Testing the comments…

TEST

JimK, it’s good to see up and running.  I appreciate your effort as I know this was a pain the ass for you . . . so thanks.

I think it was a conspiracy of MM to shut you down Jim. Maybe go check with the nuts over at loose change. They’ll be able to PROVE it was MM.

Glad to see you back. ;)

Great to see this site running again… hope all works out.

I’m going to suggest mirroring your hard drive, at least a software mirror, on top of regular backups.

Also, Yahoo might have some cache as well - http://tinyurl.com/sxkqy

Forums are screwed up still, but I need professional help on that one, so bear with me.

Or maybe we can just let sleeping dogs lie.

You know that Batman comic arc (Legends of the Dark Knight # 65-68) when Batman was presumed dead and the Joker reverted to a normal, sane human being?  And then, upon discovering Batman is alive, he slowly unravels and spirals back downward into Jokerhood?

... am I the only one feeling a twitch at the corners of his mouth?

Looks like they do, Good idea, LD.  JimK check this out, you might be able to restore most of it from here. Looks like their last snapshot is from the 18th of August 2006.

Thank you JimK, We have a lot of fun here and we appreciate it.

I know I won’t revert back to the Joker.

I think it was a conspiracy of MM to shut you down Jim. Maybe go check with the nuts over at loose change. They’ll be able to PROVE it was MM.

No one is buying that. This was obviously an inside job. Jimk just wants us to think that Moore did it. Moorewatch had to be taken out in order to ensure the plans of the evil bankers’ syndicate went off without a hitch. Right thoughts then had to be destroyed because Jimk used it as a command center to coordinate the attack. Have you seen the newly released google cache? Come on, what a joke. How stupid does he think we are? There’s no way all those sites crashed because of a simple server failure. I was logged on just hours before the site crashed and my friends and I all said, “there’s no way they’re going to tells us that was due to a server failure.” That’s when we I knew something was going on. Wake up people.

Note: I tired to moonbat-up this post a little more originally, with lots of misspellings and lols and whatnot, but for some reason I just couldn’t hit post. Damn self respect.

Seriously, good luck. Your effort is appreciated. This is my favorite site; I started arguing with myself when it crashed.

I’m pretty sure this is his favorite haunt.

I could have sworn it was here:  http://th2news.greatboard.com/

You know, I bet all the little nutbars we’ve picked up in the last month or two (I doubt we’ve kept any since the actual backup point) are still going around ranting with a smile about how they’ve been banned, without even bothering to read the entry that says registrations were lost…

You know, that Ben & Jerry’s Ad in the top right makes me NOT want to buy Ben & Jerry’s.  Just FYI.

I wonder if Ben and Jerry’s is talking about American children or the children of Illegals living here?

One last thing: If you registered an account in the last 4 months, you’re gonna have to do it again.  All were lost.

Take that, n00bs!

Let’s see, moorewatch.com goes down just as the Bush/Cheney/Rove/RNC weather machine is ramping up a tropical storm in time to boost gas prices for Labor Day.  This is all much bigger than we thought…

Xetrov
You know, that Ben & Jerry’s Ad in the top right makes me NOT want to buy Ben & Jerry’s.  Just FYI.

I agree 1000%.  In fact, to snub my nose at BJ’s (coincidence?  I think not...), tommorrow I’m planning on making a run to Moomer’s homemade ice cream in moore’s adopted wealthy, mostly white hometown of Traverse City, Michigan. 

“Two scoops of vanilla/chocolate no-bake cookie in a waffle cone, please...”

Jim: Good luck getting the two sites back and running. I especially have my fingers crossed for the forums. I’m suffering from forum-deprivation!!!!

I know you need advertising money to support the site, but please—not Ben & Jerry’s. One of the two is a “useful idiot” for Islamic terrorism. (I can’t remember which one, of course. Over 50-itis. CRS: Can’t Remember S...!) Any how, he financially supported some sort of “world peace conference” a while back that was your basic bash Israel, bash Bush, bash the US event.

Posted by Xetrov on 08/25 at 10:35 AM (Link to this comment)

“You know, that Ben & Jerry’s Ad in the top right makes me NOT want to buy Ben & Jerry’s.  Just FYI.”

It did cause me to not buy it the other day… I was eyeballing it and decided to go with another brand…

Posted by samsgran1948 on 08/25 at 01:14 PM (Link to this comment)

“I know you need advertising money to support the site, but please—not Ben & Jerry’s. One of the two is a “useful idiot” for Islamic terrorism. (I can’t remember which one, of course. Over 50-itis. CRS: Can’t Remember S...!) Any how, he financially supported some sort of “world peace conference” a while back that was your basic bash Israel, bash Bush, bash the US event.”

They’re spending money to receive fewer sales (I’d have bought their ice cream if I had not seen their ad). So, leaving the ad here is doing them no favors.

It sucks too, because they make something called “In a Crunch” that is awesome as far as ice cream goes.  Stupid libtard screwing up my ice cream enjoyment.

Anybody try this one out yet?  Search for the word Failure in Google.  Look at the first hit.  Somebodies being funny.  Although, Michael Moore is the third hit so it can’t be all bad.

Glad to have you back, JimK.  I haven’t been contributing too much in the last year (my blood pressure can’t take it ;) ), but I do enjoy cruising the forums and reading up on the lastest goofball liberal comments.

Anybody try this one out yet?  Search for the word Failure in Google.  Look at the first hit.

It’s funny how that one has been making the rounds lately.  Someone is definitely being ‘funny’....particularly considering that the word “failure” doesn’t even appear once in the bio when you cache it.

It’s nice to see Moorewatch back again. I was worried that one of my favorite sites had gone the way of the much-loved 49er Haters Society.

Glad you got the site/board back working, JimK.

Having websites break is a horrible thing. I once had ~8-10k posts on a message board deleted randomly for no apparent reason, and I had no way to get a backup. It was very sad… and frustrating. :ahhh:

BTW About the Ben and Jerry’s thing, I’m a little confused… are there actual little pieces of ground up children in there? ;)

“Ben and Jerry’s: Coming up with a way to make use of the ininsured children of America—because we deserve a bigger slice of our kids!!”

I dunno why Ben & Jerry’s decided that conservative blogs were the place they wanted to advertise, but hell...I’ll take it, you know?  If they want to spend the money, I’m always willing to say “Thank you, Sir, may I have another?” :)

yesss

JimK wrote: “I dunno why Ben & Jerry’s decided that conservative blogs were the place they wanted to advertise, but hell...I’ll take it, you know?  If they want to spend the money, I’m always willing to say “Thank you, Sir, may I have another?” “

You’ve got a good point there, which I already admitted to in my first posting. I’m also willing to accept it because it gives us another dumb PC object to vilify and satirize. (Not that there’s much shortage of such objects.)

Great to see you up and running JimK; must be the masochist in me.

A sincere, non-confrontational question to the floor: What is it that upsets you all so much about the Ben & Jerry’s ad? I’ve clicked on it and wandered around the site, and I’m stymied as to what is so offensive. I appreciate that perhaps it wasn’t tailored to the conservative crowd, but what was distasteful enough to deter you from buying their product? Caloric intake I understand, but a critique of the state of education?

You don’t or refuse to understand, Canuck, and it’s long become obvious that we are unable to make you understand.

I’ll see if I can explain this one, though I hold little hope.

We rank last in providing health insurance for all children. But are 1st in nuclear defense expenditures among industrialized countries.

This statement implies that Nuclear Defense Expenditures is the problem, and the underlying reason why we cannot provide health insurance for ‘all children’.  In other words, a very ‘libtard’ way of viewing things.  Further examination of their website only emphasizes this (Note the misleading portion showing the US budget that does not show the billions of ‘non-discretionary’ spending in the budget that tips the scales showing most of the budget is for social expenditures.).  So you see, it is not a critique of the state of our education (dismal at best, I say), but a critique of our military expenditures.  That is of course IMO, and that is what is important when it comes to where I choose to spend my dollar.

Rann Aridorn:

You don’t or refuse to understand, Canuck, and it’s long become obvious that we are unable to make you understand.

Of course, the least likely to help is the first to respond.

Rann, perhaps if you posted something of substance one day, I might learn something. Do you contribute this little to all areas of your life?

