OBAMA NAMES MADOFF AS IRS CHIEF

SUB-ROSA NEWS

Some of the News
That may be True

OBAMA NAMES MADOFF AS IRS CHIEF

In another effort to institute change in Washington, President-elect Barack Obama has nominated disgraced financier Bernard Madoff to head the Internal Revenue Service. Facing criticism for naming a person of such shady character, Obama maintained that this is an example of the type of out-of-the-box thinking needed to counteract the business as usual thinking in Washington.

The President-elect noted that, throughout his campaign, he has
stated his intent to tone down partisanship and that it is not necessary that every one in his administration be in agreement on each and every issue. Just as his campaign broke new fund raising ground, Mr Madoff has developed new and successful methods of obtaining funds.

Mr Obama added that in these trying times, when the government needs additional revenues, it is crucial that the IRS, the nation's revenue producing agency, be led by someone with a proven record in the art of raising cash.

homer  www.altara.blogspot.com

Tags: fake news, IRS, Madoff, obama (all tags)

Comments

17 Comments

Brilliant!

Who better than the man who ran one of the most successful ponzi schemes in history.  I support it.  Though I also want to know whether he has ever uttered an inappropriate comment with regard to anyone or anything at any time.  How else will he pass the PUMA purity police.  This is critical for a successful Obama administration.  How can he succeed without the good folk from Alegres Fith Column.

by Strummerson 2008-12-21 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Brilliant!

Yes, he must be fully vetted to make sure that he in no way said anything positive about Obama and has sworn a blood oath to only support Hillary. After that I'd say it's smooth sailing.

by venician 2008-12-21 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Brilliant!

I do believe this is not the sinister Hillary Clinton advocate rather someone who is displeased over the warren issue.  Well, it's a guess.

I know the standard to measure one as an O generation is "if you disagree ever, we will shout you into the " must be the 'HC'camp.

This diarist really is no different other than in tone vs some of you that were angry at obama for picking HC as SOS.  

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 04:59AM | 0 recs
HUH???

I'm confused.  I wrote a snarky reply to a snarky diary.  I slipped in the comment about PUMAs simply as a reference to their resurfacing here this past week.

I no more hold PUMA jerks as representative of Clinton supporters than I assume HRC's supporters are PUMA shmucks.

For the record, I think the Obama vs. Clinton dichotomy is largely obsolete, except for a handful of retrograde, stunted cliques.  I supported Obama in the primaries, would have worked hard for Clinton had she won, and now look forward optimistically to a democratic administration that benefits from both of them.  I'm neither opposed to Clinton nor to Clinton supporters.  In fact, I think that PUMAs are formally more similar to Bushies and entrenched neo-cons than to most progressive democrats.  That's why I oppose them so vehemently.

by Strummerson 2008-12-22 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

you want it both ways. You either snark or state how your crystal ball allows you designate people's opinion/dissent on an " ISSUE" by revealing to you  their  political agenda or associations.

I like you run out and buy your next winning lottery ticket.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

Please begin to make some sense.  I recommend you read what you wrote carefully before pressing the "Post."  I am willing to try to understand your complaint against me here.  But you need to convey what you think it is with basic clarity.

This seemed to me a snarky diary.  I posted a snarky response.  I have no problem with anyone's opinion or dissent on any "ISSUE," even if I hold a different opinion on that "ISSUE."  But there are indeed discursively destructive PUMAs on this site.  One knows them by their habits and history.  No "crystal ball" is required.  If that's not you, I wish you well.

In the mean time, either clarify what your problem with me is (you also should not require magic devices to do so) or leave off already.  Don't invent conflicts where none exist.  Engage them to further understanding where they do.  But take some basic responsibility for communicating clearly.

by Strummerson 2008-12-22 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

Wow, while asking for clarity you write a thesis in response that shows clearly you understood what I said.

3 paragraphs of a response does not absolve you of your perceived magical powers.

How you Mr McCarthy know that a poster online is a PUMA advocate?  do show your tangible proof against those dissenters.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

No.

I do not understand what you meant.

I resent this weird accusation that I pretend somehow to magical powers.  Although you actually accuse me of possessing "perceived" magical powers.  I do not know whose perception you are referring to.  Regardless, the whole thing unwarranted and rude.  Just tell me what you are objecting to.

Did I call you a PUMA?  I accused no one in this thread or diary of being such.  You are the one who described a Clinton supporter (and I still have no idea who you are referring to) as being "sinister."  I don't use such pejoratives for Clinton supporters at all.  I don't even think the category is that coherent at this point.

Now you call me "Mr McCarthy."  Do you know who that is?  Do you know what you are accusing me of?  If so, it's completely inappropriate, unjustified, and I am out of patience.

