Nick Davies lands another big scoop on the Murdoch hacking scandal, reporting that police investigators believe the News of the World gave a phone to the mother of a murder victim and then hacked it or at least tried to hack it.
This was no run-of-the-mill murder case, either. Davies reports that then-editor Rebekah Brooks gave the phone to Sarah Payne, whose daughter Sara had been murdered by a child molestor Brooks and NotW turned into a campaign that resulted in what’s known in the UK as Sarah’s Law—roughly equivalent to Megan’s Law here.
Police had earlier told her correctly that her name was not among those recorded in Mulcaire’s notes, but on Tuesday officers from Operation Weeting told her they had found her personal details among the investigator’s notes. These had previously been thought to refer to a different target.
Friends of Payne have told the Guardian that she is “absolutely devastated and deeply disappointed” at the disclosure. Her cause had been championed by the News of the World, and in particular by its former editor, Rebekah Brooks. Believing that she had not been a target for hacking, Payne wrote a farewell column for the paper’s final edition on 10 July, referring to its staff as “my good and trusted friends”.
The evidence that police have found in Mulcaire’s notes is believed to relate to a phone given to Payne by Brooks to help her stay in touch with her supporters.
Recall that Rebekah Brooks told the NotW newsroom upon shuttering the paper that they would soon know why the decision had been made and that “a very dark day for this company” was coming. I’m going to guess this wasn’t what she had in mind since Brooks namedropped Sarah’s Law several times in her testimony last week.
In other news, the board of Murdoch-controlled BSkyB announced that it unanimously backs James Murdoch to continue as chairman.
— The Wall Street Journal had a fascinating page-one story Tuesday on the relationship between the two most powerful politicians in Greece: Socialist Prime Minister George Papandreou and opposition leader Antonis Samaras. The two were roommates at Amherst back in the 1970s, of all things. The top:
As protesters battled police outside parliament last month in a hail of rocks and tear gas, Greece’s beleaguered prime minister put his hopes in a secret phone call to an old friend.
“Let us form a government of national salvation,” George Papandreou, the Socialist prime minister, said to his chief rival, Antonis Samaras, head of Greece’s conservative opposition and a buddy since the two men were roommates at Amherst College in Massachusetts 40 years ago.
The details of their secret mid-June talks reveal the degree to which two friends—each with far different prescriptions for economic salvation—hold the fate of Greece in their hands as the nation tries to get its nearly $500 billion in government debt under control.
Their success or failure weighs on the potential survival of Europe’s shared currency, the euro, the crowning achievement of 60 years of European unification.
Great story from Marcus Walker.
— I criticized press coverage of the debt ceiling fiasco the other day for being too he said-she said. Time’s Michael Grunwald is on that with a paragraph laying out key things everyone should know:
If the debt-limit debate had anything to do with reality, every story about it would include a few basic facts. Starting with: President Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion budget deficit. And: Republican leaders supported the tax cuts and wars that (along with the recession, another pre-Obama phenomenon) created that deficit. Also: Republicans engineered this crisis by attaching unprecedented ideological demands to a routine measure allowing the U.S. to pay its bills. Finally, Obama and the Democrats keep meeting those demands—for spending cuts, then for more spending cuts, and even for nothing but spending cuts—but Republicans keep holding out for more.
These are verifiable facts, not opinions. But since they aren’t new facts, and re-reporting them would make “GOP claims” about the crisis look, um, non-factual, they’re rarely mentioned, except as “Democratic claims.”
- 1
- 2
Wow, I point out your ignorance about these debt issues on your other post, and you just double down with the bullshit now. Just because your dumb leftie journo buddies are peddling their usual partisan tripe doesn't mean it's true, as Obama's "cuts" are anything but. This Heritage budget breakdown has a good chart that shows historical and projected revenues and spending from 1960 to 2020. Obama's budget proposal raises spending from the historical average of 20% of GDP to 22%, slowly rising up to 23% by 2020, with taxes going up from the historical average of 18% to 20%. Now he proposes $2-3 trillion in cuts over 10 years from those raised numbers, which only brings spending back down around a percentage point to 21%. This is in addition to his proposal being "perhaps the most gimmick-laden budget in memory," meaning his proposal likely underestimates the huge budget deficits that will be run up if we adopted his plan.
