Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Richard Mellon Scaife the man who bankrolled the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that created Whitewater, "Troopergate" and almost all the other Clinton-era "scandals" died July 4th, but not before he and Hillary became close friends   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 124
    More: Strange, Clinton-Scaife, Troopergate, Paula Jones, Iraq invasion, Joe Conason, David Brock, William F. Buckley  
•       •       •

4059 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2014 at 2:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-07 03:42:35 PM  

NotoriousW.O.P: I worked for the Pittsburgh Trib for a while. Unfortunately, any good journalism they turned out (and they were capable of turning out good journalism) was overshadowed by an editorial page that reflected Scaife's political views -- which could turn bizarre (for example, an editorial suggested that Katharine Graham had her husband killed and took over the Washington Post).
I think it's particularly telling that the only people who are speaking well about him are the ones who drew a paycheck from him -- and might not continue to do so for much longer. According to divorce filings from his second wife, the Trib lost about $30 million a year, and I can't imagine things have gotten better. The one owner who could stomach those kinds of losses is dead now, and I've got a lot of friends still at the Trib who are kind of nervous right now.


Expect a dramatic downturn.

People want news: but they don't. Want to pay for it.
 
2014-07-07 03:47:51 PM  

gweilo8888: Magorn: In 2008 when I read about Hillary's sit-down with Scaife's paper that was referenced in the Article, I wrote this on my own blog I had at the time

You mean your Daily Kos blog that you still have now, and last posted to last month?


No I mean my own blog which I let die long ago,  I tended to mirror it with a DK diary. Though that was mostly active during the Bush years when I was perpetually pissed off by everything I read on a daily basis.    I still throw something at DK now and again when something pisses me off enough that  I want to rant long form, but mostly I content myself with snarky fark headlines these days.
 
2014-07-07 03:48:14 PM  
Hillary is also "good friends" with Henry Kissinger.

because she's such a liberal.
 
2014-07-07 03:50:32 PM  

gweilo8888: Magorn: In 2008 when I read about Hillary's sit-down with Scaife's paper that was referenced in the Article, I wrote this on my own blog I had at the time

You mean your Daily Kos blog that you still have now, and last posted to last month?


Magorn is on Kos? Hell, I'll go over there and read that. Got a link?

ElwoodCuse: The Trib put up billboards where they assured people that while yes, they are dominated by insane right wing opinions, you could totally trust that their *news* was legit. Lol OK hmm where have I heard that before


FOX if I know... :)
 
2014-07-07 03:51:42 PM  

Magorn: In 2008 when I read about Hillary's sit-down with Scaife's paper that was referenced in the Article, I wrote this on my own blog I had at the time (I was an angry young man way back then)

"If Richard Mellon Scaife teetering on the brink of endorsing a Clinton isn't a sign of the apocalypse I don't know what is.

But I do know one thing.  The only thing more astonishing, and debasing, than him granting it; is the fact that Hillary apparently  Soughtit.

You know how people have been urging Hillary to get out while she still has a few shreds of dignity left?
Too late.

She could be revealed to have had a prior career as the featured performer in a Tijuana donkey show  and emerge with more dignity than what she has now after abasing herself before the one man who, more than any other in this country, attempted to smear her and destroy her husband and daughter.

 Selling your body is a comparatively honorable to make a living, particularly when you are in desperate straits.  But selling your soul like this?  Is there any way to come back from it? To NOT have the awful stain of what you were willing to do for personal gain eat away at you for the rest of your life?  (sorry for the cliche but)  At long Last, has she no decency left?

And for what?  Does she seriously believe that there are thousands of PA democrats hanging on the words of the country's most notorious arch-conservative before they decide how to cast their votes?  And even if they were, were they REALLY worth cozy up to THIS man to get?

What the HELL was she thinking?

Well, if It's any consolation to her,  I think this has to be rock bottom.  I'm not sure it's physically possible to sink any lower."

In retrospect, given everything that's happened since.  I stand by each and every one of those words.  A bit purple, maybe, but not by much.   This is why I was overjoyed when I say the other GL thread about Obama reportedly quietly promising Warren support if she runs.  I really do want an alternative to Hillary.  I simply do not trust her judgment.


Oh I trust that she'll sign any legislation Wall Street wants her to. I trust she'll be roughly 90% as hawkish as any Republican who would be running against her.

And I'd still vote for her without a second thought when the alternative is to give the current GOP a single shred more power.

But yes, Warren would be greatly preferrable.
 
