Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Stupid Republican idea of the day (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=511831)

Equipoise 03-26-2009 01:48 PM

Stupid Republican idea of the day
 
Regulating the First Lady

Quote:

House Republicans are pressing for a change in federal law that could force Michelle Obama and future first ladies to do more of their policy work in public. But Democrats warn President Obama may take the attempt personally “as an attack on his wife.”

The GOP effort is being led by the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), whose initial salvo was rebuffed recently at a contentious committee markup session. Under Issa’s amendment, any government policy group that Mrs. Obama or another first spouse regularly participates in would be subject to a law requiring meetings to be announced in advance and, in most instances, public.

...

Rep. William Clay (D-Mo.) suggested President Obama might see the legislation as a personal provocation that could trigger a fight. “Let me… caution my friend from California that, as you’re probably aware, this president is very guarded about his family,” Clay said. “I think that, no matter what you’re intending with this amendment, that the president may view this as an attack on his wife. And I’m just saying, you know, let’s be careful--if we want to open up that can of worms. Let’s not go in that direction.”

“We are trying actually to protect the historic role of the first lady,” Issa insisted, repeatedly invoking the “transparency” mantra of the Obama administration. “I believe this is open government at its finest.”

...

Aides told POLITICO that [Issa] plans to reintroduce the spousal provision either as an amendment to another bill or as freestanding legislation.
What the hell? So, they don't like Michelle's supporting girls in high school, vegetable gardens or military families? Or they just want to know what she's doing in advance so protesters can show up? What is the "historic role of the first lady" anyway? Have they ever heard of Eleanor Roosevelt? I know that criticizing the First Lady isn't off-limits, but legislating her behavior? Why are Republicans so eager to look so fucking stupid?

Typo Negative 03-26-2009 01:58 PM

Quote:

“We are trying actually to protect the historic role of the first lady,” Issa insisted, repeatedly invoking the “transparency” mantra of the Obama administration. “I believe this is open government at its finest.”
I guess I shouldn't read anything into the the fact that Issa has been in congress for years and he has only thought of this now?

Algher 03-26-2009 01:58 PM

If I thought they were being legit (which I do NOT):
1) Fight to keep the nepotism laws in effect
2) Reaction to Hillary's secret health care committee

In reality, it is partisan politics - but there is an argument that if the First Lady is going to be involved in running things, there should be some types of controls in place.

jayjay 03-26-2009 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spooje (Post 10975865)
I guess I shouldn't read anything into the the fact that Issa has been in congress for years and he has only thought of this now?

Your mistake is using the verb "thought" in relation to the compound proper noun "Darryl Issa". Never the twain shall meet.

This is the same guy who pushed the recall of Gray Davis as governor of California because he thought he could waltz right into Sacramento without serious challenge, then cried in public when Ahnold got the nod instead.

He's a weasel.

A really dumb weasel.

bup 03-26-2009 02:08 PM

Quote:

In reality, it is partisan politics - but there is an argument that if the First Lady is going to be involved in running things, there should be some types of controls in place.
I understand you're only stating a devil's advocate position, but if she wasn't elected, and she's not on the federal payroll, then federal oversight of her 'position' is really inappropriate.

Algher 03-26-2009 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bup (Post 10975916)
I understand you're only stating a devil's advocate position, but if she wasn't elected, and she's not on the federal payroll, then federal oversight of her 'position' is really inappropriate.

The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

brownie55 03-26-2009 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bup (Post 10975916)
I understand you're only stating a devil's advocate position, but if she wasn't elected, and she's not on the federal payroll, then federal oversight of her 'position' is really inappropriate.

I disagree. At least not is she is forging public policy. But, hell, I think that Cheney's energy policy meetings should have been public too.

bup 03-26-2009 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algher (Post 10975928)
The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

Well, then, put in oversights of whatever committee-head she might become. Not oversights on the first lady.

elucidator 03-26-2009 02:16 PM

Oh, absolutely! Go after Michelle Obama, that's perfectly brilliant! Yessirree, Bob, thats a great idea!

jayjay 03-26-2009 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algher (Post 10975928)
The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

I wasn't aware that she was in charge of anything. My impression has been that she's been mostly Obama's PR stand-in, which IS a traditional "First Lady duty".

Ferret Herder 03-26-2009 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algher (Post 10975928)
The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

But this is awfully behind the times of them. IIRC, Laura Bush was involved in literacy/education, and in women's issues overseas.

Diogenes the Cynic 03-26-2009 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algher (Post 10975928)
The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

She's not in charge of anything.

R. P. McMurphy 03-26-2009 02:21 PM

If something like that had been in place during the Reagan years would the public have gotten access to the readings from Nancy's astrologers?

ElvisL1ves 03-26-2009 02:22 PM

And there still would be no highway beautification program.

And no one would have been acting President after Wilson's stroke.

Algher 03-26-2009 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayjay (Post 10975956)
I wasn't aware that she was in charge of anything. My impression has been that she's been mostly Obama's PR stand-in, which IS a traditional "First Lady duty".

I honestly do not know. She is certainly highly qualified to do more than PR. First Ladies used to be known as PR / ribbon cutters (funny - that is what VPs were too in many administrations - they get funeral duty).

Hillary's work on health care raised the question of what IS the First Lady in terms of Federal Government oversight (from the OP's link):

Quote:

Issa’s amendment would have effectively overturned a 1993 federal appeals court decision which held that First Lady Hillary Clinton could be considered the equivalent of a federal employee. The court ruled that Clinton’s involvement in a presidential Health Care Task Force was not enough to render the group an outside advisory panel which had to meet in public and disclose its records. After the health reform effort cratered, the Clinton Administration gave up the legal fight and released the records.
In a perfect world, Issa would be helping to clean up the uncertainty of the role of the First Lady, as we begin to get more First Ladies that are qualified for policy work. He would be trying to make sure that if Hillary were elected, Bill would have a clean role to undertake without running afoul of Constitutional and other Federal Law concerns in regards to status. Issa would even be looking forward to the day when a Republican goes back into the White House and has a spouse ready for action as well.

stolichnaya 03-26-2009 02:27 PM

Apropos of nothing, but reading Issa's name always makes me think of a drunk Discworld inhabitant.

"Issa, issa, wossname."

Diogenes the Cynic 03-26-2009 02:31 PM

Issa's only motivation is to harrass the Obama's and hope to contrive a political issue that Obama isn't being "transparent" enough. Obviously this has no chance to go anywhre -- it's not a serious or sincere attempt at real legislation (the last thing the Republicans would want is for an future Republican First couples to be saddled with this garbage). It's just about throwing rocks at the Obamas.

Barack should have this guy rendered to some Moroccan shithole for a couple of weeks.

RickJay 03-26-2009 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algher (Post 10975928)
The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

She isn't. Michelle Obama has no legal authority.

The President can delegate any number of Presidential duties as he sees fit to the First Lady. He could just as well delegate them to you, or Brad Pitt, or his cat, providing he isn't assigning them to do a specific job that Congress has to approve, such as secretary of state or a similar post. There are some things he has to do himself and lots of specific positions that require Congressional vetting but things like "Hold meetings on the pet project of my choice" can be done by pretty much anyone he wants. As Algher's cite points out, the Supreme Court has already ruled on what would seem, at least to me, to be just common sense; that the President is allowed to hire people to accomplish tasks, and that if his wife volunteers to be an unpaid employee doing some of those tasks, there's nothing illegal about it and in fact it's been that way for ages. Ultimately, executive authority as stated in the Constitution is still his. He's on the hook for whatever his chosen agents do.

SteveG1 03-26-2009 02:35 PM

It's just political nonsense. If this is the Burning Issue, if this is the most serious "danger" there is, all I can say is:



hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah giggle hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah snort hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah wheeze hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Voyager 03-26-2009 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stolichnaya (Post 10976009)
Apropos of nothing, but reading Issa's name always makes me think of a drunk Discworld inhabitant.

"Issa, issa, wossname."

He reminds me of Jar Jar Binks

Congressman Issa Dumbass..

Biffy the Elephant Shrew 03-26-2009 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stolichnaya (Post 10976009)
"Issa, issa, wossname."

"Issa wossname. You know. Thingie. A play. They're pretendin' things."

From Sandman, "A Midsummer Night's Dream."

Equipoise 03-26-2009 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stolichnaya (Post 10976009)
Apropos of nothing, but reading Issa's name always makes me think of a drunk Discworld inhabitant.

