to that thread? Just title the link as “when Minge jumped the shark”.

                  1. “while John does make mistakes sometimes”

                    Understatment of the year.

                    But building manufactured outrage based upon mistakes, misinformation, half-truths, conjecture and assumptions is not something unique to John, it’s general to all right wing (and left wing) fanatics. It likely springs from a fevered desire to have your opposing side look as bad as possible and therefore you don’t apply critical faculties to sources that seem to supply your wishes.

                2. You’ve said nothing substantive, you, via cut-n-paste, made an assertion. And I replied “your sources have a history of being unreliable and your acceptance of them uncritical.”

                  And I can show that history easily.

                  There’s your substance. You’re just mad because after years of spouting off anything that sprung into your fevered mind someone is holding you accountable to your nonsense.

                  Deal with it.

                  1. MNG

                    You are making a fool of yourself. Just stop it. I am the only one engages you on here. It is because no one but me is hard headed enough to engage in stupid threads like this where you lie and distort and insult and refuse to admit the obvious.

                    I pointed to a long list of outrageous federal convictions and the fact that only 30% of all federal prisoners are drug prisoners. If you think that is wrong, tell us. Otherwise spare us your screaming Shirley Sherod.

  51. Those who contend that the individual mandate provision of the healthcare law exceeds Congress’s powers under the Constitution assert that never before this law has Congress required Americans to enter into a market and purchase a good or service from a private entity. According to these critics, the fact that Congress has never before mandated that people buy something is evidence that Congress lacks the power to force Americans to buy a health insurance policy. If it hasn’t been done, these critics say, Congress cannot now do it.

    In response to this argument, supporters of the individual mandate’s constitutionality argue that the law’s opponents have their history wrong. As evidence that Congress has indeed mandated private commercial transactions in the past, supporters offer up as historical precedent the Militia Act of May 8, 1792. Signed into law by none other than President George Washington, this statute enrolled free white men between the ages of 18 and 45 in the militia and required them to provide their own arms and equipment. If Americans could be required to purchase guns in 1792, the argument says, Americans can surely be required to purchase health insurance in 2014. Congress did it once and it can do it again.

    There is, however, one big problem in comparing the self-arming requirement of the May 8, 1792 Militia Act to the individual mandate requirement of the healthcare law.


    1. The military is not health insurance. The Congress has always had the power of the common defense and always had the power to draft and such. Making someone show up at drill with their own rifle is not the same as making someone buy health insurance. Two different powers of the constitution. They didn’t rely on the commerce clause you fucking half wit.

      1. It has the power to compel people to buy guns under the military power?

        1. Yes. They were relying on the power to raise and army and navy and provide for the common defense. If you can show me how forcing people to buy health insurance is necessary for the raising of an army and navy, then you might have a point.

          For your analogy to be applicable, Congress would have to have been relying on the Commerce Clause to do this. It wasn’t. So it is not.

          Now go yell Shirley Sherod or something.

          1. No, in both cases Congress has an explicit power, to regulate interstate commerce and a military power (to ‘raise and support’ an army, which has to do with appropriations [look at the rest of the clause], not mandates). In both cases they enact a mandate compelling people to go out and buy something.

            Of course if you read the article you would have seen it is an article saying the analogy doesn’t hold, but hey, let’s not ask too much of you.

            1. Of course if you read the article you would have seen it is an article saying the analogy doesn’t hold

              And you quoted it as if it did hold. And then when I point out to you that it is ridiculous, you then claim that the article admits it doesn’t. WTF

              The analogy is stupid an inapplicable. Stop wasting our time posting things you admit are wrong.

              1. “John|10.16.11 @ 11:16AM|#
                Of course if you read the article you would have seen it is an article saying the analogy doesn’t hold”

                And you quoted it as if it did hold.

                Jesus, can you even read? Here is the last part I quoted:

                “There is, however, one big problem in comparing the self-arming requirement of the May 8, 1792 Militia Act to the individual mandate requirement of the healthcare law.”

                So not only do you foolishly make an assertion w/out reading the link, you don’t even read the post!

                No end to your slop, no end.

                1. MNG|10.16.11 @ 10:27AM|#

                  It has the power to compel people to buy guns under the military power?

                  MNG|10.16.11 @ 11:12AM|#

                  No, in both cases Congress has an explicit power, to regulate interstate commerce and a military power (to ‘raise and support’ an army, which has to do with appropriations [look at the rest of the clause], not mandates). In both cases they enact a mandate compelling people to go out and buy something.

                  Do you need to take your meds this morning? WTF is wrong with you?

