What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

geezer said:
No question. But they do fill a need.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You were the one who said it....

geezer said:
All kidding aside, and leaving the politicians alone for a minute, those of you who are so hateful and scornful towards charities should step back and take a look at the work they're accomplishing while you're complaining about them.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

geezer said:
All kidding aside, and leaving the politicians alone for a minute, those of you who are so hateful and scornful towards charities should step back and take a look at the work they're accomplishing while you're complaining about them. I am eternally grateful to those who contribute to Children's Hospitals, covered my approx. $280,000 bill in the years following my sons birth through 8 surgeries. All paid by private charities, they never even sent me a bill. Needless to say, now that I'm in a little better position to do so, it's my charity of choice. Wonderful people over there (St. Paul Children's).
(as an aside, at the time, we didn't have insurance but I thought we'd be covered by an Obamacare-like program once called "Crippled Children of Michigan." I learned much later they wouldn't pay a single bill because we got our care out of state, in my wife's hometown but the good people of Children's picked up the bill without our even being aware of it. So yeah, again, I'm not opposed to the gov't covering those who need it.)
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone being scornful of charities. Where we're scornful is that when government chooses to do it, it no longer becomes a charity, as every taxpayer is forced to contribute to a cause whether we agree with it or not. I don't have any issue with someone making a choice of philanthropy; if you want to do it, it's your prerogative. From a standpoint of obtaining wealth, I don't agree with the concept, but you go ahead and choose because it's your money.
 
geezer said:
You're still lying. I actually said that I think it's a worthy end to cover these people that can't get coverage, but that's not what Obamacare was presented as. They actually tried to sell it as reducing costs, and look what happened. $200K of taxpayer funds per participant and the average premium going up another 400%. Do you think, if Obama was straightforward from the beginning by admitting to the 30X cost overruns etc., that it would have gotten any support? He's a cheap lying carny rat snake oil peddler. No better. The thing is, he's invested every bit of his "legacy" as the supposed "lord and savior of America" into this thing, so the only way it disappears, even when the entire country (beside a few head-in-the-sand USCHO basement posters) knows that it already failed, is a political death match. There is no such thing as cutting losses to do what's actually best for the country as a whole anymore, these cheap lying carny rat politicians only care about their so-called "legacy."
Click to expand...

And what I'm telling you is give us the source of these statements of yours because I'm curious where they're coming from. You've thrown out some stats. Back them up.

Old Pio said:
Uh, oh. Under the headline "Time to Go." HuffPo reports that our esteemed Attorney General signed off on a fishing expedition to check James Rosen's e-mails. He's a cheap, two bit political hack, doing the dirty work for a jumped up southside Chicago pol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/eric-holder-fox-news-james-rosen-warrant_n_3328663.html

Subpoena that thug and drag him in there before the committee, by his lips if necessary, to answer for his lawlessness.
Click to expand...

Opie I'm about to burst your bubble. People don't like journalists. They have the ethics of used car salesmen and would easily disclose national security secrets if they thought it would get them an exclusive. Nobody cares if the DOJ legally snooped at some Faux News knuckledragger's info. I do agree with your about Holder testifying. Watching him slap Issa around and calling him a disgrace was beautiful! Should be just as fun seeing that again.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
And what I'm telling you is give us the source of these statements of yours because I'm curious where they're coming from. You've thrown out some stats. Back them up.
Click to expand...

I was working off a combination of my faulty memory along with pulling numbers out of my ***. So it's hard to provide specific citations. I don't remember which ones are faulty memories, and which ones are ***-numbers.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
Opie I'm about to burst your bubble. People don't like journalists. They have the ethics of used car salesmen and would easily disclose national security secrets if they thought it would get them an exclusive. Nobody cares if the DOJ legally snooped at some Faux News knuckledragger's info. I do agree with your about Holder testifying. Watching him slap Issa around and calling him a disgrace was beautiful! Should be just as fun seeing that again.
Click to expand...
And that just goes to prove you're all about mob rule instead of the rule of law.
 
geezer said:
I was working off a combination of my faulty memory along with pulling numbers out of my ***. So it's hard to provide specific citations. I don't remember which ones are faulty memories, and which ones are ***-numbers.
Click to expand...

I can respect that. ;) Good to know your kids got the medical care they needed.

Shirtless Guy, the winners make the rules. All this was done legally. Boo hoo hoo if journalists can't print national secrets. Would you be okay with a front page story about how the US had identified OBL's hideout the day before he was killed?

Undo influence from the gubmint would be if a journalist was sniffing around Obama's tax returns and then the DOJ/CIA/FBI/etc started snooping on his/her private correspondence. Looking into what the AP/FOX knew is no different than going after that Wikileaks putz.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
I can respect that. ;) Good to know your kids got the medical care they needed.

Shirtless Guy, the winners make the rules. All this was done legally. Boo hoo hoo if journalists can't print national secrets. Would you be okay with a front page story about how the US had identified OBL's hideout the day before he was killed?

Undo influence from the gubmint would be if a journalist was sniffing around Obama's tax returns and then the DOJ/CIA/FBI/etc started snooping on his/her private correspondence. Looking into what the AP/FOX knew is no different than going after that Wikileaks putz.
Click to expand...
Winners don't just change the constitution, it is there for a reason. All I was trying to say is that the fact that people don't like journalists and "nobody cares" if the DOJ is looking into a fox news doesn't change the law, no matter how much the majority doesn't care or doesnt think its wrong. Probably one of my biggest issues with government is that we seem to refuse to amend the constitution anymore. Its there for a reason, if you don't like part of it, you need to get it changed, not just make an end around it with the courts.
 
Shirtless Guy said:
Winners don't just change the constitution, it is there for a reason. All I was trying to say is that the fact that people don't like journalists and "nobody cares" if the DOJ is looking into a fox news doesn't change the law, no matter how much the majority doesn't care or doesnt think its wrong. Probably one of my biggest issues with government is that we seem to refuse to amend the constitution anymore. Its there for a reason, if you don't like part of it, you need to get it changed, not just make an end around it with the courts.
Click to expand...

Again, freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, isn't absolute. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and cloak yourself in First Amendment rights. Similarly while we do have a robust freedom of the press, you can't divulge national security secrets. What I'm asking for you to do is show me where the Constitution has been violated here? This was obtained via a warrant. There was an actual need to find out the info. By all means be suspicious of govt snooping but I come back to the question of would you rather have a front page story about OBL's whereabouts the day before he was taken out, thereby allowing him to escape, or would you rather hear about it a day later after he got what he deserved?
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
Again, freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, isn't absolute. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and cloak yourself in First Amendment rights. Similarly while we do have a robust freedom of the press, you can't divulge national security secrets. What I'm asking for you to do is show me where the Constitution has been violated here? This was obtained via a warrant. There was an actual need to find out the info. By all means be suspicious of govt snooping but I come back to the question of would you rather have a front page story about OBL's whereabouts the day before he was taken out, thereby allowing him to escape, or would you rather hear about it a day later after he got what he deserved?
Click to expand...
The power to issue search warrants isn't absolute, either. Warrants have to be based on probable cause (or hot pursuit) and they have to be limited in scope as to the exact property and evidence in question. The fact that a warrant was issued does not *necessarily* make it okay - there have been plenty of cases where the power to issue warrants has been abused. I'm still reserving judgement on this one until more of the story is disclosed - not jumping onto the "there was a warrant, so it's automatically okay" nor the "it's a journalist, so it's automatically government overreach" bandwagons.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
Again, freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, isn't absolute. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and cloak yourself in First Amendment rights. Similarly while we do have a robust freedom of the press, you can't divulge national security secrets. What I'm asking for you to do is show me where the Constitution has been violated here? This was obtained via a warrant. There was an actual need to find out the info. By all means be suspicious of govt snooping but I come back to the question of would you rather have a front page story about OBL's whereabouts the day before he was taken out, thereby allowing him to escape, or would you rather hear about it a day later after he got what he deserved?
Click to expand...
How did you feel (if you were alive back then) about Daniel Ellsberg, the NY Times, and the Pentagon Papers?

And if you were not, here's the Cliff Notes Version -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
 
joecct said:
How did you feel (if you were alive back then) about Daniel Ellsberg, the NY Times, and the Pentagon Papers?

And if you were not, here's the Cliff Notes Version -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
Click to expand...

I wasn't alive back then, but my understanding is the Pentagon Papers wasn't leaking a pressing national security secret operation, it was confirming that the govt had deceived the public about how the war was going. Much like investigating Watergate, this is what journalists should be doing (and before somebody accuses me of partisanship the LBJ administration was part of the effort to dress up the war's progress).

What I do recall however is an incident from the mid-80's where a plane had been hijacked and taken to Beirut where several Americans were being held hostage, and there was some blabbing in the press about Delta Force units heading over there. Rightfully so there was a pushback against the press for reporting this as giving the terrorists a heads up about possible special forces action against them is not something journalists should do. That was the right attitude then and its the right one now.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

Rover said:
Again, freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, isn't absolute. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and cloak yourself in First Amendment rights. Similarly while we do have a robust freedom of the press, you can't divulge national security secrets. What I'm asking for you to do is show me where the Constitution has been violated here? This was obtained via a warrant. There was an actual need to find out the info. By all means be suspicious of govt snooping but I come back to the question of would you rather have a front page story about OBL's whereabouts the day before he was taken out, thereby allowing him to escape, or would you rather hear about it a day later after he got what he deserved?
Click to expand...
im not talking about if there was an actual violation, I'm talking about your attitude. It does not matter what I would prefer to see. What matters is what the constitution and laws allow for. Do you not understand the difference?
 
Shirtless Guy said:
im not talking about if there was an actual violation, I'm talking about your attitude. It does not matter what I would prefer to see. What matters is what the constitution and laws allow for. Do you not understand the difference?
Click to expand...

I posted "the winners make the rules" to get your goat. Relax will ya. I don't endorse unconstitutional actions any more than you do. Show me where this was illegal though before I waive the red flag.

This is kinda on point and a good article about why these "scandals" have no impact on the Prez...

http://www.nationaljournal.com//col...can-criticism-of-obama-isn-t-working-20130523
 
Re: 2nd Term Part 4: Donkeys, Elephants, and Porcupines

I'd say Rover is the perfect apologist for Little Dick and all the Dickettes. Erlichmann and Haldeman could have used him. Another permutation of the Rover Theorem: While hypocrisy is the highest crime known to man, it's definitely not hypocritical for the most politicized Justice Department since John Mitchell to snoop on journalists who work for conservative entities. Because, you know, they work for "Faux."

Martin Niemoller said it best.
 
Last edited:
Bob Gray said:
You can add adoptive families to the groups the IRS has been targeting. This thing just gets uglier by the day.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/irs-targeted-adoptive-families-over-tax-credit-little-evidence-of-fraud-found-96486/
Click to expand...

As an adopted child myself, I have no issues with this to the extent things like claiming the EITC also increase your risk for an audit. If you claim credits that most people don't, they're going to ask questions. But your concern is noted.

Edit:here's the full report, btw. http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov...Y-2012-Annual-Report-To-Congress-Full-Report
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top