"Issa, issa, wossname."

This dickhead having that name upsets me because Issa is the name of one of my favorite singers (formerly Jane Siberry)

Squink 03-26-2009 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 10975828)
Stupid Republican idea of the day

I think the GOP's 19 page* Affirmational Federal Budget (pdf) might count as a second "Stupid Republican idea of the day":
Quote:

Instead of returning to double digit levels of inflation and the failed
economic policies of the 1970s, Republicans support maintaining the cost
of living after witnessing the booms and busts triggered by loose
monetary policy.
...
Instead of spending money on wasteful
programs under the guise of “stimulus” and
“investments,” Republicans seek to ensure that
the federal budget cannot grow faster than
families’ ability to pay the bill.
I really really really like that first "idea", but why does that second bit sound like pandering?




-------------------
*including cover page and back cover

Robot Arm 03-26-2009 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownie55 (Post 10975942)
I disagree. At least not is she is forging public policy. But, hell, I think that Cheney's energy policy meetings should have been public too.

That's what I was going to ask about. Why should an unelected, unofficial participant in government be subject to more stringent public reporting rules than the vice president? So, what are the requirements about policy groups that elected office-holders take part in?

elucidator 03-26-2009 04:32 PM

Hell, give 'em a dose of overkill! Stream the meetings online, with transcripts published daily. They want transparency? We'll swamp them with transparency! Of course, we'll expect the same from them, its only fair, after all....

MovieMogul 03-26-2009 04:55 PM

Now, now, we haven't even discussed the GOP's alternate budget proposal:
Quote:

Later, Norah O'Donnell asked Mike Pence to provide basic details, to no avail. Pence continued to talk about details as forthcoming. O'Donnell sort of thought that having continually criticized the administration for projecting a long-term deficit figure, that it was absurd that the GOP couldn't even offer their own projection for the sake of comparison. Pence suggested that the very fact that the GOP plan was getting criticized constituted "progress."

-------------------------

"After 27 days, the best House Republicans could come up with is a 19-page pamphlet that does not include a single real budget proposal or estimate. There are more numbers in my last sentence than there are in the entire House GOP budget."

-------------------------

Robert Gibbs offered: "There's one more picture of a windmill than there are charts of numbers. And there's exactly one picture of a windmill."

Gangster Octopus 03-26-2009 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArchiveGuy (Post 10976602)
Now, now, we haven't even discussed the GOP's alternate budget proposal:

I was dismayed at the Thomas Kincaide report cover.

NurseCarmen 03-26-2009 07:09 PM

These ideas intentionally left blank.

Boyo Jim 03-26-2009 09:15 PM

If the First Lady is going to have a policy role then she should have exactly the same rules applied to her as other presidential advsors... Like say, Karl Rove. He spit at a Congressional subpeona and got away with it until GW was out of office.

Frostillicus 03-26-2009 09:30 PM

I thought maybe the Republicans were trying to legislate the length of the sleeves on the First Lady's dresses.

furt 03-26-2009 09:31 PM

In an abstract, theoretical way, I can see his point. I might even have supported it if it came up when First Lady Hillary was being tasked with developing major policy initiatives (Indeed, I've heard it argued that the reason Hillarycare failed was because it was developed behind closed doors, and that a more public process might have helped).

But bringing it up now, when Michelle Obama is engaged only in excactly the kinds of stuff that fall under the "historic role of the first lady" is just asinine.

Boyo Jim 03-26-2009 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frostillicus (Post 10977366)
I thought maybe the Republicans were trying to legislate the length of the sleeves on the First Lady's dresses.

You might argue it's worse -- they're trying to disarm her. ;)

elucidator 03-26-2009 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 10977376)
You might argue it's worse -- they're trying to disarm her. ;)

Indictment pending.

kdeus 03-27-2009 03:44 PM

What Rep. Issa is talking about is the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") (5 USC Appx 2). FACA applies to any committee that is (1) convened or controlled by the executive, (2) makes a consensus recommendation to the Agency head or President AND (3) includes at least one person who is NOT a officer or employee of the U.S.

If all three conditions apply, then FACA applies and the committee meetings must be open to the public (and the public must be given notice that they are occurring), the committee must include representatives from all interested groups, and certain recordkeeping requirements must be met. Basically, its a much bigger pain in the neck to be a FACA committee than not.

In 1993, this came up when Mrs. Clinton championed health care reform efforts. Her commission consisted entirely of federal officers & employees, except for her. The U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia found that the First Lady is, for purposes of FACA, a federal officer or employee.

The point is, this area of law is getting a hard look by Congress for several good reasons (which can be referred to as "Cheney" and "Mrs. Clinton", to save time).

I do think Rep. Issa is taking the wrong course with the most popular first lady in 40 years (he's gonna get stomped like a grape in Napa), but the topic is one where reasonable (but geeky) lawyers are having meaningful discussion about what should be done.

jayjay 03-27-2009 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdeus (Post 10980019)
The point is, this area of law is getting a hard look by Congress for several good reasons (which can be referred to as "Cheney" and "Mrs. Clinton", to save time).

I do think Rep. Issa is taking the wrong course with the most popular first lady in 40 years (he's gonna get stomped like a grape in Napa), but the topic is one where reasonable (but geeky) lawyers are having meaningful discussion about what should be done.

In other words, it's a possibly legitimate and commendable bill that's being torpedoed by its Republican sponsors' ham-tongued rhetorical trippery. Sounds par for the course.

It just amazes me that, rather than letting this work its way through Congress under its legitimate cover, Issa decided he was going to try to jump-start it by tossing his shoes at the most popular First Lady in more than 40 years. I'm more and more convinced that the Republicans are taking their cues from Michael Scott.

Gangster Octopus 03-27-2009 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdeus (Post 10980019)
What Rep. Issa is talking about is the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") (5 USC Appx 2). FACA applies to any committee that is (1) convened or controlled by the executive, (2) makes a consensus recommendation to the Agency head or President AND (3) includes at least one person who is NOT a officer or employee of the U.S.

If all three conditions apply, then FACA applies and the committee meetings must be open to the public (and the public must be given notice that they are occurring), the committee must include representatives from all interested groups, and certain recordkeeping requirements must be met. Basically, its a much bigger pain in the neck to be a FACA committee than not.

In 1993, this came up when Mrs. Clinton championed health care reform efforts. Her commission consisted entirely of federal officers & employees, except for her. The U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia found that the First Lady is, for purposes of FACA, a federal officer or employee.

The point is, this area of law is getting a hard look by Congress for several good reasons (which can be referred to as "Cheney" and "Mrs. Clinton", to save time).

I do think Rep. Issa is taking the wrong course with the most popular first lady in 40 years (he's gonna get stomped like a grape in Napa), but the topic is one where reasonable (but geeky) lawyers are having meaningful discussion about what should be done.

So there's already a law that covers this, or am I not understanding something.

kdeus 03-27-2009 10:31 PM

G. Octo-

There is a law that covers this, but the law has not kept up with the facts. For example, when Vice President Cheney formed a (non-FACA) committee to discuss energy policy, his reasoning was that they were not a FACA committee because they did not form a consensus opinion.

So there is a law, but the law could use some refining due to skillful interpretation from both the Clinton & W. Bush years. But I don't think Mrs. Obama is your boogeyman for why this needs to happen right away.

Ca3799 03-28-2009 09:21 PM

From the RNC Membership Survey:

1. A recent national poll reported that nearly 25% of Americans want the government to pass more socialism. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree
Disagree
Undecided


http://web.campaignsolutions.com/rnc...default2.aspx?

elucidator 03-28-2009 09:37 PM

My personal favorite from this coprophiliac's delight:

9. Should we resist Barack Obama's proposal to spend billions of federal taxpayer dollars to pay "volunteers" who perform his chosen tasks?

Hooo, doggies!

Boyo Jim 03-28-2009 10:17 PM

I can tell they really struggled to omit any possible bias in the phrasing of their questions.

Quote:

Should bureaucrats in Washington, DC be in charge of making your health care choices instead of you and your doctor?
Quote:

Should Republicans unite to block new federal government bureaucracy and red tape that will crush future economic growth?

Frostillicus 03-28-2009 10:23 PM

Quote:

Should bureaucrats in Washington, DC be in charge of making your health care choices instead of you and your doctor?
Hell yeah!

Quote:

Should Republicans unite to block new federal government bureaucracy and red tape that will crush future economic growth?
Hell no!