                  1. I think you really are drinking this morning.

                    You refered to me quoting the analogy presented in the article between the mandate to buy arms and the insurance mandate. (“And you quoted it as if it did hold.”) The “it” you say I “quoted” must be the article.

                    And then you supply two of my comments, NOT QUOTES from the article at all to supposedly prove…what?

                    Look, you didn’t read the article or the last line but you still made some half-informed assertion about it. We’re all used to you doing that, no need to go all nuts.

                    1. You defended the analogy and argued that it was valid. When I pointed out it was bunk, you screamed the article said it was bunk. That is just bizarre even by your admittedly low standards.

                      The article is a waste of time and the analogy is bunk.

  52. Don’t get too excited about Cain yet:


    I didn’t even read the article. I’m just posting for the headline alone.

    1. The Kochs are my favorite supervillains by far.

      1. Too understated. They need more glitz, glam and schmaltz. A good super villain is cartoonishly gaudy.

        Unless they wear their top hats, velvet capes, spats and monocles in their little meetings within the diabolical cabal, then I suppose it’s OK.

        1. And they need a lair. Don’t forget the lair.

        2. Maybe they should pay a visit to John Gotti’s tailor.

        3. What about cane swords and/or umbrella guns?

  53. One of the most fundamental problems with the constitutional case against the health care mandate is…the notion that the Constitution is violated whenever Congress does anything unprecedented. If this preposterous premise were accepted, it would follow that all of the actions of the First Congress were unconstitutional.

    Attacks on the mandate frequently violate basic rules of logic in this way. Another logical difficulty is presented by the very common conjunction of the following arguments ? a conjunction that is perhaps the most common constitutional objection:

    1. There must be some limit on Congress’ powers.

    2. In order to provide such a limit, we must adopt the activity/inactivity distinction

    3. United States v. Lopez (1995), which struck down a federal law banning handguns near schools because it exceeded the commerce power, was rightly decided.

    If 3 is true, then 2 cannot be. Lopez did not turn on the activity/inactivity distinction. Possession of handguns near schools is an activity. Yet those who make claim 2 often cite claim 3 as supporting evidence. I have not yet encountered a single person who embraces 2 but denies 3.

    The problem is not one of differing interpretations of the Constitution, or of precedent, or of history, or of wise policy. It is rather one of arguments whose premises logically contradict each other.


    1. 3. United States v. Lopez (1995), which struck down a federal law banning handguns near schools because it exceeded the commerce power, was rightly decided.

      And liberals were outraged by that decision at the time. Now it is “rightly decided”. This is why the country is doomed. No one makes honest arguments anymore. They just lie.

      1. And at the time the same conservatives who now argue we must stop the mandate because there has to be some limit on the commerce power heralded those decisions as “finally, a limit on the commerce power!”

        The dishonesty seems to cut into your camp as well.

        1. “And at the time the same conservatives who now argue we must stop the mandate because there has to be some limit on the commerce power heralded those decisions as “finally, a limit on the commerce power!””

          Those decisions were right. And conservatives hailed them because they viewed them as a beginning of a line of cases that would limit the commerce power. There is nothing dishonest about that.

          You are not stupid MNG. But you are so fanatically partisan and so unwilling to admit anyone on the other side has a valid point, you make yourself stupid and prevent yourself from being able to do rudimentary logical thinking.

          1. You don’t get more rudimentary in logic than the basic syllogism, you know the one here that has gone over your head. In fact you miss the syllogism so badly you actually REAFFIRM that you don’t get it here.

            So you agree that Lopez and Morrison limited the commerce power.

            Now look at Koppelman’s syllogism representing the argument of the mandate’s opponents:

            1. We must have a reading of the commerce power that limits federal power.
            2. Without the activity/inactivity distinction there would be no limits on federal power.
            3. Lopez and Morrison are precedents limiting federal power under the commerce power not involving an activity/inactivity distinction.

            Maybe looking at it for the second time will help you see what a 10th grade student sitting in on a community college logic course could right away.

            Oh hell, you don’t know logic, so here is the answer: the third point, which you accept, guts the 2nd premise. You can’t argue there would be no limits w/out the activity distinction while admitting Lopez and morrison were non-activity/inactivity based limits.

            Even GW makes mistakes I guess.

            1. You have slipped into complete incoherence. It is just pathetic. You are not even bothering to read the posts.

              It is very simple. The court limited the power in one way and conservatives liked that. That in no way means that that is the only way it should be limited. So saying those cases are valid and also wanting more limits is not dishonest.

              If you can’t understand that, and you do you are just too dishonest to admit it, you are not worth messing with.