So we have a President offering a radical increase in the size of government and massive budget deficits as far as the eye can see, then trims his fantasy a bit under public pressure, and it's the Tea Party, that simply wants a balanced budget and to bring govt back into line, that is being "radical"? The fact that that's the narrative dominating the mass leftie media just goes to show how you've all been bought and sold and simply become ideological water-carriers, masquerading as "objective" for the ignorant. No wonder all of these publications are dying and none will survive the coming decade.
#1 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Thu 28 Jul 2011 at 09:39 PM
You know what was radical? Passing Glen Hubbard's budget busting tax cuts while starting two wars in 2003.
You know what is radical? Holding the unemployment benefits for millions of Americans put out of work by a republican created economic collapse AND tax cuts for the middle class hostage for those 2003 budget busting tax cuts that go to the top percentage.
You know what's radical? Running a campaign that claims Obama health care reform cuts medicare, getting those dependent on that program terrified enough to vote for you, and then proposing plans to dismantle the program while holding the country hostage until that entitlement is cut.
You know what's radical? Claiming the stimulus did nothing while accepting stimulus money and the credit for stimulus projects in your districts. Trying to provoke another economic collapse while the private sector is not spending by forcing government cuts or default. Announcing that your sole goal in governance is to insure that one man from the opposite party does not get re-elected.
I can go on.
But what's the point.
Your own graph from your stupid heritage doc shows that the conservative record is one of soaring spending and shrinking revenues:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/03/~/media/Images/Reports/2011/03/b2529/b2529_chart1_750px.ashx
And it shows that Obama is contracting spending now that the initial collapse that occurred on your people's silent watch is over,
What the graph doesn't show is how much of that rise of spending to gdp is due to shrinking GDP and how much that spending is a result of the doubling of unemployment (which means more people using government services).
And in spite of all the cost control attempts Obama is pushing through during the worst economic collapse in our times (against the advice of both liberal and conservative economists who know what they are talking about) you tea party people won't support any of them. Your republicans didn't support the cost controls in the ACA, your republicans didn't support the withdrawal of oil subsidies, you didn't support closing the the hedge fund carried interest loophole....
You guys are worthless to talk to. The dittohead mind isn't up to the task of acting in a honest, earnest, manner when it comes to governance. When it comes to the choice of telling the truth or telling a story, you guys will tell the story every time.
Because the truth is you are wrong. You and your party are what's wrong with the country. You've been what's wrong with it for 40 years according to your own graph and certainly for the last 11. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of shame on your part or on your side.
How does that work?
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 28 Jul 2011 at 11:06 PM
Bruce Bartlett sums it up nicely:
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/bruce-bartlett-chunk-of-gop-either-stupid-crazy-ignorant-or-craven-cowards/
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 28 Jul 2011 at 11:16 PM
Paul Krugman puts it nicelier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/opinion/krugman-the-centrist-cop-out.html
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 12:20 AM
About that non-radical nature of the tea party:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/torture-zombie-guess-whos-destroying.html
(hypocrites)
About that non-a-hole nature of the tea party:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/idiot-collaborators.html
People seem to forget that the tea party was ignited by Rick Santelli and wall street traders moaning about the moral hazzard of bailing out of underwater mortgage holders, after they accepted bailout of their companies that were a direct result of their stupid trades.
Suffering is for the poor. Bailouts, subsidies, and bonuses are for the mighty individualists. Stop taxing the poor wealthy. Vote republican.
No, that's not radical at all.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 02:02 AM
Thimbles, no wonder you are so misinformed and ignorant if all you read is lies from dumbshits like Krugman (Obama moved to the right of the average Republican? I think that's the funniest lie in his pack), Bartlett, and whoever this digby is. Nobody gives a shit about Obama, we just want to cut the record deficits by reigning in the record spending. Unemployment is a small cost, same with the other trivial cuts you list: it's Obama's giant ramp up in spending everywhere else that's really burning through the money. Of course, you have no facts in response, just more faith in big government, so all you do is shriek recriminations about how the other side is bad, bad, bad!!! Thank you for perfectly demonstrating how dumb and backwards the left is, when all the Tea Party wants to do is balance the books, and you freaks start shrieking in tongues like stuck pigs.
#6 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 02:59 AM
"Unemployment is a small cost, same with the other trivial cuts you list: it's Obama's giant ramp up in spending everywhere else that's really burning through the money."