Xetrov:

I’ll see if I can explain this one, though I hold little hope.

Nonetheless, I appreciate you biting your tongue and answering my question.

We rank last in providing health insurance for all children. But are 1st in nuclear defense expenditures among industrialized countries.

This statement implies that Nuclear Defense Expenditures is the problem, and the underlying reason why we cannot provide health insurance for ‘all children’.

Partly. Is there not some truth to that conclusion? Increased spending in one category requires reduced spending in another category to balance the budget.

However, I think it’s more of a commentary by the author on the priorities of federal spending. Is that not a reasonable debate to have?

In other words, a very ‘libtard’ way of viewing things.

Why reduce the discussion to that?

Further examination of their website only emphasizes this (Note the misleading portion showing the US budget that does not show the billions of ‘non-discretionary’ spending in the budget that tips the scales showing most of the budget is for social expenditures.).

I didn’t find this part to be misleading. He states in several places he’s referring to discretionary spending. He even explains what discretionary spending is and what portion of the budget it is. And if non-discretionary is non-negotiable, it wouldn’t really fit into the format of this game.

I tried to find a breakdown of non-discretionary spending and was unable to. If you know a source, please pass it along I’d be interested to read up on it…

So you see, it is not a critique of the state of our education (dismal at best, I say), but a critique of our military expenditures.  That is of course IMO, and that is what is important when it comes to where I choose to spend my dollar.

I don’t doubt that Big Ben ain’t very big on increasing the military’s budget. But he seems to take an active interest in the welfare of America’s children and their education - from your comment above, you seem to share common ground there. What is so offensive in that ad that makes one not one to buy B&J;’s product?

Here’s something that self-identified liberals and leftists simply refuse to understand…

The job of a federal government, any federal government, is first and formost to provide for the common defense, both through military and domestic defense (i.e. fight the wars and protect the borders). Within that responsibility is the need to protect the population from attack (i.e. terrorism, both foreign and domestic, and financially from a myriad number of sources).  Next, it’s to manage, build and maintain infrastructure and keep the economy stable.  After that, broad, and I mean BROAD, social engineering such as health & human services (think CDC, not individual health care).

In other words, WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BE SPENDING THE MOST MONEY ON DEFENSE IN THE FUCKING FEDERAL BUDGET.

States, counties and towns are far better equipped to handle education at the local level.  Federalizing it means we end up with standardized testing, quotas, teacher unions that are more powerful than the Teamsters when they were openly mafia.

Health is a complex beast.  It requires some federal, state, county and town/city management.  Again, since it is an individual thing, the more local you can make the management the more effective it will be.

Saying we spend more money in the Federal budget on defense than health care for children is a Good Thing™ to my mind.  I don’t want the Feds micro-managing the nation, and apparently, neither do liberals unless of course it suits their purposes.

People have to stop this stupid, dangerous idea that a centralized federal government should be the be-all and end-all for individual citizens.  It’s going to destroy this country faster than ANYTHING Bush, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Cheney or even bin Laden could do.

By the way...I actually advocate a REDUCTION in defense spending.  BUT.  I also favor a complete overhaul of how we spend and on what.  We’re wasting 20, 30, maybe 40% of what we spend on defense on insanely expensive, inane projects, many of which fail before they ever see the battlefield, and many of which are failures after they get on the battlefield.

If someone kicked a little Pentagon ass once in awhile we could probably save 10% of the defense budget simply by avoiding cost overruns.

It’s not about how much you spend...or rather it shouldn’t be.  It should be about on what you spend it.

Do you contribute this little to all areas of your life?

No, Canuck, I’m not your mom. When I put shit in the world, I flush it instead of raising it and sending it out to pollute websites.

In other words, WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BE SPENDING THE MOST MONEY ON DEFENSE IN THE FUCKING FEDERAL BUDGET.

You know, yesterday I spent about $3 on a Carl’s Jr. Hamburger (mmmm, Western Bacon....) and about $1500 on a new computer.  Wait!  What an idiot I am, I’m spending more on computers than food, that means I don’t value my life and want to starve to death.