I do not require absolution, from you or from anyone.  Here's a question for you to answer.  Who do you think you are to accuse me of some obscure transgression, refuse to clarify what that transgression is or substantiate it with anything and pretend to powers of absolution?

Stop being a jerk or go away.

by Strummerson 2008-12-22 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

I slipped in the comment about PUMAs simply as a reference to their resurfacing here this past week.

Where is that crystal ball?

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

I don't need a crystal ball for that.  And I already answered that question above.  I know them from their habits and history around here, and the fact that they post on PUMA sites.  It's completely empirical.  Now return the favor and answer my questions.

Why not just ask to whom I was referring with that comment?  Didn't it occur to you I had particular posters in common and knew them from past experience?  If not, why not?  It's an eminently reasonable inference.

Was there a particular poster you somehow decided I had wrongly accused?  If so, where did you get that impression?

Finally, in the future if you want a clarification, I recommend you ask for one clearly without snide accusations.  It's much better to clarify whether a disagreement exists before proceeding to accusation and insult.  In fact, it's much better to clarify and thus discuss that accusation with a modicum of civility.

You are in the wrong here, in both form and content.  I rather seems like you are just manufacturing fights for the sake of squabbling.  I have given you the benefit of the doubt this time around.  I'll not spend much time engaging you if you repeat this.  It's up to you.  You have to decide what you are looking for here.  

by Strummerson 2008-12-22 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

Ahh,  so when you don't specify anyone in that statement but broad brush your magical ability (yup, still McCarthy like statement)to recognize PUMA's.  It is I who has the burden to ask you who is it you refer to?

well, did I not do that by asking you to reveal proof of " their resurfacing" and " Puma status". Show me the ones who write dairies or post comments, groups of them you claim to re infest this place are indeed members of PUMA.

tangible proof ...and not "just because I have a  built in PUMA radar".

Can't get anymore simple than that.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

I make a joke that is appropriate to the context of a humorous submission and you launch into this creepy semi-literate inquisition that hypocritically accuses me of McCarthyism.  Is the irony of your request that I name names lost on you?

You fail to recognize context and haven't taken the time to learn it.

I promise you that you are the only one who did not 'get' my comment.

You are new here and off to a positively trollish start.

Fuck off now and learn the game before playing dungeon master.

I'm done here.  Please avail yourself of the opportunity to leave a trollish last word.  But know that this thread does not reflect well on you and if it's read, your reputation will require some remedy.  Good luck.

PS The major PUMAs around here are KnowVox, zerosomgame, kosnomore, suzieg, and a host of others.  They have a history here you are ignorant of, unless you are one of their sock puppets (a term for alternative user names employed to obscure identity and cause trollish problems).  There interests are not in dissenting on an issue, but unproductively prolonging primary fights that demonize Obama and Obama supporters in general.

by Strummerson 2008-12-22 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

All through the first half to this argument you feigned  " what, who I , puma!!? what I never said PUMA". Then when I quote you, you get all riled up and start cursing now:).

Okay Mr McCarthy, since you now throw out names as PUMA members. Don't hide behind the skirt of " them all folks say it too " . Show me the proof or I say to you in the same colorful language  " You need to shut the __ up w/ your ignorant statements".

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

I'll even break it down in baby steps for you.

Dissenters could be the most reverent of obama supporters during the election but who disagree on a stance now.  Associating them to be PUMA ( carelessly) and you bring Hillary into the mix.  If you play a game of word association and ask what comes to one's mind when you blurt out PUMA - you will get "Hillary" as the answer.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

Wow.  Now you add condescension.  You seem incapable of basic grammar and now address me with "baby steps?"  I never voiced any difference of opinion about dissenters.  I have no problem with dissent.  Who in particular did I inappropriately associate with PUMAs?

And YOU are the one with the Hillary problem.  Not me.

Most of the folks I engage with here do not associate Hillary with PUMAs.  In fact, most of us think that the PUMAs betrayed Hillary.

Why don't you take a freaking second to learn your environment before deciding it must conform to your thought processes.

by Strummerson 2008-12-22 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

LOL, I'll take my comprehension powers of calling your bullshit over your grammar any day.  You're trying to sell the concept that people throwing the word PUMA are not indirectly dismissing it as Hillary and her damn voters.

Oh that's right, if you do make statements with  grammatically correct sentences, it magically becomes the truth and nothing but the whole truth, so help your grammar bee loving self.

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: HUH???

HAHAHAA ... down rating my comments now.  Don't ya worry ms grammar bee, I wont reciprocate the childishness.  Have at it..  

by MumbaiBurns 2008-12-22 08:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads