U.S. politics isolation tank

[JMohegan]

OK, a moment of self-criticism, because I feel like it...

Petraeus. Willy-based scandal awfully close to Benghazi inquiries. Discuss?

Very strange timing of disclosures, I agree. But I've got an inherent mistrust of both military brass and spooks, so it's easy for me to say something stinks.

And yeah, I haven't forgotten the Bush/Iraq link.

All to the good. Nevertheless, I am not optimistic. This has been attempted before. I doubt that even a favorable ruling form one judge would have any effect. The IRS usually just puts it all in file "86." Their justification (always off the record) is that the religious faction is just too strong. The same 'reasoning' explains why it takes forever for the IRS to shut down bogus charities.

For those of us in the Miami/Ft Lauderdale/Palm Beach area, we were treated to TV commercials staring Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu telling us that only Romney was a friend to Israel -- religion + foreign official endorsing a Presidential candidate.

The religious types, Christian, Muslim, Jews, etc never want to give up telling everyone what to do.

And here's Bibi, calling Obama to thank him for the Iron Dome this week. What a fucking prick.

As for activist churches, they're ubiquitous. There's an idea for tax reform, hah. Across the board, end the sham of tax exempt status.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Am I the only person not particularly upset by these secession petitions? I mean, I think it's a bunch of yahoos, for sure, but it's also a very democratic expression.

I'm not upset by them. I think they (the originators of the petitions) are amusingly mentally deficient. If one or more of those states were actually permitted to "peacefully secede" from the Union, I would give them less than a year before they were begging on hands and knees to return.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In these post election days, I'm just having a lot of fun watching the GOP eat its young.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

In these post election days, I'm just having a lot of fun watching the GOP eat its young.

And its old, too. Ouroboros, anyone?

 

[Stella_Omega]

And its old, too. Ouroboros, anyone?

Kinda 'Lord Of The Flies' if you ask me.

Oh wait, I read that phrase, on Daily Kos.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

All I'm wondering is if when they got briefed (after the fact), it was made clear that certain things were being omitted for security reasons. There seems to be this air of disorganization and I'm just wondering if the intelligence folks couldn't have said -- Look, we only know X, so don't speculate about the rest, we will fill you in.

I'm just wondering if they ignored directions, or if they were truly in the dark

I don't think that the CIA, DIA or any intelligence agency is interested in telling anything to congress. As far as keeping secrets, I think that TMZ would do a better job. As soon as anyone gets elected to anything above the level of dog catcher, they start to visualise how they will look on Mount Rushmore. That's what turns all of them into media whores. If they learn anything that they don't think that every Tom. Dick, and Harry already knows, they hot foot it to the nearest talker or typist (I won't honor these incompetents with the labels of reporter or journalists). The info is published and attributed to "an undisclosed source." Leak enough to a friendly media type and count on a glowing profile -- not exactly Rushmore but a leg up on re-election.

In fact, congress has no legal right to know. Their job is to legislate. They can hold hearings in order to gain information relevant to making suitable laws. Holding a hearing without having specific legislation under consideration is actually illegal -- not that that ever stopped them. They have simply appropriated powers to themselves and no one has gainsaid them. Holding hearings or inquires without a legislative goal is, fact, creating an extra-legal judicial system.

According to the Sunday AM blab shows both Democrats and Republicans say that they were not given any classified info. So, I think that one can assume that they were in the dark.

Another thing -- does it make sense for the White House to be unaware of an investigation of the director of the CIA? I get the argument for that -- you want to keep it all business and not politicize or perhaps personalize it (avoiding Nixonian type moves), but it seems off to me for some reason. Like who is the check and balance on the dudes doing the investigating, you know?!

Yes. This has little to do with Nixon and a great deal to do with J Edgar Hoover. In Hoover's days there were bugs on all phones and cameras and bugs in the bedrooms of anyone in power. Hover used this, not only to make his position unassailable, but to reward friends and punish enemies. He regularly made such info available to his BBF - Sen Joe McCarthy and his aide Roy Cohn and the members of HUAC (including Nixon). Running commie/subversive witch-hunts was a source of power both to J Edgar and to "Tail-Gunner" Joe, and one hand washed another.