I know, it’s not a great analogy, but it drives me nuts when people don’t realize that different things cost different amounts, and we can’t use absolute dollars to make a comparison of value.  It’s like that Queensryche song that compares the costs of national defence to law enforcement.  When the mafia starts floating aircraft carriers and using ICBMs maybe law enforcement costs will balance.

Partly. Is there not some truth to that conclusion? Increased spending in one category requires reduced spending in another category to balance the budget.

No, because it implies that it is the Federal governments responsibility to provide health care to all children.  I view that as solely the parents responsibility. Implying my taxes should go to joe’s kids down the street I find almost offensive.  Nobody is paying for my childrens health care except by me and partially my employer.

However, I think it’s more of a commentary by the author on the priorities of federal spending. Is that not a reasonable debate to have?

No, because it comes down to opinion based on historical belief of just what a Federal Government should do.  If you’ve read up on the Constitution and the history of this nation, then you know what I expect out of the Federal Government.  Debating the issue won’t solve anything if you think that it is the Fed’s responsibility to provide healthcare to the masses.  So what’s the point?

What is so offensive in that ad that makes one not one to buy B&J;’s product?

As I said, I would try to explain.  I have.

JimK:

The job of a federal government, any federal government, is first and formost to provide for the common defense, both through military and domestic defense (i.e. fight the wars and protect the borders). Within that responsibility is the need to protect the population from attack (i.e. terrorism, both foreign and domestic, and financially from a myriad number of sources).  Next, it’s to manage, build and maintain infrastructure and keep the economy stable.  After that, broad, and I mean BROAD, social engineering such as health & human services (think CDC, not individual health care).

I’m not sure if I totally agree with the order of the first two things on your list, but I think an argument could be made either way. We also differ on the provision of health care, so there’s no need to go into it. Otherwise, I think we’re in agreement …

In other words, WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BE SPENDING THE MOST MONEY ON DEFENSE IN THE FUCKING FEDERAL BUDGET.

No need to shout. Is there a point where I, or Ben for that matter, suggested otherwise?? I think the point Ben is trying to make is that there is a GROSS disparity in funding between defense spending and every other piece of the pie. I don’t have a problem with military spending. I want the people that offer to risk their lives to have the tools they need. Does that mean you spend half of your discretionary budget on defense, and half on all the other areas?

I’m still interested to see a breakdown of non-discretionary spending in the US if anyone has it.

States, counties and towns are far better equipped to handle education at the local level.  Federalizing it means we end up with standardized testing, quotas, teacher unions that are more powerful than the Teamsters when they were openly mafia.

I agree, our provincial governments are responsible for running our hospitals. That doesn’t mean the feds don’t cough up some serious cash though…

Health is a complex beast.  It requires some federal, state, county and town/city management.  Again, since it is an individual thing, the more local you can make the management the more effective it will be.

Totally.

I don’t want the Feds micro-managing the nation, and apparently, neither do liberals unless of course it suits their purposes.

I don’t want them to manage it. I just want their (my) money to fund it…

Second post by JimK:

By the way...I actually advocate a REDUCTION in defense spending.  BUT.  I also favor a complete overhaul of how we spend and on what.  We’re wasting 20, 30, maybe 40% of what we spend on defense on insanely expensive, inane projects, many of which fail before they ever see the battlefield, and many of which are failures after they get on the battlefield.

If someone kicked a little Pentagon ass once in awhile we could probably save 10% of the defense budget simply by avoiding cost overruns.

See, and here’s where you lose me. Isn’t this exactly what Ben is suggesting? The only difference I can see is where you think the spoils should go. I’m assuming you would prefer it back in your pocket, while Ben would opt to invest the savings in certain social programs.

Be careful JimK, someone on here might threaten not to buy your ice cream…

It’s not about how much you spend...or rather it shouldn’t be.  It should be about on what you spend it.

Ben addresses the absurdity of defense spending with his BB demonstration. He takes issue with the amount of nukes you guys have; where do you see the need for cost reductions?

Rann Aridorn:

No, Canuck, I’m not your mom. When I put shit in the world, I flush it instead of raising it and sending it out to pollute websites.

Lame.

owski:

You know, yesterday I spent about $3 on a Carl’s Jr. Hamburger (mmmm, Western Bacon....)