    1. The liberals are really letting the mask slip on Cain. How dare that fuckhead tell anyone whether they are comfortable in their own skin. And until blacks are free to be in public life and think and say what they want without being personally attacked and degraded, they are not truly free.

      1. Based on that column, I’ll guess Pitts is a loathsome human being.

        He alludes to true things, but

        Meaning the black child who equates doing well in school with “acting white.”

        That’s the same sort of idea you’re perpetuating with this column, Pitts, you lousy fuck.

        1. It’s a nice game. If you’re black, and you disagree with the opinion that black people are supposed to have, you’re self-loathing and not really black.

        2. Meaning the black child who equates doing well in school with “acting white.”

          You can thank W.E.B DuBois for throwing his lot in with (racist) white, intellectual liberals (like Margaret Sanger, noted eugenicist) and largely eschewing the philosophy of Booker T. Washington, and we are seeing DuBois’s contributions still wreaking havoc on society.

          I submit that if BTW were alive today, he would be skewered with the usual plethora of intra-racial insults and labeled a classist, culturalist traitor to chis race.

          1. It’s the old story of extremists on both sides teaming up against the moderates.

            We’re seeing it again now with the eternal-war neocons and crony capitalists on the right, and the socialist left teaming up against limited government people.

            1. Crapitalism is not limited to just TEAM RED, Tulpa (General Electric and Green Hoaxery). TEAM BLUE has a rich history of warmongering as well, and Obama is really ramping it up, if you haven’t noticed.

              The so-called “moderates” simply want wealth re-distribution and guaranteed favorable outcomes (moreso guaranteed favorable outcomes), but on a smaller scale than either TEAM BLUE, and to a somewhat lesser extent, TEAM RED.

              Let’s not forget that a fairly large segment of these OWS’ers would be considered “moderate” and “reasonable”, yet are espousing redistributive ideas and not going Full Metal Rousseau. Yet.

              “Moderates” have their own pocket-picking axes to grind, but often sharpened on the flint stone of populist rhetoric.

              Don’t sell me this “‘independents'” are so much smarter and wiser than anyone else” ration of hooey, and BTW should never be mistaken for an extremist. The man should be beatified as far as I’m concerned.

              1. I guess I’m casting limited-govt folks as “moderates” in this production.

                I agree that many so-called moderates/independents are really just crony capitalists, though it’s likely most of the “independents” in the general population are just apathetic about politics in general and only get involved when their paycheck is getting hurt or they see a special report about sex offenders on the news.

                1. True limited government types are seen as some sort of spook, spectre or revenant, and are considered, IMHO, to be the true radical since limited government hasn’t been seen in quite some time.

                  I’m just really, really jaded. I see “the entitlement mindset” more and more every day in meatspace and I find it really disheartening, and I’m not looking at through the lens of representational bias either. BTW’s philosophy was dignity through self-reliance, cultural assimilation, education and the practical utility that follows from self-improvement, truly a classically liberal fellow and I think would still be considered largely anathema to liberal thinking today.

                  DuBois was, for all intensive purposes, a very well-educated, social climbing race huckster. Sound familiar?

                  The more things change…

                  1. Some fresh-off-the-boat Indian chick was trying to tell me today that peanut butter is bad for your intestines. My response was that that depends on which end you put it in through. I don’t think she understood, thankfully.

  54. I knew some garbage like this was going to happen. Some people around here have no honor.

    I blame the Axis of Glib.

    1. I blame the Axis of Glib Fib.


    2. Is someone annoying whining about something?

  55. The FOX idjit on my teevee is yapping about Mark Zandi and his economic projections.

    When was Zandi right about anything? I’d like to go to his house and beat him with a sock full of nickels. And then dump a barrel of flaming dog shit on him.

    1. Who is Mark Zandi?

  56. Zandi works for Moody’s. You know, the guys who are so totally on top of things.

    He’s the go-to guy for economic projections which agree with government economic fine-tuning scams.

  57. The problem is that you don’t hold people accountable for bad business decisions by sending them to prison, you hold them accountable by having them lose their money because of such decisions.

    Exactly. This should largely be a corporate governance issue, but the laws have been, over time, rewritten in favor of employees (management) over owners (shareholders).

    The people who took stupid careless risks with their bosses’ money should be booted out with nothing but the shirts on their backs. Boards of Directors who sat around the table and nodded on cue every time the CEO had a brainstorm should get the same treatment.

  58. you’re self-loathing and not really black.

    You’re living in a house of cards!