Boyo Jim 03-28-2009 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frostillicus (Post 10982935)
Hell yeah!



Hell no!

You have scored 50% on the Republican aptitude test. Your results indicate you are a free-market socialist. There has been a cell designated for your occupation at Guantanamo Bay after the 2012 elections. Don't worry about turning yourself in -- we will know where you are and we will come and get you.

eulalia 03-28-2009 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArchiveGuy (Post 10976602)
Now, now, we haven't even discussed the GOP's alternate budget proposal:

FiveThirtyEight has it. Scroll down to 3/26/09 posting.

Bosstone 03-28-2009 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ca3799 (Post 10982807)
1. A recent national poll reported that nearly 25% of Americans want the government to pass more socialism. Do you agree or disagree?

Do I agree that a national poll reported nearly 25% of Americans want more socialism?

Do I agree that nearly 25% of Americans want more socialism?

Do I agree with the nearly 25% of Americans who want more socialism?

I'm so confused.

elucidator 03-28-2009 11:47 PM

At least the reasonable and moderate wing of the Republican Party still has a voice.

Equipoise 03-29-2009 12:21 AM

*crickets*

Equipoise 03-29-2009 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bosstone (Post 10983062)
Do I agree that a national poll reported nearly 25% of Americans want more socialism?

Do I agree that nearly 25% of Americans want more socialism?

Do I agree with the nearly 25% of Americans who want more socialism?

I'm so confused.

It doesn't matter. It's all code for "Do you agree to be totally batshit insane and stupid?" Yes? Sign here! Then give us money!

Equipoise 03-29-2009 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayjay (Post 10980030)
... the most popular First Lady in more than 40 years.

Burt Prelutsky would like to have a word with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asswipe Prelutsky
Take Michelle Obama...please. Every time I turn around, there she is on a magazine cover. Now, normally, like the Mafia, I lay off the spouses, but inasmuch as this particular spouse attended the same racist church as her hubby for 20 years, I'll make an exception in her case. After all, in spite of the fact that affirmative action got her an Ivy League degree and a $7,000-a-week salary and, moreover, has sent billions of dollars for no particularly good reason to Africa, she insists this is a mean country. The burning question in my circle is: if the First Family gets a female dog, will she be the First Bitch or will she have to settle for second place?

Score!

Tammy Bruce too:

Quote:

Discussing the first lady's visit to a Washington D.C. classroom last week, Bruce incredulously recalled [Michelle] Obama's story about wanting to get A's in school and called out her use of a "weird, fake accent."

"That's what he's married to," Bruce said. "...You know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic...categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy..."
Score!

I thought about starting a thread called "What kind of an asshole hates Michelle Obama?" but I guess wouldn't have been able to use the word asshole in the Subject Line and no other word fits the description.

Uncle Brother Walker 03-29-2009 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJay (Post 10976049)
She isn't. Michelle Obama has no legal authority.

The President can delegate any number of Presidential duties as he sees fit to the First Lady. He could just as well delegate them to you, or Brad Pitt, or his cat, providing he isn't assigning them to do a specific job that Congress has to approve, such as secretary of state or a similar post. There are some things he has to do himself and lots of specific positions that require Congressional vetting but things like "Hold meetings on the pet project of my choice" can be done by pretty much anyone he wants. As Algher's cite points out, the Supreme Court has already ruled on what would seem, at least to me, to be just common sense; that the President is allowed to hire people to accomplish tasks, and that if his wife volunteers to be an unpaid employee doing some of those tasks, there's nothing illegal about it and in fact it's been that way for ages. Ultimately, executive authority as stated in the Constitution is still his. He's on the hook for whatever his chosen agents do.

What about Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' thing?

I was taught that one can always delegate authority, but never responsibility.

Having said that, I agree that Mr. Obama can appoint anybody to the position of left-handed coat hangers or whatever. He's still responsible for whatever actions (or inaction) his appointee does.

Algher 03-30-2009 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 10983089)
At least the reasonable and moderate wing of the Republican Party still has a voice.

And we are using our voice to order another round while eating all of the good nuts from the dish. It accomplishes the same thing, and at least gives us a buzz.

-Algher, not sure who to hate this morning - idiot Republicans in CA, idiot Republicans in DC, or the management of his former company that laid him off.

Acsenray 03-30-2009 11:54 AM

I don't see what's wrong with the general concept here. I object to someone being granted super-special public offices based solely on their marital status with no accountability to the public. If the president believes that his or her spouse is an appropriate person to whom to grant public policy tasks, then the spouse should be officially appointed to a named position in the executive department and should be subject to all the public participation/open government/sunshine laws that any government official or body is subject to.

Given that, I'm not quite sure I understand what Issa's proposal is. Didn't the whole Hillary Clinton health care lawsuit establish that she had to conduct public business in public?

Equipoise 03-30-2009 12:58 PM

Diogenes pretty much nailed it:

Quote:

Issa's only motivation is to harrass the Obama's and hope to contrive a political issue that Obama isn't being "transparent" enough. Obviously this has no chance to go anywhre -- it's not a serious or sincere attempt at real legislation (the last thing the Republicans would want is for an future Republican First couples to be saddled with this garbage). It's just about throwing rocks at the Obamas.
There has been no indication whatsoever that Michelle is going to be in charge of any policy or even be included in any policy decisions. This is pandering to the people who believed that "whitey" crap, who took her 'proud of America' comments out of context and twisted them to make her look like an angry black woman, who just really hate the fact that Barack and Michelle Obama even exist, let alone occupy the White House.

Fuckheads.

Equipoise 03-30-2009 02:06 PM

Stupid Republican Hyperbole of the Day
 
Call in the allies! Break out the rationing coupons! Start booking the Squirrel Nut Zippers!

WORLD WAR III IS COMING!

Quote:

Texas Sen. John Cornyn is threatening “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts.

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, acknowledges that a federal challenge to November’s elections could take “years” to resolve. But he’s adamant that Coleman deserves that chance — even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration.

A three-judge panel is expected to rule any day now on legal challenges to the November election.

...

Sen. Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat in charge of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, says that Minnesota gets its second senator as soon as the state case ends.
Boy, I'm getting the vague idea that Republicans really do not want Franken in the Senate, do they? If a Democrat were this obstructionist you'd hear the screaming of Republicans all the way to Mars.


This happened yesterday but it qualifies:

Michael Steel to Obama: "I'm done" [reaching out to you]

Transcript from CNN interview:

Quote:

STEELE: Look, I like the president personally, even though I think he has got a little thing about me, that I haven't quite figured out what that is.

CNN: You haven't spoken to him?
STEELE: No.

CNN: You've reach out?
STEELE: Several times, and I'm done.

CNN: So there is no bipartisanship going on there?
STEELE: Not, not that I know of.

CNN: Is there any professional jealousy?
STEELE: Not on my part. What would I be jealous of?

CNN: He's the president of the United States.
STEELE: I'm chairman of the RNC, so, what's your point? We both have leadership responsibilities and roles. I'm not equating the two. My point is: you are on your track. I'm on my track. You do your thing. I do my thing.
Like President Obama gives a shit what Steele thinks. Who does this twerp think he is? Is he taking cues from Howard Dean and Bush's close, bi-partisan relationship when Dean headed the DNC?

jayjay 03-30-2009 03:33 PM

Why would a Democratic President even bother talking to the chair of the RNC? He's nobody as far as the structure of the government is concerned. He doesn't represent any population at all, he's not in Congress. There's no REASON for Obama to give him the time of day.

Equipoise 03-30-2009 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayjay (Post 10987786)
Why would a Democratic President even bother talking to the chair of the RNC? He's nobody as far as the structure of the government is concerned. He doesn't represent any population at all, he's not in Congress. There's no REASON for Obama to give him the time of day.

No kidding! I had to laugh at Steele's "...I think he has got a little thing about me, that I haven't quite figured out what that is." That "thing" is probably along the lines of "who?" if someone were to ask President Obama about Steele. Steele's ego is too hilariously huge.

jayjay 03-30-2009 09:49 PM

Steele seems to think he represents the Congressional Republicans or something somehow. His job is to raise money for the party and decide which national races that money should go to. It's not a governing position. It's not even an ideological position. It's a purely political position.

And I think the same of Howard Dean, if there's any thought that I'm downplaying it only because it's the RNC. Dean had the 50-state strategy. He was instrumental in growing the Democratic majority and getting Obama elected. But he would have had no reason to confer with Bush, at all. Of course, Dean knew that and never pretended that Bush was snubbing him or something.