We don’t have Carl’s up here, but I understand it’s good…

and about $1500 on a new computer.  Wait!  What an idiot I am, I’m spending more on computers than food, that means I don’t value my life and want to starve to death.

I know, it’s not a great analogy,

It’s not perfect, but I understand the point you’re making. So can I ask, if you were actually starving and had $5 to your name, would you try to buy food or the $1,500 computer? You’re analogy works only because both needs (or wants) get satisfied…the point of Ben’s site is that one need gets abundantly satisfied (defense), while the other(s) suffer(s). Even a poster who disagreed with Ben said the state of the education system is dismal at best; and JimK said there is room to cut a sufficient portion from defense spending.

Canuck, the responsiblity of educating children in this country falls squarely on the shoulder of state and local government.  About 90% of all funding comes from those sources, not from the federal government.  Part of the federal funding goes for programs like head start or the school lunch program.  Only 8% goes to fill gaps in some state and local programs.  But for the most part most education is run by local school boards and most funding comes from state and local sources.

And for the most part most people here like it that way.  Good primary and secondary educational programs are always best served by letting the people involved handle education at a local level.

And keep in mind that virtually every university in this country is funded by a combination of state and private funding or solely by private funding.  The rule of thumb is that an in-state college student picks up about 1/3 the cost of his/her education.  The rest comes from these other sources.

So Ben and Jerry can spin this any way they want, but the truth is the amount of money spent on primary and secondary education in this country exceeds our normal military budget several fold.  Try almost a trillion bucks at the state and local level alone.  Throw in higher education and their ain’t much federal budget left.

So, it makes little sense for the federal government to provide more funding for local education.  I pay taxes to local governments (property tax, sales tax, state income tax, etc.) to fund local education, not national defense.  Why should I pay federal taxes to fund local education?

and JimK said there is room to cut a sufficient portion from defense spending.

AND OTHER SPENDING AS WELL.  Don’t make it seem like I am all about chopping defense.  I do not believe the Feds can do education better than local government, and this debate is about the federal budget.

No matter how much we spend on what, I still think the majority of expenditure should be on defense, as I firmly believe that is the primary role of a FEDERAL government.

Canuck:

I’m still interested to see a breakdown of non-discretionary spending in the US if anyone has it.

This page may help as a start:

THE FEDERAL BUDGET: Overview

Discretion and Entitlements
Not everything in the budget can be cut, even if Congress and the president wanted to. Some programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, are “entitlements” the government is obligated by law to provide. Other services, ranging from national defense to national parks, may be vitally important but for budget purposes are still considered “discretionary” (and so are easier to cut). In the early 1960s, two-thirds of the budget was considered discretionary spending. But entitlements have grown dramatically since then, and now only about a third of the federal budget is discretionary spending. Plus, entitlement costs are rising faster than most other areas of the federal budget.

So can I ask, if you were actually starving and had $5 to your name, would you try to buy food or the $1,500 computer?

I’d use the $5 to buy a baseball bat, rob the Carls’ jr, and buy computers.

You’re analogy works only because both needs (or wants) get satisfied…the point of Ben’s site is that one need gets abundantly satisfied (defense), while the other(s) suffer(s).

This is the problem with strictly using absolute dollar value to compare two things.  The assumption that the needs of defense are abundantly satisfied while education suffers simply because one gets more money.  As one who works for the Air Force I can contest that I have the same budgetary constraints that those in education do.  I have family members that work in education and we all have the same gripes about out of date computers, office equipment, new hires, and other things.

Defense is a MUCH bigger project than education and naturally will cost more.  If they were perfectly balanced in having their needs met, there would still be a giant difference between the spending of the two.

It’s the same reason you can’t compare something like the policing budgets of New York and Salt Lake City.  Just because Salt Lake City police has a smaller budget is in no way an indication that it’s more poorly funded, just that it has less to do.

Now, this in no way means that I think the balance is necessarily fair, but just that using budgets *alone* to compare fairness is a complete crock.  I do think that there is way too much waste in defense spending, I see it every day.

Yikes!  My top commentor status is in jeorpary!!!

Goddamm Mongorians!!!!!!

Maybe you should build a shitty wall.

Does my wall dance scare you mongorians?