  59. I see Topic Numero Uno on the GooglyNews this morning is the shocking bombshell revelation that the Kochtupus is pulling Cain’s marionette strings.

    1. See? He’s a happy little house nigger, perfectly happy to sell out the field slaves.

      When Ron Paul and Gary Johnson obviously don’t get the nomination, I hope Herman Cain does, just so that we can see this play out again, but bigger and crazier.

      1. Liberal assholes spent 20 years calling Thomas stupid. Then we get the Jeffrey Toobin article last summer portraying him as a Super Villain running the supreme court. No apologies for calling him stupid all those years.

        Fucking Joe Biden called him stupid. No man should ever have to suffer the indignity of Joe Biden calling you stupid. To think in the 21st Century, liberals are so racist they will subject a black man to that.

        1. Then we get the Jeffrey Toobin article last summer portraying him as a Super Villain running the supreme court.

          Ah yes, the brilliant Jeffrey Toobin, who suggested in all deadly, concerned seriousness, that the number of US Senators elected from each state should be apportioned according to population.

          Oh, no. Nothing could possibly go wrong there.

          These people just need to drop the act and honestly admit what they want is a parliamentary monarchy complete with a good, old-fashioned wealth tax.

          1. What infuriates me more than anything is the smugness of people like Toobin. They are just dishonest nasty fucks. But they think they are wonderful and smarter and more enlightened than every one.

            1. They think that because all of their fucking ‘in-club’ friends told them so and they reciprocated. These people have absolutely no capacity for serious introspection. They must be humiliated before they budge.

              1. Introspection is pretty damn hard when you never hear anyone say anything critical about you. And of course, everyone tries to avoid critical people anyway…so it’s a vicious cycle.

                A true leader (or “opinion leader”) will make an effort to find and listen to criticism of himself as a reality check….but we don’t have true leaders anymore.

  60. I knew the job was dangerous when I took it, but I just had to look.

    Herman Cain seemed to enjoy his turn auditioning for the role of Mitt Romney’s chief foil Tuesday night. Luxuriating at the center of the table thanks to surging poll numbers, he basked in the attention of his rivals as every exchange seemed to come back to his signature 9-9-9 tax plan. It’s a good thing Cain relished his moment in the spotlight, because it’s almost certainly downhill from here.


    Even if enacted, the 9-9-9 fantasy is a particularly bad one. Bruce Bartlett, an economic adviser in the Bush 41 and Reagan Administrations, eviscerated its tenets on Tuesday in a post on the New York Times’ Economix blog. “At a minimum, the Cain plan is a distributional monstrosity. The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase,” Bartlett wrote. “Even allowing for the poorly thought through promises routinely made on the campaign trail, Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived.”

    Bruce Bartlett doesn’t like it, so take THAT, Teabagsterdz!

    Was there ever really a time when Time didn’t suck?

    1. I am not sure what to think about 9-9-9. But people like Bruce Barlett having kittens over it definitely makes me think Cain is onto something.

    2. Bruce Bartlett doesn’t like it, so take THAT, Teabagsterdz!

      Bruce Bartlett is a disingenuous, big-government “economist” of the highest order with the “financial cures” that he espouses leading from general economic malaise to the economic equivalent of rusty chainsaw rape.

      He’s a Frum/Brooks hybrid of the highest order, and like Krugnutz, should be summarily dismissed.

      1. Yup. Remember, sometimes ad hominiem is just fine.

        1. Well it does depend on who the hominiem in question is doesn’t it?

  61. http://www.newsbusters.org/blo…..hich-wants

    More reason to hope Cain wins the nomination.

    1. I guess it’s not just liberals who support someone because they like the idea of them being president.

    2. Sean Penn should be more careful. Going to foreign countries and giving moral support to our enemies is a capital crime these days.

  62. To instead focus on “some people say ‘nobody’ has gone to prison but actually at least one has” is pretty blatent misdirection onto relatively trivial nit picking – a cheap shot with nothing illuminating or insightful to it.

    Actually, it’s PLENTY illuminating.

    The “none of the architects” has gone to prison meme only makes sense in the context of an overall argument that says, “People on Wall Street don’t go to jail because rich people walk away from all the crimes they commit.” If any Wall Street figures ever go to jail for any crime, that viewpoint is exposed as silly.

    Basically the fairly constant drumbeat of Wall Street convictions demonstrates that we’re in a situation where people who commit definable crimes or undertake acts that are actually illegal go to jail, and people who don’t commit any crimes but do things that annoy leftist douchebags like “sell bonds whose value has been vastly inflated by Federal Reserve action” or “speculate on bubbles caused 100% by the Federal Reserve and no one else” don’t go to jail. And that’s a perfectly satisfactory situation.