You have no idea wtf you are talking about. Prove me wrong.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 03:50 AM
I've already proved you wrong on practically every claim you make. If I were to sit here and try to educate you on every nonsensical claim you make, I'd be here for months and you just ignore the facts and reality anyway. Why bother with facts when you can just blindly follow faith-based initiatives like Obamacare or fantasy budget "cuts?" If you're actually interested in budget numbers for once, I suggest you look them up yourself.
#8 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 05:01 AM
kevin drum reports on centrist Joe Klein.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/there-zero-equivalence-here
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 05:05 AM
Ha ha ha, Klein's a centrist? That is some funny shit, you really believe all the bullshit lies these dummy lefties feed you, don't you? No wonder you're so at sea. Unfortunately, most of the dimwits who unfailingly vote Democrat are in the same boat and the rest of us are stuck dragging these tards along.
#10 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 05:15 AM
I'm afraid "you are so dumb and misinformed blah blah... all the trivial cuts you list, like the bush tax cuts, are small and dumb blah blah...it's Obama's giant ramp up in spending in the magical place called everywhere else that's made the deficit blah blah.." is not a proof of anything but your tendency to sound like a boob.
That may fly amongst the brain trusts at Red State, but here? No.
Make specific accusations, source your accusations, take the time to demonstrate your actual knowledge.. or don't.
But I'm not going to spend anymore time on someone determined to sound like a boob.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 05:29 AM
In other words, like I said, Democrats would vote to up the debt ceiling in a straight-up vote.
Then why didn’t they? Oh, that’s right it was a "trick", nothing more. And of course by “trick” what you really mean is the Republicans gave the democrat party every opportunity in the world to put their money where their mouths were and they refused shouting “hey that’s not fair .. makin us go on record and what not”. And why didn’t Obama and the rest of the dems vote for a debt increase in 2006? Was that a tick too or was that some kind of principled stand?
So let me see if I have the “meme” down here …. when democrats vote unanimously against a debt ceiling increase that’s OK because it doesn’t matter and when they beg and plead for a “straight-up vote” with no strings attached and then still vote against it when the opportunity is given to them, that’s OK too because, you see, it was all a mean nasty trick. And from this we should conclude that any and all impasses in this process are due solely to unreasonable GOP demands on the President and if any journalist doesn’t echo this then they are not doing their jobs.
Your logic is flawless Ryan.
A prime example of why journalist are less respected than bankers and only slightly less hated than lawyers.
#12 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 11:49 AM
Oh and Thimbles, I just want to preempt any links you may offer from former Enron advisor Paul Krugman by saying I don’t give a shit.
#13 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 11:52 AM
I don't think the fact that, at one time, Paul Krugman did some minor consulting work for Enron justfies calling Krugman an "Enron advisor". If you have a beef with Enron, take it up with Enron's favorite donee, George W. Bush. It was the Bush administration that gave us the unfunded tax cuts, wars, Medicare Part D and current depression that we're in.
#14 Posted by Ron R, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 01:14 PM
How many times did the democrats hold the debt ceiling hostage for their own precious goals?
How many times did they threaten to harm the faith and credit of the United States if they did not meet their first demands, their second demands, and their third forth fifth ones.
What was that? Zero times?
Yes the democrats and the republicans use the vote to make statements, to set out positions, and to make their opponents look bad.
And none have done that more than these high on the conservacult moonshine members of the 112th congress:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/ideology-trumps-accomplishment-as-112th-congress-pursues-futile-bills/242313/
These jackoffs who called anyone who challenged their unitary executive a traitor to america and who now:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/taking_a_hatchet_to_presidenti030376.php
"intend to take away as much of President Obama’s powers as they can... In effect, President Obama is being told, “You have to fix the economy, win several wars, fix the housing crisis, respond to disasters, improve American energy policy, and keep the country safe, all while being fiscally responsible. But you can’t have a full team in place; you can’t enjoy the same powers your predecessors did; you can’t use the same tools your predecessors used; and you can’t expect the Senate to function by majority rule the way it used to. Good luck.”
But throughout all the symbolic votes and posturing and politics by democrats and republicans in modern times, did any of the democrats ever threaten the United States with harm, while they had the power to do harm, unless their conditions were met?
Never. False equivalence.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 02:09 PM
Oh and Mike, I just want to make sure you understand that when I post a link from Paul Krugman, it's not because I care if some idiot doesn't give a shit.