Equipoise 03-30-2009 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayjay (Post 10988888)
And I think the same of Howard Dean, if there's any thought that I'm downplaying it only because it's the RNC. Dean had the 50-state strategy. He was instrumental in growing the Democratic majority and getting Obama elected. But he would have had no reason to confer with Bush, at all. Of course, Dean knew that and never pretended that Bush was snubbing him or something.

I'm trying to imagine Dr. Dean whining to a reporter that Bush was snubbing him and has a "thing" about him. It's way hard.

Equipoise 04-30-2009 01:55 AM

I haven't kept up with this thread, though goodness knows I could put something here every day, it's just that I've been lazy, but these really deserved a resurrection.

Stupid Republican Bigotry of the Day

Move over Michelle! There's a new batshit lady in town! (ok, she's been around forever and has been batshit forever, but she's not as young and pretty as Bachman and so doesn't get the coverage).

Virginia Foxx: Story of Matthew Shepard's Murder A "Hoax" (VIDEO)

Quote:

As the House of Representatives debates an expansion of hate crimes legislation, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) has taken the rhetoric to a new level, claiming that those who say Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming for being gay are perpetrating a "hoax" on the American people.

"I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills," said Foxx.

A Foxx spokesman didn't immediately return a call. The Matthew Shepard "hoax" notion is a popular meme on right-wing blogs.

...
Disgusting vermin.

Oh, and...

Quote:

"Matthew Shepard's mother was in the gallery yesterday and I believe she was back today -- so I'm sorry she had to be around to hear it," Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) told Thrush.


Elsewhere, Byron York doesn't think black people are people too.

York: Obama is “Actually” Not So Popular, Because Some People Who Like Him Are Black

Quote:

Byron York has identified an important problem in our system of measuring public opinion, just the sort of thing that inspired the noble Framers of our constitution to wisely implement the three fifths compromise:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron York
On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.

Dave Weigel observes that all Democratic politicians are always much more popular among blacks than among whites, so it’s not clear why York would spin this as a unique attribute of Obama’s. But more to the point, what is York talking about here? How does the fact that much of Obama’s support come from African-Americans mean that he’s not “actually” popular?
I guess all the white people who supported white presidents get their popularity counted, but for some reason, black people who support a black president don't count at all.

Disgusting vermin. But I repeat myself.

Kalhoun 04-30-2009 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11091315)
I haven't kept up with this thread, though goodness knows I could put something here every day, it's just that I've been lazy, but these really deserved a resurrection.

Stupid Republican Bigotry of the Day

Move over Michelle! There's a new batshit lady in town! (ok, she's been around forever and has been batshit forever, but she's not as young and pretty as Bachman and so doesn't get the coverage).

Virginia Foxx: Story of Matthew Shepard's Murder A "Hoax" (VIDEO)

Disgusting vermin.

And this bitch had the nerve to say all this while Shepard's mother sat in the chamber? What the fuck kind of people DO that? What the fuck kind of brain damage are we talking about here?

Merijeek 04-30-2009 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalhoun (Post 11091621)
And this bitch had the nerve to say all this while Shepard's mother sat in the chamber? What the fuck kind of people DO that? What the fuck kind of brain damage are we talking about here?

The kind that makes them angry they're not allowed to just kill fags?

-Joe

Squink 04-30-2009 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalhoun (Post 11091621)
And this bitch had the nerve to say all this while Shepard's mother sat in the chamber?

Congress needs to pass a law that allows a mother in such a situation to carry an assault weapon, with a clip holding 40 rounds.

Reno Nevada 04-30-2009 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11091315)
I guess all the white people who supported white presidents get their popularity counted, but for some reason, black people who support a black president don't count at all.

Disgusting vermin. But I repeat myself.

I believe that a black person's support counts for 3/5 of a white person's support. I think it is in the Constitution or something.

NurseCarmen 04-30-2009 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squink (Post 11091824)
Congress needs to pass a law that allows a mother in such a situation to carry an assault weapon, with a clip holding 40 rounds.

This is a disgusting suggestion. She only would need one round. Why needlessly drive up the price of ammunition when there are already shortages?

Really Not All That Bright 04-30-2009 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11091315)
Elsewhere, Byron York doesn't think black people are people too.

York: Obama is “Actually” Not So Popular, Because Some People Who Like Him Are Black

He also thinks black people are responsible for the recessession, since they're the only ones who couldn't afford their mortgages, or something.

elucidator 04-30-2009 03:38 PM

The full crock is a bit more "reasonable", having a few grains of probobilium-126: its not toally off the wall.

The song goes like this: Clinton's housing laws put an end to red-lining, limiting a banks discretion in offering, or not offering, mortgages in the unsavory part of town. This put them in the awkward position of offering mortgages to people they had recently tipped. As a result, a financial debacle was inevitable. As simple as one-*-three.

(Me old man, who worked at HUD for a while, believe this right down to his toes...)

filmore 04-30-2009 03:48 PM

I think we should also require Sentate confirmation of the First Lady. Why does the president get to hand-pick who he wants in that position? We really need to vet candidates to be sure they're fully qualified.

Really Not All That Bright 04-30-2009 03:51 PM

Totally.

You can't tell me having a First Lady named "Lady Bird" didn't massively detract from the nation's dignity.

Acsenray 04-30-2009 04:04 PM

We shouldn't have a first lady. Was Dennis Thatcher Britain's first anything?

Equipoise 04-30-2009 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmore (Post 11093322)
I think we should also require Sentate confirmation of the First Lady. Why does the president get to hand-pick who he wants in that position? We really need to vet candidates to be sure they're fully qualified.

Laura, having caused the death of someone, would have been right out. Has any other First Lady ever killed anyone?


Cue Starving Artist: "Hillary. VINCE FOSTER!"

Really Not All That Bright 04-30-2009 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acsenray (Post 11093367)
We shouldn't have a first lady. Was Dennis Thatcher Britain's first anything?

Reactionary?

elucidator 04-30-2009 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filmore (Post 11093322)
.... We really need to vet candidates to be sure they're fully qualified.

Senator Horndog (R-Hooha): Clearly, the job of thoroughly vetting the First Lady should go the Senator with the most seniority. Now, who might that be? Well, I'll be, its me! Stern duty calls, gentlemen....

Congressman Cravenlust (D-etroit): Back off, slim! I'm Chair of the Subcommittee on Urban Gentrification and Arena Acquisition, so, clearly, the job belongs to me!

Senator Horndog: What the fuck does Urban Gentrification have to do with vetting the First Lady?

Congressman Cravenlust: Nothin'. But I got a gun....

elucidator 04-30-2009 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11093384)
....Cue Starving Artist: "Hillary. VINCE FOSTER!"

To be ruthlessly fair, I don't recall Starkers ever saying anything quite so brain-dead.

Guinastasia 04-30-2009 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acsenray (Post 11093367)
We shouldn't have a first lady. Was Dennis Thatcher Britain's first anything?

And don't EVEN get me started on that Prince Phillip guy.

Equipoise 05-01-2009 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 11093632)
To be ruthlessly fair, I don't recall Starkers ever saying anything quite so brain-dead.

To jog your memory...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Then there were the numerous questions of propriety concerning Hillary's law practice and stock profits; Whitewater; Hillary's secret health care machinations; disappearing files; and of course, Vince Foster's odd death.

And most recently (that I know of):

Quote:

The history books are full of Clintonian skullduggery that couldn't be proven but which anybody with half a brain knows happened. Whitewater, dissapearing documents in the aftermath of Vince Foster's death which suddenly appeared in the White House living quarters, Clinton's behavior toward various women he regarded as bimbos (and which would have people screaming for prison time had he been a Republican), etc., etc. If it weren't for the blue dress, he'd be wagging his finger and denying Lewinski to this day.
That last one was a fun thread. So, ok, he's very careful about actually coming out and saying it (Hillary killed Vince, or more accurately, Hillary had Vince killed), but if you read between the lines, well...

Monster104 05-01-2009 02:04 AM

Well, I for one like the general concept. Nothing wrong with more transparency and accountability in government, even if it's only the semi-official "duties" of the First Lady.

But it would at least be better to propose that any such measures take effect after the next presidential election, so it doesn't seem so blatantly targeted against Obama.

Starving Artist 05-01-2009 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11094676)
That last one was a fun thread. So, ok, he's very careful about actually coming out and saying it (Hillary killed Vince, or more accurately, Hillary had Vince killed), but if you read between the lines, well...