    1. Exactly. Notice they never say specifically who should go to jail for doing exactly what. They only say “someone needs to go to jail”. As if every time something bad happens it must be the result of criminal activity somewhere.

      If any of these leftist douches and media cheerleaders think that there are unpunished criminals on Wall Street, then name them. And name exactly the crime they are guilty of committing and exactly why we know or should think they are guilty. If you can’t do that, you are just a fucking mob wanting a head.

    2. And greed, while not technically illegal (as if passing a law would make it disappear), is certainly grounds for some jail time. Let’s get them instead on obstruction of justice or some other vague bullshit.

  63. BTW John, if they keep up this “Cain is a tool of the Koch brothers” meme, they may FORCE me to like Cain.

    I saw the Washington Post today make the claim that if Cain is connected to the Koch brothers, he can’t claim to be a political outsider.

    And I thought to myself, “When the FUCK did the Koch brothers become political insiders?”

    Like somehow if you contribute money to quixotic causes that never get actualized as policy, you’re suddenly an “insider”.

    Like somehow if you run for Veep as the libertarian candidate and get slaughtered, you become equally as “inside” as John Kerry.

    I really can’t believe that the Post thinks we’re gullible enough to swallow a definition of “political insider” that makes people who oppose the current system and ALWAYS lose are “insiders” right there along with the permanent bureaucracy and invulnerable congressional incumbents. WTF, douches?

    1. There’s more. According to someone else that’s black, Cain seems embarrased by being black.

      African-Americans were psychologically maimed by this country, the expression of which can still be seen in the visceral self-loathing that afflicts too many.

      Meaning the black child who equates doing well in school with “acting white.” Meaning the famous black man who bleaches his skin. Meaning the famous black woman who rationalizes her use of a certain soul-killing racial epithet. Meaning Herman Cain.

      1. Didn’t know Warty already linked to that. SOOOOORRRY!

        1. It’s infuriating enough to warrant being posted twice.

    2. And I thought to myself, “When the FUCK did the Koch brothers become political insiders?”

      When the Citizen’s United case was decided.

      Notice no one is calling for Jeffrey Immelt’s head.

    3. They’re not political insiders, nobody elected them!

    4. A political insider to the post is someone advances ideas they don’t like. Someone who advances ideas they like is never one even if they have Reid and Obama on speed dial

  64. And greed, while not technically illegal (as if passing a law would make it disappear), is certainly grounds for some jail time.

    This wormy apple falls from the same rotten tree as the U S Attys’ desperate yearning to punish medical marijuana providers for the sin of profiteering.

    1. Yep profit sure is evil. Someone here posted the profit margins of Exxon (~8%) to Apple (~21%)

      So Exxon employs tens of thousands of people, most of whom make a pretty good wage. If you’re a roughneck on a drilling rig, a truck driver, work on a tanker, etc., you’re making a good living. And Exxon makes 8 cents of profit for each dollar they spend on their operations.

      Then you have Apple, whose products are made almost entirely using slave labor in sweatshtop conditions, crowded factories where suicides are not uncommon. And they make 21 cents profit for each dollar they spend.

      So if you’re pissed at Exxon for their profits, you should be at least 2.5 times as pissed at Apple for theirs. Will this come up at OWS? Doubt it.

      1. Then you have Apple, whose products are made almost entirely using slave labor in sweatshtop conditions, crowded factories where suicides are not uncommon.

        [citation needed]

    1. Well it could be worse. I could be a self loathing gay guy with a room temperature IQ and a heart full hatred for anyone fortunate enough to not be like me.

      1. What gives you the impression that I’m not extremely fond of myself?

        1. Who said I was talking about you?

          1. Well it did sound like an accurate description of Matt Drudge.

            1. Tell us again how being a Team Blue cheerleader makes you more supportive of liberty than anyone else, Tony.

              1. Because I don’t live under the delusion that everyone can be wealthy if they just try hard enough… your concerns for liberty are actual for the wealthy, theoretical for the “could be wealthy.”

                1. Because I don’t live under the delusion that everyone can be wealthy if they just try hard enough…

                  Believe what you like, just don’t enact policy that will inhibit my ability to become wealthy because someone else cannot do anything to become wealthy.

  65. Martha Stewart was involved in no perjury; she was never under oath at any time. Not one single word spoken by her or the Bush goons who targeted her destruction for political gain, was recorded in a transcript or in sworn testimony.

    She was framed with lies in a McCarthy-style witch hunt due to grossly inept legal representation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.