Interesting, you've done more investigation into this than any of the sources that smitty has linked to thus far. However, the presence of these subpoenas does not get us to where they are trying to go. Both Rush's meta-regurgitation and the original "news" from National Review is making the claim that political operatives of the Wisconsin Democratic Party disguised themselves as law enforcement and went out looting, pillaging, and terrorizing innocent supporters of Scott Walker (aka the Kevlar Kandidate).

Basically, smitty has a new conspiracy-of-the-week. There may well be something bad going on, but he hasn't shown any meaningful sources for it so far.

As best I could tell the closest you came to a point in your JE was your fantasy that somehow Rush spinning this already-spun bit would cause the democrats to rally to do something against him, personally. As per the vast overwhelming majority of your conspiracies, you provided no logical support for why that would pan out.

If there was some other point in your JE, please let me know. All I saw was you trying to claim that because a hype-master got excited about an article from a conservative "news" source, it somehow is automatically valid "news" that is worth getting excited (and, of course, using extralegal methods to remove the POTUS!) about.

I'm so tired of seeing people masterbating over chances to honor Aaron Swartz I wish I could vomit on the laps of these political idiots. Yeah, the prosecution was heavy handed but that completely overlooks the fact that Swartz broke the fucking law and was a total idiot about it. He had the constitutional right to defend himself in court and face his accusers. He did not, however, have any constitutional right to enter the wiring closet at the library and interfere with other peoples' ability to use library resources just to further his agenda.

I even agree that the papers should be accessible. But I do not agree with his methods. He could have downloaded all these papers from his own desk instead, but he had to make it into performance art and go enter the library wiring closet. And don't use the fact that the door was not properly locked as a defense, either - no reasonable person would have assumed that a wiring closet was intentionally left unlocked so people could monopolize library bandwidth at their leisure.

In short, let the dead kid lay dead. He doesn't deserve any honors. He didn't deserve the ones he has already been given and doesn't deserve any additional ones either. He was a fool and a coward to boot.

Are you referring to the college rape article that they are getting so much flack over now? I don't read Rolling Stone with any regularity so I hadn't noticed it before the coverage of it that came recently..

That said, any article from Rolling Stone is a far cry from any article in National Review. National Review exists to push a political agenda. They were founded by conservatives, they are staffed by conservatives, they provide a voice for conservative beliefs. Rolling Stone may lean a bit to the left (though only on the American spectrum where "left" would be considered "right of center" in any other nation on earth), but the National Review proudly proclaims their lean towards the hard right.

Furthermore, if you are talking about the rape article, what was the political motivation of it? This National Review article - like every other article they publish - is published to further a political agenda. I'm not aware of anyone who takes a pro-rape stance. Yeah, it was irresponsible to publish an article on a rape when the sources were not properly vetted - and some people suffered as a result who should not have - but it did not serve any obvious political purpose or any agenda beyond selling magazines.

You linked to Rush giving his additional spin to the only "source" on this matter - and the "source" is the same collection of partisan hacks you linked to in your previous JE. I suspect based on how far you have slipped in what you like to pass off as "reading", I probably paid more attention to this than you did.

But go ahead, tell us your latest conspiracy attached to this. I'm sure you have somehow already connected this in your mind to President Lawnchair (or someone else has already handed you a fact-free claim for how it connects). Bring it home, smitty - tell us how this leads to impeachment without any demonstrated facts. You don't usually write multiple JEs for conspiracies unless you believe on some level that they can be used to bring down the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania who has the wrong consonant after his name.

When I see facts, I will look at them. I do not consider the source smitty linked to for this to be factual. They are honorable enough to be very plain with their political agenda, but when they are trying to break such a politically loaded story I reserve the right to be skeptical until it is evaluated by honest journalists.

Your source pushes a severe agenda. Nobody else is covering this story, so I will wait to react to it until there is some less extreme coverage of it. It is hard to know whether or not this initial coverage reflects reality in any meaningful way.

If you read it with the slightest bit of curiosity you would have a long list of questions on the matter as well that are not addressed in their coverage in any way, shape, or form.

I have found that in recent (say 10 or so) years dealerships have become a lot more cost competitive; at least for some types of repairs and maintenance procedures. One example I have noticed is with oil changes. My car uses synthetic oil, and a lot of it. I priced out what it would cost me to change the oil myself if I bought the appropriate oil at the local parts store, and the filter. I then called the dealership and their cost to me for the same was only $5 more. If I had done it myself I would have spent $5 running the used oil somewhere for disposal, and likely had to spend time afterwards cleaning up part of my garage. it was well worth the $5 to let them do it.

I have found other similar situations with brake jobs (I would normally do these myself but in situations involving stuck calipers or parking brake pads that won't release, I call and price it out at the dealership and local brake shops).

Now, I haven't encountered the need for a really large repair yet. I don't know if this scales or not. But it does suggest that the dealerships are aware of consumers pricing out these things and have brought their charges down in response.

.. and then back to your regularly scheduled program. I suppose somehow, that is my fault.

That is the closest you've come in a long, long time (possibly ever) to actually supporting an argument with something vaguely resembling a fact. Let's see if you're willing to flesh it out, eh?

So tell me, what did he do - or who did he associate with - that showed he actually wanted to bring about Reaganomics 2.0 instead of Camelot 2.0? And if his record in the senate was so completely counter to his campaign, why did nobody call him out on it while he was on the campaign trail? By comparison, when John McCain was campaigning as someone more conservative than this record, he was routinely called out on it both by his own party as well as by people outside the GOP.

If President Lawnchair was campaigning as someone far more liberal than the person he was in the senate, please show it.

He did more than just pay off sponsors for their investment. Hell, if that was the explanation for everything he's done then he's been paying off some sponsors who didn't contribute to his campaigns. Certainly, the insurance industry dumped huge piles of money into his campaign, but they did that for politicians of every party across the country to ensure that they wouldn't be cut out - however some of his other actions if viewed in that prism involve payments to industries who did not contribute.

So then you were either expecting him to be more conservative than Reagan, or not paying attention. Which was it?

I will admit that while I was not optimistic enough to expect a great heroic liberal leap forward from his administration, I was not expecting a great conservative fall backwards, either. If he did something during his campaign to clue us in to his intent to turn Reaganomics up to 12 (after seeing his predecessor fail at 11), I missed that.

Sometimes the WD vs Seagate bit mirrors the Ford vs Chevrolet arguments of days gone by. While I have my preferences on both, there are plenty of others who will proclaim to no end that the opposite is best.

This seems highly unlikely given the pro-monopoly stance that the administration of Barack Hussein "Lawnchair" Obama has taken up to this point. They didn't stop any of the airline or bank mergers that we have seen since 2009. They didn't reign in the massive control that the insurance industry has over the consumer (indeed they gave the industry more power). They didn't stop telecoms from merging either. Why would they get involved in this?

This looks like window dressing more than anything. The Administration is trying to get some positive PR but eventually they will let it slide through because the free market is teh awesome!

They are still working on better chemical cocktails for cryopreservation. We know we can do this with single-celled organisms and there is some evidence it works on organs as well. It might be questionable science, in that you might pay in and never wake up again, but it isn't really junk science.

It gives them hope. Does it harm you for them to spend their money this way? Sure there are other things they could do that would likely be more beneficial for mankind as a whole, but there are worse things, too.