2014-07-07 03:52:59 PM  

Magorn: No I mean my own blog which I let die long ago,  I tended to mirror it with a DK diary. Though that was mostly active during the Bush years when I was perpetually pissed off by everything I read on a daily basis.    I still throw something at DK now and again when something pisses me off enough that  I want to rant long form, but mostly I content myself with snarky fark headlines these days.


Fair enough. Couldn't resist Googling for the blog, and all that showed up was Fark, the Daily Kos blog, and a random newspaper quoting you as if you were Daily Kos' mouthpiece.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Magorn is on Kos? Hell, I'll go over there and read that. Got a link?


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=magorn+daily+kos
 
2014-07-07 03:55:49 PM  

gweilo8888: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Magorn is on Kos? Hell, I'll go over there and read that. Got a link?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=magorn+daily+kos


You couldn't possibly be more helpful. Bless your heart.
 
2014-07-07 03:57:48 PM  
Wait, the Clintons were behind Whitewater?  That's how they got so good!
www.d3football.com

/sorry
 
2014-07-07 03:58:02 PM  

spcMike: You know who else died on the fourth of July.


Our dignity ???
k41.kn3.net
 
2014-07-07 03:58:38 PM  

Infernalist: beefoe: Ummm, it was Hillary that invented the term "vast right-wing conspiracy".  She claimed that it was a "vast right wing conspiracy" that was making stories about her husband banging pretty much anything with a heartbeat, instead of the actual fact that her husband was actually banging anything with a heartbeat.

Which is funny since no one cares now, nor cared then, that Clinton was a poon-hound.  

I still remember the GOP jumping up and down and screaming "He had sex in the oval office!!11one"  and the rest of us went '...cool'


Which, in hindsight, made the "conspiracy" remark even more stupid. It was upping the ante and even emboldening the conservatives to make up more stories and more ridiculous sound bites. If she had said something like "report all you want because Americans are grown up enough to think for themselves", then maybe we'd get a little self-conscious shrug and go along with our lives.
 
2014-07-07 04:02:20 PM  
packman_jon: Wait, the Clintons were behind Whitewater?  That's how they got so good!
 [www.d3football.com image 682x244]

/sorry



Whitewater explained
 
2014-07-07 04:02:41 PM  

dryknife: Is she that deaf actress?


No you're thinking of Helen Keller

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-07-07 04:04:54 PM  
Too bad they never got him for what he did to Vince Foster.
 
2014-07-07 04:09:16 PM  

NotoriousW.O.P: I think it's particularly telling that the only people who are speaking well about him are the ones who drew a paycheck from him -- and might not continue to do so for much longer.


Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Trib Media, The Allegheny Institute, etc., etc. It was always funny to read a Trib story about X problem in Pittsburgh that the Allegheny Institute had identified and how an organization like PHLF was working to fix it. It was an octopus circle jerk.

It'll be interesting to see what happens now that the money spigot is turned off.
 
2014-07-07 04:12:13 PM  

Triple Oak: Hillary is a perfect example of how our country continues to shift right

She's more an example of how broken the establishment Democrats are.  She has no principles I'm aware of, just a lust for power backed up by a sense of entitlement.  Back in '08 she campaigned like we owe her the Oval Office.  I don't expect idealism, but usually candidates have some sort of pitch beyond, "I'm a woman and a Democrat."  Besides, she throws her constituents under the bus so often her party affiliation doesn't matter, and her gender justifies her actions only to the most crazy man-hating harpies.  To anyone else she was sympathetic back in the 1990s when the GOP really was harassing her well beyond what I'd consider stalking and her hubby was banging an intern, but at this point the victim status has worn off and we're exposed to just another self-serving Beltway whore.

There's a reason she lost the damn primary and it's not because anyone fell for Obama's speeches (beyond him simply not sounding like an idiot).  The '08 Democratic primary was all about gender and race but I rooted for Obama mainly to keep an aristocrat out of the White House.
 
2014-07-07 04:12:40 PM  

1derful: Too bad they never got him for what he did to Vince Foster.


Oh you really live up to your name!
 
2014-07-07 04:15:18 PM  

mongbiohazard: Oh I trust that she'll sign any legislation Wall Street wants her to. I trust she'll be roughly 90% as hawkish as any Republican who would be running against her.

And I'd still vote for her without a second thought when the alternative is to give the current GOP a single shred more power.

But yes, Warren would be greatly preferrable.


This.  Unfortunately Warren is the very epitome of an East Coast Liberal.  She was even a Harvard professor fercrisakes.  That's pretty much political poison in Real 'Murica.  Ask Mike Dukakis or John Kerry how much the rest of the country likes East Coast Liberals, especially well educated ones.  If Warren wins the nomination, she'll lose the general election.  Sadly, we're probably better off with Hillary on the ticket.

Besides Wall St. hates Warren.  She wants to aggressively investigate and prosecute the lot of them for tanking the economy in 2008.  Oh and she also thinks the minimum wage should be at least $10/hr and has made noise that it would be $22/hr if it had been tracking worker productivity since the 1960s.  No way the business community wants her in charge.
 
2014-07-07 04:15:34 PM  
I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.
 
2014-07-07 04:17:47 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: You couldn't possibly be more helpful. Bless your heart.


I aim to please.

/while mildly annoying
 
2014-07-07 04:18:36 PM  

stonicus: AMonkey'sUncle: spcMike: You know who else died on the fourth of July.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Jefferson said just before he died, "Adams lives!" Not for long.

Jefferson outlived Adams... by like a few hours.  Jefferson just didn't find out in time.


Also, James Monroe, in 1831
 
2014-07-07 04:21:32 PM  

Dahnkster: dryknife: Is she that deaf actress?

No you're thinking of Helen Keller

[upload.wikimedia.org image 261x331]


I don't get it.  Does it have something to do with Justin Beavver?
 
2014-07-07 04:23:36 PM  

stonicus: AMonkey'sUncle: spcMike: You know who else died on the fourth of July.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Jefferson said just before he died, "Adams lives!" Not for long.

Jefferson outlived Adams... by like a few hours.  Jefferson just didn't find out in time.


Yes, my bad. Thanks.
 
2014-07-07 04:24:26 PM  

nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.


Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.
 
2014-07-07 04:28:12 PM  

ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.

Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.


Libertarians tend to be very good at identifying problems, but absolutely terrible at solving them.
 
2014-07-07 04:35:01 PM  

anfrind: ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.

Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.

Libertarians tend to be very good at identifying problems, but absolutely terrible at solving them.


Aren't there a ton of non-crazy libertarian politcals out there? Why are people so fixated on the Pauls? Not my cup-o-tea, but Gary Johnson seems like a much more sane choice.
 
2014-07-07 04:37:31 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:  It was an octopus circle jerk.


Octopus Circle Jerk is the name of my new hardcore punk klezmer band.
 
2014-07-07 04:39:16 PM  
ccundiff:
Aren't there a ton of non-crazy libertarian politcals out there?

No.
 
2014-07-07 04:40:32 PM  

anfrind: ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016
[...]

Libertarians tend to be very good at identifying problems, but absolutely terrible at solving them.


Poppycock.  Just let us join hands and pray.  The rain will come.
 
2014-07-07 04:41:04 PM  

ccundiff: anfrind: ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.

Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.

Libertarians tend to be very good at identifying problems, but absolutely terrible at solving them.

Aren't there a ton of non-crazy libertarian politcals out there? Why are people so fixated on the Pauls? Not my cup-o-tea, but Gary Johnson seems like a much more sane choice.


gary johnson is a terrific choice but the Pauls, not unlike Obama, were in the right place at the right time, and actually have a chance of rocking the boat.

to the guy who said libertarians don't offer solutions-- if you believe in government being the primary source of solutions-- you're correct. But that wasn't my point. My point was that people like you and me, who hold very different political views, don't have much of a choice. It's vote for this bank's candidate or that bank's candidate.

(Actually, these days the banks just back BOTH candidates. Sickening)
 
2014-07-07 04:41:28 PM  

ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.

Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.


Did you skim over the executive order bit?
 
2014-07-07 04:45:03 PM  

Infernalist: Which is funny since no one cares now, nor cared then, that Clinton was a poon-hound.


I don't remember anyone who cared about that.

I do remember a couple of rape accusations and a perjury charge, though.
 
2014-07-07 04:47:56 PM  

o_blah: ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.

Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.

Did you skim over the executive order bit?


Kind of, though I said a lot of sense, not total sense.
 
2014-07-07 05:03:42 PM  
Hilary Rodham Clinton has always been a corporatist. Before she became Fist Lady, she sat at the Board of Directors at Walmart. And we all know what Walmart is like.

This was the big deciding factor for me when I chose to vote for Obama instead on that cold January night during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses (you're welcome).

Hilary made a good Secretary of State and maybe even a good SCOTUS judge. But as President? Iiiiiiiiiii'm not too happy with that idea. I know I won't ever vote for a republican with the way they're acting. That much I certainly know.
 