Yes...if you read between the lines - and you are a biased, unthinking hothead - you might come to that conclusion.

A more calm and reasoned reading of my posts reveals only that I feel many questions have been raised about the Clintons' behavior and character and curiously missing documents, and that they remain unanwered to this day. Among the questions raised by the Clintons' skullduggery is what really happened to Vince Foster. This is not the same as saying that Hillary engineered his murder.

For the record, I have never been of the slightest opinion that Hillary Clinton either killed Vince Foster or had him killed. Further, I would think - knowing my history as you do - that I'd have been trumpeting it to the heavens had I actually believed such a thing. So, so much for your critical thinking abilities, eh?

And thanks, luci. I can only imagine how it must have pained you to come to my defense (such as it was). Still, men of good character and all that . . .

GIGObuster 05-01-2009 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11094769)
Yes...if you read between the lines - and you are a biased, unthinking hothead - you might come to that conclusion.

A more calm and reasoned reading of my posts reveals only that I feel many questions have been raised about the Clintons' behavior and character and curiously missing documents, and that they remain unanwered to this day.

Only to people that depend on glurge for their information.

flodnak 05-01-2009 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acsenray (Post 11093367)
We shouldn't have a first lady. Was Dennis Thatcher Britain's first anything?

Arne Olav Brundtland wrote a humorous memoir about being married to Norway's first (and so far only) female prime minister. He was expected to accompany his wife on official business from time to time, and found that his hosts had often never dealt with a man in his position before and were doing their best to wing it.

One incident I remember from the book involved a letter from Nancy Reagan, a mass mailing inviting the spouses of heads of government in friendly nations to join in her Just Say No program. Arne Olav opened the envelope to find a letter addressed to Dear Fellow First Lady: :D

Broomstick 05-01-2009 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 10975828)
Regulating the First Lady

What the hell? So, they don't like Michelle's supporting girls in high school, vegetable gardens or military families? Or they just want to know what she's doing in advance so protesters can show up? What is the "historic role of the first lady" anyway? Have they ever heard of Eleanor Roosevelt? I know that criticizing the First Lady isn't off-limits, but legislating her behavior? Why are Republicans so eager to look so fucking stupid?

I think the issue they have is that she is not a "traditional" first lady as they think would be proper, in the sense that she has an education, a law career, isn't afraid to speak her mind, and worst of all, she is a Democrat.

Equipoise 05-01-2009 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11094769)
Yes...if you read between the lines - and you are a biased, unthinking hothead - you might come to that conclusion.

Man, you're 5 years behind the times. I'm not a hothead, not anymore. I certainly used to be. You used to call me that and you were right, back then. Before the 2004 election I was angry, seething all the time about what was going on on a day to day basis that should have made any normal person burst multiple blood vessels. Lies, Death, Destruction. Every single day! When Bush won again, all my anger drained away when I realized that events just had to play themselves out, that people had to come to their own realization what a massive, horrifying clusterfuck Bush was, and there wasn't anything I could do to hurry it along, so why be angry? I was just making myself sick.

A couple of years later, give or take, it finally started to happen. People finally started to wake up to a bit of what many of us knew before the 2004 election, though the general public still didn't know a fraction of it. Still doesn't (for instance, ask a man on the street if he knows that billions in cash, pallets of actual American dollars, went missing in Iraq before the election, something that, had it happened on a Democrat's watch, every person in the universe would know about).

I pretty much gave up following politics after the 2004 election, and beyond happening to glance at headlines as I passed by a paper box or seeing the odd Subject Line, paid no attention whatsoever to the primaries or the Democratic convention (didn't watch one second of it except by accident when it happened to be on in a restaurant when I walked in. Michelle was speaking. I glanced up at the TV and then walked away, a far cry from recording every single second of the 2004 convention, I loved my Tivo), and why?

Because during the primaries I just assumed Hillary would win, and then up to and during the convention I just assumed McCain would win. I wasn't going to get involved, no way no how. The loss would hurt too much. Better to keep a distance from it all. Then everything changed when Palin came onboard. For the first time, I paid attention! God I love Palin. She got me to open my eyes, and boy I've had fun since. Every day is a new adventure politically. I have such joy and glee watching politics now and I'm sorry now I wasn't part of the process of making President Obama's presidency happen in the early and mid stages. I envy those people who believed from the start and all along, and made it happen. I thank them profusely and apologize for not doing my part (other than donating money).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11094769)
A more calm and reasoned reading of my posts reveals only that I feel many questions have been raised about the Clintons' behavior and character and curiously missing documents, and that they remain unanwered to this day. Among the questions raised by the Clintons' skullduggery is what really happened to Vince Foster.

Uh, Vince Foster committed suicide. And, pardon me, but the rest of that paragraph is nothing more than wingnuttery gone wild. "skullduggery" kills me! You're so funny!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11094769)
This is not the same as saying that Hillary engineered his murder.

Well I guess you got me there. You're right and I'm sorry. Not a lot, but a little bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11094769)
For the record, I have never been of the slightest opinion that Hillary Clinton either killed Vince Foster or had him killed. Further, I would think - knowing my history as you do - that I'd have been trumpeting it to the heavens had I actually believed such a thing.

Good for you then, maybe there's hope for you yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11094769)
So, so much for your critical thinking abilities, eh?

Have I ever crowed about my critical thinking abilities? I don't think so. I'm not exactly one of the most respected members of the Dope, but I have fun. You provide a lot of it. Thank you.

NurseCarmen 05-01-2009 09:11 AM

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) released a fearmongering video, asking if Americans "feel safer" under President Obama. But one image in the video is Obama meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Way to get the Latino vote!

elucidator 05-01-2009 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11094769)
....And thanks, luci. I can only imagine how it must have pained you to come to my defense (such as it was). Still, men of good character and all that . . .

Sorry, Starkers, but the quotes suppled are damning. Well, darning. Clearly, you are trying to make innuendo and suggestion accomplish what fact will not. While it is true that a merciless interrogation of the wording will not support a charge that you made a direct accusation that Hillary did Foster, you tired to suggest and infer such a scurrilous thing. An inference that you know as wll as I is a staple of rightard nuttery.

I am embarassed for us both. Go lay down by your water dish. Bad Starkers! Bad!

Bryan Ekers 05-01-2009 10:42 AM

So what did happen to Foster and to what degree, if any, was HRC involved in whatever it was that may or may not have happened to Foster?

Boyo Jim 05-01-2009 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers (Post 11095617)
So what did happen to Foster and to what degree, if any, was HRC involved in whatever it was that may or may not have happened to Foster?

It's a perverted story related to Monica Lewinsky and her threatened access to presidential dick.

Diogenes the Cynic 05-01-2009 11:16 AM

Even Ken Starr concluded that the Vince Foster conspiracy was a load. Foster killed himself. The end. No mystery. No "unanswered questions."

Starr was also unable to find single shred of dirt on the Clintons from any other aspect of the Whitewater Inquisition. He was about to throw in the towel on it when Blowjob-gate landed in his lap.

elucidator 05-01-2009 12:40 PM

So to speak.

descamisado 05-01-2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 11096174)
So to speak.

Rim . . .BA DUM BUM!

Starving Artist 05-01-2009 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 11095484)
Sorry, Starkers, but the quotes suppled are damning. Well, darning. Clearly, you are trying to make innuendo and suggestion accomplish what fact will not. While it is true that a merciless interrogation of the wording will not support a charge that you made a direct accusation that Hillary did Foster, you tired to suggest and infer such a scurrilous thing. An inference that you know as wll as I is a staple of rightard nuttery.

I am embarassed for us both. Go lay down by your water dish. Bad Starkers! Bad!

"Aides to Hillary Clinton were investigated for the removal of unidentified files from Foster's office before the Secret Service or FBI could secure the premises"

and

"As it happened, how the White House and Hillary Clinton in particular handled Foster's files and documents immediately after his death became an issue of much investigation itself."


Both of the above are from Wiki on Vince Foster, and they say essentially the same thing I said (though admittedly with less animus :cool:). Even Equipoise has conceded that upon closer examination my words do not imply Hillary's complicity in Foster's death.

Hillary Clinton is a sneaky, slippery, underhanded, dishonest person...just like her husband. The fact that the files disappeared only to be mysteriously located afterward in the White House living quarters is what I was referring to.

ElvisL1ves 05-01-2009 03:01 PM

There was an investigation, so there must have been facts, is that it? :rolleyes:

elucidator 05-01-2009 05:43 PM

Then why mention it? Why even bring it up, since you as fully aware as we that there isn't any there there? Unless, as I said, you are trying to achieve by innuendo what you cannot accomplish by facts.

Starving Artist 05-01-2009 06:07 PM

The 'there' which was there was to remind people of Hillary Clinton's long record of dishonesty, chicanery and file/evidence manipulation.

Interesting information regarding the disappearing Foster/Whitewater files and Hillary's chicanery with regard to that subject can be found here.

Hopefully the fact that it comes from the NY Times and was written by William Safire will prevent the usual claims of partisanship that often accompanies attempts to highlight one of the numerous Clintonian wrongdoings.

As far as my comment about Foster's 'odd death', I was merely referring to the flurry of suspicious White House activity that surrounded it and not that Hillary herself was complicit in his death. As I said to Equipoise, if I'd had any reasonable belief that Hillary Clinton caused Vince Foster's death, I'd have been trumpeting it to the rooftops instead of couching it in innuendo in a scant couple of posts having to do with her unsuitability for the presidency.

Fish 05-01-2009 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11094769)
A more calm and reasoned reading of my posts reveals only that I feel many questions have been raised about the Clintons' behavior and character and curiously missing documents, and that they remain unanwered to this day.

Oh, my stars. If only Dick Cheney had declassified the documents showing all the good that came from that blowjob, the ends would have justified the means.

elucidator 05-01-2009 06:14 PM

William Safire? Well, can't get more non-partisan than that!

Starving Artist 05-01-2009 06:25 PM

Still, do you deny his credibility? Do you question the facts as he outlined them?

elucidator 05-01-2009 07:26 PM

So, in order to support your view of this trivial incident, you insist that I carefully review the facts of this minor footnote to history. Perhaps then, I might better appreciate your stance on this utterly vapid event?

And to accomplish this end, you would have me read one of the snottiest pedants to ever tap a typewriter key?

GIGObuster 05-01-2009 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11097443)
Still, do you deny his credibility? Do you question the facts as he outlined them?

I guess I have to deny his credibility because he never bothered to write a correction AFAIK:

"Text: Final Report of the Independent Counsel in Regards to the Whitewater Investigation

Robert W. Ray
Independent Counsel

January 5, 2001

VOLUME III. -- WASHINGTON, D.C. INVESTIGATION
Part E -- The Discovery and Removal of Documents from Vincent W. Foster Jr.'s Office"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...er_032002.html
Quote:

Both circumstantial evidence (principally phone records and entry and exit logs) and testimonial evidence exist to create the inference that some people might have endeavored to tamper with 316 documents in Foster's office, or counseled others to do so.

All people involved in those conversations denied such actions. Additionally, without any direct evidence -- in particular, without testimony from anyone who claimed to have participated in any endeavor to obstruct the federal investigations – there was simply insufficient evidence or proof of any kind showing anyone committed perjury, made false statements or obstructed the due administration of justice by refusing to provide relevant records.

Accordingly, no criminal prosecutions about this aspect of the Independent Counsel's investigation will be brought. This matter is now closed.

Jack Batty 05-01-2009 08:06 PM

Vince Foster invented the Swine Flu.

Boyo Jim 05-01-2009 09:06 PM

I thought Hillary did, and killed Vince with it.

Bryan Ekers 05-01-2009 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11097443)
Still, do you deny his credibility? Do you question the facts as he outlined them?

Nah, just as you outline them.

elucidator 05-01-2009 09:54 PM

So, this whole Vince Foster diversion into nowheresville....is this the stupid idea for Friday, or Saturday?

Starving Artist 05-01-2009 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 11097594)
So, in order to support your view of this trivial incident, you insist that I carefully review the facts of this minor footnote to history. Perhaps then, I might better appreciate your stance on this utterly vapid event?

And to accomplish this end, you would have me read one of the snottiest pedants to ever tap a typewriter key?

Hey, his was merely the first suitable account I happened upon while Googling. :D

And it matters not in the slightest whether you find that incident trivial, vapid or of no import whatsoever. What does matter is that I don't agree, and that it was based upon my assessment of the likelihood of (apparently sucessful) chicanery on Hillary's part with regard to that incident that I posted the comments that Equipoise listed above.

So I guess I'm gonna have to retract that 'men of good character' part where you're concerned, given that rather than acknowledge that I never so much as insinuated that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster you've simply switched instead to quibbling over whether the events that did trigger my comments really happened or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster
I guess I have to deny his credibility because he never bothered to write a correction...

Why should he write a correction?

He laid out an accurate accounting of the events that transpired, and as it happens the independent counsel could find no proof that document tampering/removal occurred as a result of those events.

How is anything that Safire wrote negated by the fact that no forensic proof of wrongdoing could be found?

And besides, denials and lack of forensic evidence does not innocence make, as we all found out once the existence of a certain blue dress finally came to light. :D

GIGObuster 05-01-2009 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11097967)
Why should he write a correction?

As you seem to be logically challenged, I have to say that he needed to make a correction since you still thought that his points from the past before the trials and inquiries are still valid. (Time lines are deadly for many right wingers still...)
Quote:

And besides, denials and lack of forensic evidence does not innocence make, as we all found out once the existence of a certain blue dress finally came to light. :D
It was Kenneth Star's fishing expedition that found the dress, Kenneth Star himself had to say later that there was nothing to be found regarding the Foster's papers or his death.

The "blue dress" of the Vince Foster papers failed to show up after several investigations. After the verdict of the courts, it is only deluded beings the ones that keep on trying to make something out of that incident.

Squink 05-01-2009 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 11097955)
So, this whole Vince Foster diversion into nowheresville....is this the stupid idea for Friday, or Saturday?

Let's run it through 'a dynamic, forward-looking organization that will amplify the common-sense and wisdom of our fellow citizens through a grassroots dialogue with Republican leaders', and see what pops out the other end.
Surely the National Council for a New America will save us all.

elucidator 05-01-2009 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11097967)
...So I guess I'm gonna have to retract that 'men of good character' part where you're concerned...

Bereft. Despondent.

Algher 05-01-2009 10:35 PM

[Looks up from his beer, Republicans still idiots, steals a chip from Elucidator's plate and goes back to muttering]

elucidator 05-01-2009 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squink (Post 11098034)
....Surely the National Council for a New America will save us all.

The site is a bleeding miracle, Squink. It burbles on and on in a sensible, mature tone about absolutely nothing. There are no ideas. Not that there are no new ideas, there aren't any old ones, either. Its a stunning effort, really. There are no provocative positions. There are no controversial notions. It is a sombre, sensible, and clear-eyed vacuum.

However did they manage to assemble all those cliches without accidentally including an idea?

Diogenes the Cynic 05-02-2009 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11097967)
Hey, his was merely the first suitable account I happened upon while Googling. :D

And it matters not in the slightest whether you find that incident trivial, vapid or of no import whatsoever. What does matter is that I don't agree, and that it was based upon my assessment of the likelihood of (apparently sucessful) chicanery on Hillary's part with regard to that incident that I posted the comments that Equipoise listed above.

What matters is that it didn't fucking happen. Did. Not. Happen. Happened? It did not.
Quote:

Why should he write a correction?
Because it didn't happen.
Quote:

And besides, denials and lack of forensic evidence does not innocence make
Actually, yes it does. That's the way it works in America. No evidence = presumption of evidence.

Starr said he found no evidence whatsoever. Neither forensic or testimonial. Absolutely no reason to believe it happened. You are making accusations of evidence tampering against Hillary based on nothing. It's beyond asinine to make totally unsupported allegations, and then say that everybody else has to prove they're false.

Let me tell you, if your boy, Starr, couldn't find anything or get anybody to squeal, there was less than nothing to it.

Starving Artist 05-02-2009 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic (Post 11098273)
What matters is that it didn't fucking happen. Did. Not. Happen. Happened? It did not.

The files disappeared and turned up a week later in the Clinton living quarters.

That created suspicion.

That suspicion is what I referred to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Actually, yes it does. That's the way it works in America. No evidence = presumption of evidence.