Hope we're all cleared up on that.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 02:17 PM
Krugman was an Enron advisor?... Too, too funny... Though it figures... Another screwy liberal milking capitalism for all its worth when it comes to his own wallet.. Something tells me Krugman isn't driving a Kia.
As for the current state of the national debt, over the past 10 years, our federal debt has increased by $5.8 trillion to $14.5 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T.” Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities. We now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies.
And of course the Dems have played politics with the debt limit in the past - witness the unanimous vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 - and they are playing politics with the debt limit now - witness their steadfast refusal to rein in spending without raising taxes. They place big government higher than fiscal responsibility on their priority list and they would rather see the federal government default than actually shrink.
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 02:56 PM
NYT: 2007 Letter Clearing Tabloid Comes Under Scrutiny
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr. Published: July 29, 2011
[Like Mr. Chapman, Harbottle & Lewis has been asked to give its account to a select committee of Parliament, and it has said it will cooperate as long as the police say it will not harm the criminal investigation. News International recently released the firm from its client confidentiality obligations so it can talk to the authorities. While it is unclear what the firm’s opinion on the e-mails was in 2007, client confidentiality would have prevented it from unilaterally reporting them to authorities.]
How far can legal professional privilege go?
Legal professional privilege meant Harbottle & Lewis had to secure a waiver to discuss Murdoch's claim about phone hacking claims
Neil Rose guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 13.11 BST
[However, there is one exception to the privilege rule: if the lawyer is used, knowingly or unknowingly, to commit or cover up a crime or serious fraud, then he can disclose what he knows.
So if it turned out, hypothetically, that News International deliberately withheld information so that Harbottles came to the conclusion it did, allowing News International to trumpet that finding in a bid to mislead investigators about the extent of wrongdoing at the company, then the privilege could be broken. There is no suggestion, of course, that the company did do this.
But lawyer regulation expert Tony Guise says deciding the exception applies is a tricky judgment to make.]
#18 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 03:26 PM
Yeah...
There's nothing to cut in the federal government.... Thank goodness we have a massive police force guarding the government printing office (not where they print the money - just where they print boondoggle documentation).
Our paper stores are safe!......
************************************************
Job Title: Police Officer (Open Until Filled)
Agency: Government Printing Office
Job Announcement Number: 10-315021-NP
SALARY RANGE:
56,939.00 - 71,581.00 USD /year
OPEN PERIOD:
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 to Wednesday, February 02, 2011
SERIES & GRADE:
PQ-0083-05
POSITION INFORMATION:
Full TimeCareer/Career Conditional
PROMOTION POTENTIAL:
05
DUTY LOCATIONS:
Many vacancies - Washington DC Metro Area, DC
WHO MAY BE CONSIDERED:
US Citizens and Status Candidates
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 10:48 PM
"in 2006 - and they are playing politics with the debt limit now - witness their steadfast refusal to rein in spending without raising taxes"
Because the wonderful tax cuts passed over the last ten years have worked so well at wagelessly boosting the economy and creating wonderous economic stability between 2003 and 2006 during which the federal debt only increased by trillions with a "T".
The stupid... It hurts.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 12:07 AM
In other news:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/what-do-republicans-want
"It's no surprise that political partisans tend not to like each other. Generally, though—with obvious and famous exceptions aside—the level of personal hostility on Capitol Hill has usually been kept down to manageable levels.
Until now. To a degree rarely seen in the past, Republican policymaking lately seems to have been driven at least as much by pure political venom as it has by ideology or interest-group pressure. House Speaker John Boehner certainly gets this. When he was trying to whip his troops into line to vote for his debt ceiling bill on Wednesday, his pitch was simple: "President Obama hates it. Harry Reid hates it. Nancy Pelosi hates it. Why would Republicans want to be on the side of President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi is beyond me."...
Simpson's suggestion that the EPA is responsible for our parlous economic condition could hardly have been suggested seriously. It's just filler, the kind of thing that gurgles up from the recesses of a politician's mind because they have to say something when a reporter asks what's going on. Grist writer David Roberts gets closer to the truth when he points out that Republicans are even going after a Bush-era regulation that prevents the Defense Department from using fossil fuels that are dirtier than petroleum. The catch? Even the Pentagon doesn't want this rule repealed. "Repeal or exemption could hamper the department's efforts to provide better energy options to our warfighters," wrote Elizabeth King, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs.