2014-07-07 05:05:03 PM  

nickdaisy: ccundiff: anfrind: ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.

Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.

Libertarians tend to be very good at identifying problems, but absolutely terrible at solving them.

Aren't there a ton of non-crazy libertarian politcals out there? Why are people so fixated on the Pauls? Not my cup-o-tea, but Gary Johnson seems like a much more sane choice.

gary johnson is a terrific choice but the Pauls, not unlike Obama, were in the right place at the right time, and actually have a chance of rocking the boat.

to the guy who said libertarians don't offer solutions-- if you believe in ...




Libertarians fail spectacularly at one thing: history. The ratio of problems committed by big business unregulated far exceeds any benefits brought forth by therm.

Under a liberal ideology, the United States had almost 50 years of growth, health and infrastructure improvements that benefited all- not the chosen few.

As a result of the libertarian influence of Republican Party, we have dismantled every safety feature that lead directly to the biggest economic crash since the a Great Depression.

While not every government solution is viable, it sure beats the solution of "Everything will work out in the end"
The Government is all that stands between the people and enslavement by corporations.
 
2014-07-07 05:09:38 PM  
No surprise. Right-wing corporatist whores generally get along well together.
 
2014-07-07 05:11:36 PM  
The.. Ironic, I guess,  thing is that this guy bankrolled the Heritage Foundation, which gave us the individual mandate part of the ACA/Obamacare. When you are always opposed to everything, sometimes you get what you demanded and it does not turn out to be what you wanted.
Here is a link to that liberal rag Forbes about it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservat iv e-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/
 
2014-07-07 05:14:45 PM  
"Friends" because they both like lesbian porn?


i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-07 05:16:12 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Meanwhile, and just for a bit of leavening contrast, Obama and George Soros are funding the destruction of America. So, we got that going for us. Which is nice ..


It's the nigras and the jews! They's the ruination of Murca I tell you!!!1one!!
 
2014-07-07 05:16:44 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: nickdaisy: ccundiff: anfrind: ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.

Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.

Libertarians tend to be very good at identifying problems, but absolutely terrible at solving them.

Aren't there a ton of non-crazy libertarian politcals out there? Why are people so fixated on the Pauls? Not my cup-o-tea, but Gary Johnson seems like a much more sane choice.

gary johnson is a terrific choice but the Pauls, not unlike Obama, were in the right place at the right time, and actually have a chance of rocking the boat.

to the guy who said libertarians don't offer solutions-- if you ...


there's a difference between libertarianism and corporatism.  when corporate entities are treated like people, yet without the personal liability that would be mandated in a libertarian system, you end up with what we have now.  what we have now, and have had for a very long time, is corporatism.

the economic growth you speak of is illusory.  you can only borrow and spend for so long.  if taxing and spending were the key to economic growth the we'd all be soviets.  but now we're into a political debate, and as i pointed out earlier, that's not allowed.  you can either vote for Hillary Clinton, sponsored by the Wall Street, or whatever republican they choose other than Paul (because there's no way the establishment will ever, ever give him the nomination), who will also be sponsored by Wall Street.
 
2014-07-07 05:16:51 PM  

Headso: CptnSpldng: HotWingConspiracy: So many graves to piss on.

Maybe if you hurry you could have a bowl of Cinncinnati chili and leave a deposit in the grave before they fill it in.

Cincinnati chili becomes a Cleveland steamer?


It's Ohio all over
 
2014-07-07 05:20:05 PM  
One less wart on the ass of society.
 
2014-07-07 05:20:20 PM  
ccundiff:
Aren't there a ton of non-crazy libertarian politcals out there? Why are people so fixated on the Pauls? Not my cup-o-tea, but Gary Johnson seems like a much more sane choice.

A ton? So, like ten of them? Yeah, that's about right.
 
2014-07-07 05:23:16 PM  

nickdaisy: to the guy who said libertarians don't offer solutions-- if you believe in government being the primary source of solutions-- you're correct. But that wasn't my point. My point was that people like you and me, who hold very different political views, don't have much of a choice. It's vote for this bank's candidate or that bank's candidate.


You're still not offering any solutions.
 
2014-07-07 05:29:32 PM  

nickdaisy: Darth_Lukecash: nickdaisy: ccundiff: anfrind: ccundiff: nickdaisy: I'm a conservative (not a bomb everyone on behalf of Exxon and AIPAC neocon, but a Reagan/Goldwater type) but I don't consider Hillary a liberal.  It infuriates me how people call HRC and her ilk "liberals."  She's not progressive, she's a friggin' puppet sponsored by Goldman Sachs.  She and Obama are liberal the same way Romney and McCain are conservative.  The left and right are merging, and it's all being orchestrated by the delicate hand of Wall Street.

Additionally, I refuse to vote for another Clinton or Bush.  Half of my life has been under a Bush or Clinton presidency.  We live in the US of A, not some banana republic where politically connected families take turns wearing the presidential sash.

I'm 100% behind Rand Paul in 2016, but if we can't have a libertarian leaning republican I'd much rather see a true liberal win than another hedge fund sponsored candidate.  I don't agree with Obama on most of his choices, but I do respect the fact that he believes in some of them.  His abuse of executive orders and trampling of the 4th Amendment is inexcusable though.  He has to pick his fights, but for a constitutional scholar (which he legitimately is) he should know ending illegal snooping is more important than distributing free birth control.

But I shudder to think what's next.

It's nauseating watching elected offices being bought and sold like tickets on Craigslist.

Except for that part, you made a lot of sense.

Libertarians tend to be very good at identifying problems, but absolutely terrible at solving them.

Aren't there a ton of non-crazy libertarian politcals out there? Why are people so fixated on the Pauls? Not my cup-o-tea, but Gary Johnson seems like a much more sane choice.

gary johnson is a terrific choice but the Pauls, not unlike Obama, were in the right place at the right time, and actually have a chance of rocking the boat.

to the guy who said libertarians don't offer sol ...


Well, if your options are tax and spend or borrow and spend I'll take the former.  The spend is always going to be there, the government is always going to have to spend money, the only question is the amount of spending and how it is funded or if it is funded.
 
2014-07-07 05:41:43 PM  

Magorn: In 2008 when I read about Hillary's sit-down with Scaife's paper that was referenced in the Article, I wrote this on my own blog I had at the time (I was an angry young man way back then)

"If Richard Mellon Scaife teetering on the brink of endorsing a Clinton isn't a sign of the apocalypse I don't know what is.

But I do know one thing.  The only thing more astonishing, and debasing, than him granting it; is the fact that Hillary apparently  Soughtit.

You know how people have been urging Hillary to get out while she still has a few shreds of dignity left?
Too late.

She could be revealed to have had a prior career as the featured performer in a Tijuana donkey show  and emerge with more dignity than what she has now after abasing herself before the one man who, more than any other in this country, attempted to smear her and destroy her husband and daughter.

 Selling your body is a comparatively honorable to make a living, particularly when you are in desperate straits.  But selling your soul like this?  Is there any way to come back from it? To NOT have the awful stain of what you were willing to do for personal gain eat away at you for the rest of your life?  (sorry for the cliche but)  At long Last, has she no decency left?

And for what?  Does she seriously believe that there are thousands of PA democrats hanging on the words of the country's most notorious arch-conservative before they decide how to cast their votes?  And even if they were, were they REALLY worth cozy up to THIS man to get?

What the HELL was she thinking?

Well, if It's any consolation to her,  I think this has to be rock bottom.  I'm not sure it's physically possible to sink any lower."

In retrospect, given everything that's happened since.  I stand by each and every one of those words.  A bit purple, maybe, but not by much.   This is why I was overjoyed when I say the other GL thread about Obama reportedly quietly promising Warren support if she runs.  I really do want an alternative to Hi ...


Your blog sucks
 
2014-07-07 05:51:57 PM  

lilbjorn: The Whitewater prosecutor in action


Should be a couple of one hundred dollar bills for the fly.
 
2014-07-07 06:07:41 PM  

Rent Party: Wait wait wait....

You mean the fabulously wealthy oligarchs that control the entire farking country aren't really divided by issues, but  are instead united by their love of money?

Why, it's almost as if politics is nothing other than theater to keep the plebes entertained!


This.
 
2014-07-07 06:21:21 PM  

Apos: As James Carville and Mary Matalin have shown, it *can* be done.


I saw her on TV not long ago. She has actually morphed into him.
 
2014-07-07 06:23:45 PM  

Huggermugger: Apos: As James Carville and Mary Matalin have shown, it *can* be done.

I saw her on TV not long ago. She has actually morphed into him.


Now THAT is a terrifying revelation.
 
2014-07-07 06:45:53 PM  

stonicus: AMonkey'sUncle: spcMike: You know who else died on the fourth of July.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Jefferson said just before he died, "Adams lives!" Not for long.

Jefferson outlived Adams... by like a few hours.  Jefferson just didn't find out in time.


Well at least you guys got the names right. The rest is bass-ackwards though.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report