In a court of law, yes. In the court of public opinion, not so much. For example, how do you feel re 'Bush lied' to get us into Iraq? There is absolutely no way to know what Bush's thinking was, and there was evidence, believed by most of the world's intelligence agencies and Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves, that Iraq possessed or was developing WMD. But none were found so the overwhelming attitude around here is that "Bush lied". Where's your forensic evidence there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Starr said he found no evidence whatsoever. Neither forensic or testimonial. Absolutely no reason to believe it happened.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
You are making accusations of evidence tampering against Hillary based on nothing.

Not true. I'm making allegations of mysterious happenings with regard to files from Foster's office. (Which aren't actually 'allegations' at all, but matters of fact.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
It's beyond asinine to make totally unsupported allegations, and then say that everybody else has to prove they're false.

The allegations I've made are totally supported by the facts. The inference to be drawn from them is obviously a matter of political persuasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by [quote=Diogenes the Cynic
]Let me tell you, if your boy, Starr, couldn't find anything or get anybody to squeal, there was less than nothing to it.

That simply isn't true. There may have been nothing to it, or there may have been something to it which was successfully removed or destroyed and which subsequently prevented it from coming to light.

Diogenes the Cynic 05-02-2009 12:41 AM

Quote:

The files disappeared and turned up a week later in the Clinton living quarters.
No they didn't.

Starving Artist 05-02-2009 01:04 AM

Is it your contention that Safire's chronology is in error?

Diogenes the Cynic 05-02-2009 01:11 AM

His chronology of what? Nothing happened. Nothing "disappeared" and "reappeared."

kaylasdad99 05-02-2009 01:22 AM

nitpick:
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic (Post 11098363)
His chronology of what? Nothing happened. Nothing "disappeared" and "reappeared."

Actually, I was under the impression that some billing records from the Rose Law firm were discovered in Mrs. Clinton's personal spaces several months after they were said to be unfindable (in response to a subpeona from -- somebody; I don't recall who, or why they were wanted).

Nothing to do with Vince Foster, of course, but it certainly undercuts the accuracy of the overly broad statement Nothing "disappeared" and "reappeared."

GIGObuster 05-02-2009 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11098320)
In a court of law, yes. In the court of public opinion, not so much. For example, how do you feel re 'Bush lied' to get us into Iraq? There is absolutely no way to know what Bush's thinking was, and there was evidence, believed by most of the world's intelligence agencies and Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves, that Iraq possessed or was developing WMD. But none were found so the overwhelming attitude around here is that "Bush lied". Where's your forensic evidence there?

Things like that is what make me suspect that Starving Artist is really a plant trying his damnedest to make right wingers look bad. :)

The choice regarding what Bush was thinking is still between being a liar or an incompetent fool. You are trying to convince us that there is an advantage on the poison selected.

However, the Downing street memos tell me that:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
Quote:

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
So, there were many times from there when Bush told lies to the American people, a few weeks before the war he said that "we'll call for a vote." (for the second UN resolution, it never took place even though he remarked that it would take place no matter what) and "I've not made up our mind about military action."

But the decision to go to war was already made. A liar or an incompetent? Does it have to be a choice?

Starving Artist 05-02-2009 01:30 AM

I knew a woman once whose philosophy, if caught red-handed at something she shouldn't be doing, was to deny, deny, deny...under the belief that blatant and continued denials whould eventually cause the accuser to doubt what they'd seen with their own eyes.

That won't work with me.

To wit, from William Safire in the New York Times: [bolding mine]

(1) Foster's body is discovered July 20. White House aides, unobserved, are in and out of his office that night and next day. His possession of the Whitewater file is kept secret. (2) On Thursday, July 22, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, with intimidated cops nearby, gives Foster's box of Whitewater files to Ms. Williams (not, as was long said, to the Clintons' lawyer). (3) After talking to Hillary Clinton, Ms. Williams locks the files in a closet in the third-floor family quarters of the White House, to which she had the only key. (4) Not until Tuesday, July 27, are the Whitewater files retrieved by the lawyer, then Robert Barnett.

So, a) Foster had files regarding Whitewater that had been kept secret. b) a box of Whitewater files was given to Williams. c) After consulting with Hillary Clinton, Williams, who had the only key, locked the box in a closet in the White House living quarters. d) The files were finally turned over to Barnett on July 27, a week after Foster's suicide.

Now a box of Whitewater files may be construed as nothing but thin air to you, but to me it's a box of Whitewater files.

GIGObuster 05-02-2009 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 (Post 11098375)
Actually, I was under the impression that some billing records from the Rose Law firm were discovered in Mrs. Clinton's personal spaces several months after they were said to be unfindable (in response to a subpeona from -- somebody; I don't recall who, or why they were wanted).

Nothing to do with Vince Foster, of course, but it certainly undercuts the accuracy of the overly broad statement Nothing "disappeared" and "reappeared."

IIRC, an office worker later claimed to have misplaced those specific items, in any case the items were produced and the courts decided that there was no evidence even to accuse them of obstruction of justice, and that IMHO was the point of the accusations of Safire and others. An accusation that was not demonstrated even in a court of law.

GIGObuster 05-02-2009 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11098385)
I knew a woman once whose philosophy, if caught red-handed at something she shouldn't be doing, was to deny, deny, deny...under the belief that blatant and continued denials whould eventually cause the accuser to doubt what they'd seen with their own eyes.

That won't work with me..

That is ok, you are on record of not believing the conclusions of judges and prosecutors after the evidence was already reviewed.

Yours would be a proud position for a "birther" to have (in the sense that they are proud to ignore even court decisions and the opinion of prosecutors). However, it does make many independents and reasonable Republicans to realize how doomed they are if you are a typical example of the conservative base.

Keep up the good work. :)

Starving Artist 05-02-2009 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 11098378)
Things like that is what make me suspect that Starving Artist is really a plant trying his damnedest to make right wingers look bad. :)

The choice regarding what Bush was thinking is still between being a liar or an incompetent fool. You are trying to convince us that there is an advantage on the poison selected.

However, the Downing street memos tell me that:

http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html


So, there were many times from there when Bush told lies to the American people, a few weeks before the war he said that "we'll call for a vote." (for the second UN resolution, it never took place even though he remarked that it would take place no matter what) and "I've not made up our mind about military action."

But the decision to go to war was already made. A liar or an incompetent? Does it have to be a choice?

There have been many times in my life when I may have wanted to do something, but thought a different approach may be better. Then I may have decided on a different approach than that, and then I may have gone back to the original plan after all.

All your memo shows is that Bush felt different ways at different times, no doubt influenced by the hundreds or thousands of bits of information coming in with regard to events transpiring either in or with regard to events in Iraq.

The big lie propagated around here is that Bush, knowing full well that Hussein didn't have any WMD, lied and told the American people that he did and that going to war against Iraq was therefore justified and necessary.

To date I have seen no probative (i.e., proving) evidence that he knew or did any such thing, and barring personal one-on-one confession to the contrary from Bush himself or unquestionable mind-reading ability, there is absolutely no way for anyone to say with certainty that Bush lied about WMD to get us into war with Iraq.

Dio claimed that without evidence the presumption was toward innocence, and I merely used the opinion of so many like you (and him) around here with regard to Bush to show that such a presumption is hardly de rigueur around here. :)

GIGObuster 05-02-2009 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11098406)
Dio claimed that without evidence the presumption was toward innocence, and I merely used the opinion of so many like you (and him) around here with regard to Bush to show that such a presumption is hardly de rigueur around here. :)

Uh uh. Just a simple question: Did Bush said that he was going to get a second UN resolution, no matter what? Did he told us the truth?

Starving Artist 05-02-2009 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 11098403)
That is ok, you are on record of not believing the conclusions of judges and prosecutors after the evidence was already reviewed.

I be very interested in knowing how you come to this conclusion. I obviously accept that no evidence of chicanery was discovered, and I've said as much. Still, that hardly proves no such chicanery took place, and just like with guys and "Bush lied", I'm free to make that observation. Still, you have seen no call by me to press charges against her, have you? And if not, wouldn't that indicate that I accept the conclusions of the authorities that no evidence of wrongdoing that would hold up in court could be found, despite the fact that I personally believe that evidence tampering either took place or was deemed unnecessary prior to its having been turned over to the authorities.

GIGObuster 05-02-2009 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11098415)
I be very interested in knowing how you come to this conclusion. I obviously accept that no evidence of chicanery was discovered, and I've said as much. Still, that hardly proves no such chicanery took place, and just like with guys and "Bush lied", I'm free to make that observation. Still, you have seen no call by me to press charges against her, have you?

Double jeopardy and all that jazz, but that is also my point. You are beating a dead horse. As for Bush, the judgment of history is still coming.