As for other sources of such blackmail material, every FBI agent knew that if he [always "he" in those days] discovered any dirt, a letter directly to J Edgar from agent #1234 was a sure career booster. In fact, about a year ago, Harper's magazine ran photo copies of letters to Hoover from an actor named Ronald Reagan who forwarded names and info about views and indiscretions of people who he learned about at Hollywood social affairs.

As a result of this, the FBI has made it a matter of policy and law to adhered to strict professional standards. If a crime were involved, the president would be informed asap, to be sure. The Guardian did a first rate story on this:

FBI investigation into Petraeus's love life may damage ties to other agencies
Tuesday 13 November 2012 14.17 EST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/13/fbi-petraeus-love-life-agencies?INTCMP=SRCH

"The FBI investigation in this case never found any crime. Sex between consenting adults is not a federal crime. This FBI agent went to Congress, and took raw information about private conduct between consenting adults to the Hill.

"From what we know now, this is the case of one agent who decided that he was the law, that he knew what was best for national security, and that he and he alone should decide how this case should proceed."

The agent's identity is likely to come out, Weiner said.

"If our system works the way it's supposed to work, we will know who this gentleman is," Weiner said. "Because he's got a lot to answer for."​

On a personal note: Someone once filed a "missing persons" report on me. It took the FBI about 48 hours to find me. The question that they asked was: "Do you want to have contact with this person?" When I said, "No," they said "We will inform the person that you are not missing, are alive and well and do not wish to have contact." End of case. That's professional.

It's interesting that Jill Kelly didn't call the FBI, she asked an agent who was a friend to look into the matter!

If it turns out that the government has to give back some of its surveillance powers because all of Congress is into online domination and doesn't want to be found out, well, fuck yeah is all I gotta say on that!

We can hope!

 

[intothewoods]

I don't think that the CIA, DIA or any intelligence agency is interested in telling anything to congress. As far as keeping secrets, I think that TMZ would do a better job. As soon as anyone gets elected to anything above the level of dog catcher, they start to visualise how they will look on Mount Rushmore. That's what turns all of them into media whores. If they learn anything that they don't think that every Tom. Dick, and Harry already knows, they hot foot it to the nearest talker or typist (I won't honor these incompetents with the labels of reporter or journalists). The info is published and attributed to "an undisclosed source." Leak enough to a friendly media type and count on a glowing profile -- not exactly Rushmore but a leg up on re-election.

In fact, congress has no legal right to know. Their job is to legislate. They can hold hearings in order to gain information relevant to making suitable laws. Holding a hearing without having specific legislation under consideration is actually illegal -- not that that ever stopped them. They have simply appropriated powers to themselves and no one has gainsaid them. Holding hearings or inquires without a legislative goal is, fact, creating an extra-legal judicial system.

According to the Sunday AM blab shows both Democrats and Republicans say that they were not given any classified info. So, I think that one can assume that they were in the dark.

That all makes sense.

For fun I looked at the Senate Intelligence Committee website and found the following:

"While all Senators have access to classified intelligence assessments, access to intelligence sources and methods, programs, and budgets is generally limited to Intelligence Committee members (and to members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee). By law, the President is required to ensure that the Committee is kept “fully and currently informed” of intelligence activities—meaning that intelligence agencies are required, generally in writing, to notify the Committee of its activities and analysis. This includes keeping the Committee informed of covert actions and any significant intelligence failure."

In theory, I don't have a problem with members of Congress having some access to what the President has access too.

Yes. This has little to do with Nixon and a great deal to do with J Edgar Hoover. In Hoover's days there were bugs on all phones and cameras and bugs in the bedrooms of anyone in power. Hover used this, not only to make his position unassailable, but to reward friends and punish enemies. He regularly made such info available to his BBF - Sen Joe McCarthy and his aide Roy Cohn and the members of HUAC (including Nixon). Running commie/subversive witch-hunts was a source of power both to J Edgar and to "Tail-Gunner" Joe, and one hand washed another.

As for other sources of such blackmail material, every FBI agent knew that if he [always "he" in those days] discovered any dirt, a letter directly to J Edgar from agent #1234 was a sure career booster. In fact, about a year ago, Harper's magazine ran photo copies of letters to Hoover from an actor named Ronald Reagan who forwarded names and info about views and indiscretions of people who he learned about at Hollywood social affairs.