No matter. Republicans want it repealed anyway. Why? Ideology is probably part of it, as is fealty to coal interests. But that's not the whole story. Repealing it just because it's something Democrats like seems to be part of it too. Welcome to the modern Republican Party."
The thing is, this isn't new. We've seen it before:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061019004723/http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever
The modern republican party is not the type of animal you can't negotiate with. And it became that way because there was no public penalty for acting like animals.
When the press excuses the rabies, it does real damage to the nation.
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 01:32 AM
Politics are politics, no matter who plays them. And the Dems are playing politics with the debt limit every bit as much as the GOP is.
But why raise the debt limit at all?
Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors? It can only weaken our country.
Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
This is just idiotic policy.
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 02:01 AM
"Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors? It can only weaken our country."
Yes, which is why you have to raise taxes. Failing that, you have to pay what the government has already committed to in past law and deed.
I'm all for ending two wars, canceling a bunch of subsidies, cutting defense back to a multiple of 2 of the global military budget, and a bunch of other cost saving measures tomorrow.
But you cannot balance the budget without revenue increases. You need money to pay down debt and your dumb party keeps cutting the money collected down. Borrowing exploded under your watch, the GDP collapse occurred under your watch, fiscal mayhem is your party's hallmark.
Your people were the ones who claimed "Reagan proved, deficits don't matter." and then he cut revenues significantly and watched as the deficit exploded.
You need to repeal the tax cuts since Reagan, at the very least Clinton, if you want to balance the books.
You and yours are operating under the faith that it doesn't, despite the facts.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-02-07-federal-taxes_N.htm
Again, if you are collecting third world revenues, expect a third world government maintenance of a third world society.
You've never lived in the third world, most Americans have no real idea of what life is like under a third world government in a third world society starved for services.
If you are really rooting for socialism in America, you'll be rooting for republican success in giving Americans another taste of that home cooked austerity. People loved it in the 1930's.
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 03:15 AM
PS. I got a couple of comments locked in the spam filter because I used the internet way back machine to bring back an old link.
I think the spam filter interpreted the one address as two because the old weblink was in the wayback address.
Sorry about the inconvenience.
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 03:18 AM
And it turns out I'm not the only one thinking along the lines of my comment currently in the spam filter:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/worst_congress_ever031054.php
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 05:45 AM
Oops!...
Forgot the quotes...
"Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors? It can only weaken our country." -- Sen. Harry Reid
"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren." -- Sen. Barack Obama
There...
All fixed!
Go postal on 'em, Thimbo!...
#26 Posted by padkiller, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 09:23 AM
"Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors? It can only weaken our country." -- Sen. Harry Reid
"Yes, which is why you have to raise taxes. Failing that, you have to pay what the government has already committed to in past law and deed...
But you cannot balance the budget without revenue increases. You need money to pay down debt and your dumb party keeps cutting the money collected down."
See, I'm not a brainless partisan, so when you play a trick like this twice,
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/debt-ceiling_jitters_hit_the_m.php#comment-49269
I don't need to change my answers. I demand the same principles from Democrats as I do republicans.
and yeah, the government has a revenue problem as David Frum (??!) points out as he destroys the WSJ editorial section:
http://www.frumforum.com/the-wsj-surpasses-itself
"I used to write editorials for the Wall Street Journal myself, 20 years ago now.
So I’m well aware of the challenge faced by those assigned to compose these documents. The strict demands of the paper’s ideology do not always lie smoothly over the rocky outcroppings of reality. It can take considerable skill to match the two together.
In that regard, this morning’s lead editorial about the debt-ceiling crisis is a true masterpiece."
#27 Posted by Thimbo, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 02:04 PM
Thimbo wrote: But you cannot balance the budget without revenue increases.
padikiller: Like Hell you can't. Dept of Education - Gone. Dept. of Labor - Gone. Dept of Health and Human Services - Gone. Dept of Transportation Gone. Dept. of Energy - Gone. Department of Homeland Security - Gone. Dept. of Agriculture - Gone. Veteran's Affairs - Gone. Housing and Urban Development - Gone
What's left?
The remaining agencies absorb the essential functions of the eliminated agencies - like air traffic control, the Coast Guard, etc (though all of these "essential" functions get 25% budget reductions on the spot.
The non-essential functions (the bulk of them) are gone ,along with a zillion other departments, divisions and commissions... like the NHTSA, the LRB, the EEOC, the FTC, the EPA, the DEA etc, etc, etc.
Then we deal with entitlements -- Raise Social Security age for new retirees by five years. Cut COLA raises and give people the option of opting out to private plans.
Privatize Medicare. Eliminate Medicaid payments for services to non-institutionalized patients. Eliminate publicly funded unemployment benefits. Require reevaluation of all Social Security disability recipients and strip benefits from those who aren't truly disabled. Provide a cash reward of $10,000 to anyone who provides information leading to the conviction of anyone who fraudulently receives any federal benefits.
Then we adjust revenue..
Implement the Fair Tax.
Then we pay down the debt.
There!... Done.
Handled.
#28 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 02:52 PM
I noticed you didn't mention the department of defense.
Which is understandable since to implement your "Turn America into the third world and BANG! Debt gone!"
You're going to need them:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/americas/11pinochet.html
You're such a predictable tool, padi.
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 10:16 PM
I do not understand why you can't post under your own name.
I don't see how the torqued-up rhetoric moves the files forward.
I am reading CJR for information.
#30 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sat 30 Jul 2011 at 10:43 PM
Hey Clayton, you talking to me?
The reason why I don't use my name is two fold. One, I've written using this pseudonym for years, two I don't need the harassment that comes ones way from being confrontational to the right. They fight dirty.
As for the rhetoric, I can discuss policy as nice and polite as you like. You and I may have a mutually uplifting chat about differences in opinion.
Others here are not so capable. They come from a place where opposing views are not respected and those who speak them are to be derided. I show the respect I receive while defending what I know to be true in the most honest way I can.
Others are not so capable of honesty.
And even though my tone is confrontational, that does not mean that the content is uninformative. The major problem today with liberals is that they have information, but they are faced with an opposition that values confrontation over information, an opposition that is molded by Rush Limbaugh and not Ezra Klein.
Unless one recognizes that one side is playing foot ball while the other side is playing chess, it's not going to matter how good and informative your strategy is when the 300 lbs line backer hits you.
I didn't start commenting here until the right wingers started tackling more and more stories unopposed with their Limbaughesque insulting style. I'm not going to play checkers with these people. They set the rules.
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 12:14 AM
I don't see how spamming 50 posts a day on last week's news about a British tabloid scandal that few in America really care about contributes anything particularly valuable to the discourse here, personally.
But it's a free country (for the time being, at least).
As for the need for anonymity... Witness Thimbles' and James' defamatory behavior when I inadvertently entered the email address of a colleague in the comment form a while ago. They each repeatedly libeled the poor woman (a woman who ironically enough is probably more liberal than they are) labeling her a "bigot" (Thimbles' words) even after I made it clear to them several times of my error in posting her email address. They were like a couple of sharks in the water. This is the kind of behavior that keeps me posting pseudonymously.
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 11:15 AM
[I don't see how spamming 50 posts a day on last week's news about a British tabloid scandal that few in America really care about contributes anything particularly valuable to the discourse here, personally.]
Please try to think carefully about what you are saying if you want to gain the respect of others.
#33 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 11:57 AM
"Witness Thimbles' and James' defamatory behavior when I inadvertently entered the email address of a colleague in the comment form a while ago."
It's unfortunate that you have no sense of humor and you're dumb ass.
We were joking.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_crazy_book-banning_lady_wh.php#comment-46210
You were the idiot who outed her.
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/climate_questions_for_the_gop.php#comment-46365
Good day.
#34 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 12:58 PM
I'm here to toll the Reality Bell. I routinely catch these "watchdogs" with their hands in the cookie jar and I use this forum to fight the commie/liberal slant that pervades "professional journalism"
I'm not here to make pals.
And I am serious about your spamming - I fail to see how your cut-and-paste dispatches of yesterday's news bites contribute anything useful to anyone.
But like I said... It's a free country.
#35 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 03:35 PM
Yeah, it is ironic for Clayton to criticize other commenters when he spams this blog regularly. I certainly wouldn't want my name associated with such comment diarrhea. ;) I just skip over his comments now, it's just noise. I thought about suggesting to this blog's maintainers that they have a word with Clayton, but they probably don't give a shit.
#36 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Sun 31 Jul 2011 at 04:15 PM