As a result of this, the FBI has made it a matter of policy and law to adhered to strict professional standards. If a crime were involved, the president would be informed asap, to be sure. The Guardian did a first rate story on this:

FBI investigation into Petraeus's love life may damage ties to other agencies
Tuesday 13 November 2012 14.17 EST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/13/fbi-petraeus-love-life-agencies?INTCMP=SRCH

"The FBI investigation in this case never found any crime. Sex between consenting adults is not a federal crime. This FBI agent went to Congress, and took raw information about private conduct between consenting adults to the Hill.

"From what we know now, this is the case of one agent who decided that he was the law, that he knew what was best for national security, and that he and he alone should decide how this case should proceed."

The agent's identity is likely to come out, Weiner said.

"If our system works the way it's supposed to work, we will know who this gentleman is," Weiner said. "Because he's got a lot to answer for."​

On a personal note: Someone once filed a "missing persons" report on me. It took the FBI about 48 hours to find me. The question that they asked was: "Do you want to have contact with this person?" When I said, "No," they said "We will inform the person that you are not missing, are alive and well and do not wish to have contact." End of case. That's professional.

It's interesting that Jill Kelly didn't call the FBI, she asked an agent who was a friend to look into the matter!






We can hope!

Love Roy Cohn! Ok, I loved his character in Angels in America, and have read a little bit about him since seeing the play.

Anyway, yes, yes, you are right about J. Edgar Hoover.

Jill Kelly is kind of the douchebag in all this, I think. I admit I'm kind of fascinated by the biographer.



--- will come back later if I have some more energy -- too post turkey blitzed at this point.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

Love Roy Cohn! Ok, I loved his character in Angels in America, and have read a little bit about him since seeing the play.

Anyway, yes, yes, you are right about J. Edgar Hoover.

Jill Kelly is kind of the douchebag in all this, I think. I admit I'm kind of fascinated by the biographer.

--- will come back later if I have some more energy -- too post turkey blitzed at this point.

I almost made reference to Angels in America, but my post was getting too long anyway. Cohn was a real piece of work. It's personal. My father was into a lot of left wing causes in the '30's. He never joined the CP, but did attend meetings and the state chairman of the CPUSA was a regular visitor at our house. There was a long time when I didn't know from day to day if someone was going to name my father as a subversive and he would loose his job, etc. And if he were named, the thought of even trying to go to school would be impossible. So yeah, I have a special feel for Roy and that crew.

 

[intothewoods]

I almost made reference to Angels in America, but my post was getting too long anyway. Cohn was a real piece of work. It's personal. My father was into a lot of left wing causes in the '30's. He never joined the CP, but did attend meetings and the state chairman of the CPUSA was a regular visitor at our house. There was a long time when I didn't know from day to day if someone was going to name my father as a subversive and he would loose his job, etc. And if he were named, the thought of even trying to go to school would be impossible. So yeah, I have a special feel for Roy and that crew.

Wow, that's really fascinating. Did he have any interactions with Cohn? I was reading some more about him last night -- I didn't realize he lost his bar license in the end.

I'm about halfway through that recent-ish Hoover movie, actually, though I recall that it was supposed to be pretty historically inaccurate.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Madison, to Jefferson: "Well-regulated militia. Well-regulated FUCKING MILITIA! What the FUCKE is wrong with them?"

*founder facepalm*

 

[midwestyankee]

It would appear the Mike Huckabee inherited the Jerry Falwell Chair of Supreme Ignorance. There is a special layer of Hell reserved for twats like Huckabee that even Dante was too disgusted by to describe.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Please don't call Mike Huckabee a "twat." He doesn't have one.

Call him what he is, an evil man.

Please delete from your vocabulary every possible insult that compares being bad in any way to the condition of having a vagina.

 

[midwestyankee]

Please don't call Mike Huckabee a "twat." He doesn't have one.

Call him what he is, an evil man.

Please delete from your vocabulary every possible insult that compares being bad in any way to the condition of having a vagina.

Have you stricken "dick" from your vocabulary of insults? Or "prick?"

I'm not being snarky here, just checking on equal representation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Have you stricken "dick" from your vocabulary of insults? Or "prick?"

I'm not being snarky here, just checking on equal representation.

I have a long litany of insults, none of which imply that there is an innate shame in being one or the other sex.

You were not insulting a man by calling him a penis, you were insulting a man by calling him a vagina.

"Twat" is not appropriate as an insult because there is no shame in being a woman, and no reasoning man would think so.

The day I insult a woman by insinuating that there is shame in being a man, you can call me on it.

 

[midwestyankee]

I have a long litany of insults, none of which imply that there is an innate shame in being one or the other sex.

You were not insulting a man by calling him a penis, you were insulting a man by calling him a vagina.

"Twat" is not appropriate as an insult because there is no shame in being a woman, and no reasoning man would think so.

The day I insult a woman by insinuating that there is shame in being a man, you can call me on it.

Fair enough.

 

[choked8]

Stella Omega,

You take shit people post way too literally. I suppose you saw it as an opportunity to teach people a lesson. In reality, what you said, because of the way you said it, will most likely just reinforce their pre-existing views.

In other words, you aren't helping.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella Omega,

You take shit people post way too literally. I suppose you saw it as an opportunity to teach people a lesson. In reality, what you said, because of the way you said it, will most likely just reinforce their pre-existing views.

In other words, you aren't helping.

I said something mean?

 

[choked8]

Not mean, just very very literal. Which is a bit silly. Double entendres exist... Just because someone says twat doesn't mean they are making all the associations that you imply they are making.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Not mean, just very very literal. Which is a bit silly. Double entendres exist... Just because someone says twat doesn't mean they are making all the associations that you imply they are making.

What associations do you think they are making, then?

 

[midwestyankee]

Not mean, just very very literal. Which is a bit silly. Double entendres exist... Just because someone says twat doesn't mean they are making all the associations that you imply they are making.

In truth, I meant to use that word in exactly the way that Stella interpreted it: as a fully derogatory, dismissive, and insulting name. I picked it in anger and Stella rightly called me on it. I'm cool with her response.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In truth, I meant to use that word in exactly the way that Stella interpreted it: as a fully derogatory, dismissive, and insulting name. I picked it in anger and Stella rightly called me on it. I'm cool with her response.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of women who are equally vicious and evil.

But it's not what's between their legs that they should be ashamed of. It's what's on top of their shoulders.

 

[Keroin]

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of women who are equally vicious and evil.

But it's not what's between their legs that they should be ashamed of. It's what's on top of their shoulders.

Hmmm, making me think of my favourite curses now...

Cocksucker, asshole, dick, cunt, fucker - I'd say those are my top five. Cocksucker is my #1. Interesting, because it's an activity I enjoy so why it is a curse is beyond me...but, man, it just fires off the tongue so perfectly. Hm.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"Cocksucker" and "fuck me sideways" are two of my favorite curses. And my daughter likes to say "oh, balls."

"Asshole"-- I use that frequently. It's gender neutral, everyone has one. And shit falls out of assholes, there's no denying it.

But I refuse to insult the genitalia of 51% of the species by comparing them with Mike Huckabee.

 

[Keroin]

"Cocksucker" and "fuck me sideways" are two of my favorite curses. And my daughter likes to say "oh, balls."

"Asshole"-- I use that frequently. It's gender neutral, everyone has one. And shit falls out of assholes, there's no denying it.

But I refuse to insult the genitalia of 51% of the species by comparing them with Mike Huckabee.

LOL.

I get your point. I use curses but rarely. Well, except when L and me are on the job, then we both get bad cases of trucker mouth. When I do curse, it tends to be spontaneous and in anger. In other words, I don't put a lot of thought into it and I'm not really concerned, in that moment, with who I may or may not be offending. Just being honest here, I don't think that's ever going to change. Mind you, my angry swearing seems to boil down to variations of "fuck".

On a public forum, however, I will likely be a bit choosier about how I phrase things.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

But I refuse to insult the genitalia of 51% of the species by comparing them with Mike Huckabee.

I refuse the insult the genitalia of *any* of our species by calling Huckabee one of them. I have a penis, and I like it. I also like pussies, twats, cunts, whatever you wanna call 'em. I like (female) assholes, too, regardless of what may come out of them when I'm not going in and out of them I can happily, however, describe Huckabee as what comes out of them (when it's not me).

ETA: That's kind of awkwardly phrased, but I'm tired, my head hurts badly at the moment, and y'all are smart enough to figure out what I was trying to say. Thanks.