And I'm a Historian

Quote:

And if not, wouldn't that indicate that I accept the conclusions of the authorities that no evidence of wrongdoing that would hold up in court could be found, despite the fact that I personally believe that evidence tampering either took place or was deemed unnecessary prior to its having been turned over to the authorities.
As a wise man said, you are entitled to your opinions but not the facts. And the fact is that no evidence of Chicanery regarding Foster's documents was found by the courts, several independent investigations, or by even the investigation by Kenneth Star himself.

Equipoise 05-02-2009 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalhoun (Post 11091621)
And this bitch had the nerve to say all this while Shepard's mother sat in the chamber? What the fuck kind of people DO that? What the fuck kind of brain damage are we talking about here?

For a little break from Starving Artist babbling on to himself about Clintonian conspiracy theories, Matthew Shepard's mother was on Rachel Maddow, responding to Congresswoman Foxx, who kinda sorta "apologized," saying she "misspoke."


Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist
The big lie propagated around here is that Bush, knowing full well that Hussein didn't have any WMD, lied and told the American people that he did and that going to war against Iraq was therefore justified and necessary.

To date I have seen no probative (i.e., proving) evidence that he knew or did any such thing,

Look up "Joe Wilson" (which, if you're the kind who follows links just to see where they will lead, will also lead you to "Valerie Plame" which makes for some crackin' interesting reading).

Diogenes the Cynic 05-02-2009 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11098385)
I knew a woman once whose philosophy, if caught red-handed at something she shouldn't be doing, was to deny, deny, deny...under the belief that blatant and continued denials whould eventually cause the accuser to doubt what they'd seen with their own eyes.

That won't work with me.

To wit, from William Safire in the New York Times: [bolding mine]

(1) Foster's body is discovered July 20. White House aides, unobserved, are in and out of his office that night and next day. His possession of the Whitewater file is kept secret. (2) On Thursday, July 22, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, with intimidated cops nearby, gives Foster's box of Whitewater files to Ms. Williams (not, as was long said, to the Clintons' lawyer). (3) After talking to Hillary Clinton, Ms. Williams locks the files in a closet in the third-floor family quarters of the White House, to which she had the only key. (4) Not until Tuesday, July 27, are the Whitewater files retrieved by the lawyer, then Robert Barnett.

So, a) Foster had files regarding Whitewater that had been kept secret. b) a box of Whitewater files was given to Williams. c) After consulting with Hillary Clinton, Williams, who had the only key, locked the box in a closet in the White House living quarters. d) The files were finally turned over to Barnett on July 27, a week after Foster's suicide.

Now a box of Whitewater files may be construed as nothing but thin air to you, but to me it's a box of Whitewater files.

You keep quoting this Safire column as though it's meaningful. Starr found no evidence that any of this occurred. Moreover, there was nothing damaging to the Clintons in any of those files anyway, so there was no motive to move them.

What was "strange" about Foster's death, by the way?

Starving Artist 05-02-2009 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 11098409)
Uh uh. Just a simple question: Did Bush said that he was going to get a second UN resolution, no matter what? Did he told us the truth?

I don't know. I do know that it's quite possible that he simply changed his mind, and possibly changed it on the basis of some of the hundreds or thousands of pieces of information he was getting daily regarding developments in Iraq.

The difference between you and me is that because he's my guy I'm willing to see alternative explanations; and because he's not your guy you are perfectly content to jump to the most damaging conclusion and make accusations of lying when any number of other reasons may be the actual explanation.

But I'm not gonna quibble over all this all night; I'm in the middle of a very interesting book about William F. Buckley and would much prefer to be spending my time reading it.

So I'm out of here for now. I'm afraid you'll have to call yourselves idiots for the rest of the night.* ;)


*Paraphrased from an insult by Debra Berone in Everybody Loves Raymond. No plagiarizer am I! No, siree!

GIGObuster 05-02-2009 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11098426)
I don't know. I do know that it's quite possible that he simply changed his mind, and possibly changed it on the basis of some of the hundreds or thousands of pieces of information he was getting daily regarding developments in Iraq.

By then the evidence was piling up that the "intelligence" was wrong regarding the locations of the WMD, the UN inspectors were finding nothing on the places the US and England told them to look.

So yes, he lied. He then lied to the American people by not seeking the second resolution because he knew he was going to lose.

Quote:

The difference between you and me is that because he's my guy I'm willing to see alternative explanations; and because he's not your guy you are perfectly content to jump to the most damaging conclusion and make accusations of lying when any number of other reasons may be the actual explanation.
The other explanation is that he was an incompetent fool, but even that does not exclude the other explanation.

Quote:

But I'm not gonna quibble over all this all night; I'm in the middle of a very interesting book about William F. Buckley and would much prefer to be spending my time reading it.

So I'm out of here for now. I'm afraid you'll have to call yourselves idiots for the rest of the night.* ;)


*Paraphrased from an insult by Debra Berone in Everybody Loves Raymond. No plagiarizer am I! No, siree!
Meh, like if posts would disappear tomorrow.

You remain mostly an idiot in the ancient Greek sense, and even the son of Buckley decided to dismiss the Bush Followers, so keep up the good work on antagonizing even the reasonable conservatives.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic (Post 11098425)

What was "strange" about Foster's death, by the way?

Please don't feed him. ;)





Nah, Starving Artist is a great punching bag, it doesn't hurt one and he comes back for more punishment.

ElvisL1ves 05-02-2009 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 11097991)
It was Kenneth Star's fishing expedition that found the dress

Scaife's, actually. He (well, the lawyers he gave Paula Jones) then dropped it in Starr's lap. Something about a midnight meeting at a Denny's in Maryland, IIRC.

Steve MB 05-02-2009 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byron York
On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.

The pollster forgot that he was supposed to apply a 3/5 weighting factor to those responses. :rolleyes:

mswas 05-02-2009 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Algher (Post 10975928)
The continuation of that train of thought is that if she is not elected, not on the Federal payroll, and has not been confirmed by the Senate, she should not be in charge of anything.

She's not in charge of anything.

Steve MB 05-02-2009 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 11098447)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic (Post 11098425)
What was "strange" about Foster's death, by the way?

Please don't feed him. ;)

Aww... I was hoping for a story of Foster's "strange" death that would make Rasputin look like a wimp.

jayjay 05-02-2009 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mswas (Post 11098860)
She's not in charge of anything.

Like any wife, she's in charge of her husband. :D

Squink 05-02-2009 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve MB (Post 11098862)
Aww... I was hoping for a story...

Karl Rove case witness killed in plane crash, sisters want answers
Quote:

Web guru was potential witness in Ohio voting fraud case

04/30/2009

Shannon Connell of Madison says her brother Michael rarely talked about work. She knew he ran an Ohio company called New Media Communications that set up websites for Republicans including former President George H.W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But it wasn't until after he died last December, when the small plane he was piloting crashed, that she learned via the Internet of his tie to a voter fraud case and to allegations that presidential adviser Karl Rove had made threats against him.

"At first, it was really hard for me to believe Mike was dead because somebody wanted him dead," says Shannon, a buyer for a local children's resale shop. "But as time goes on, it's hard for me not to believe there was something deliberate about it."

Acsenray 05-02-2009 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 10976156)
This dickhead having that name upsets me because Issa is the name of one of my favorite singers (formerly Jane Siberry)

[flashback]Hours and hours of my holiday being bored to tears by my cousin insisting we listen to Jane Siberry albums. Bleargh.[/flashback]

Fish 05-02-2009 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starving Artist (Post 11098385)
(1) Foster's body is discovered July 20. White House aides, unobserved, are in and out of his office that night and next day. His possession of the Whitewater file is kept secret. (2) On Thursday, July 22, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, with intimidated cops nearby, gives Foster's box of Whitewater files to Ms. Williams (not, as was long said, to the Clintons' lawyer). (3) After talking to Hillary Clinton, Ms. Williams locks the files in a closet in the third-floor family quarters of the White House, to which she had the only key. (4) Not until Tuesday, July 27, are the Whitewater files retrieved by the lawyer, then Robert Barnett.

1. Dead man has a box with files. One of the files relates to an ongoing case. Very impolitely, he does not tell anybody that he has this file.

2. Box is turned over to another person, who does not immediately insist that the dead man identify all files relating to investigation.

3. Files are locked away.

4. Someone goes through the files and finds the file.

Yes, very mysterious.

Equipoise 05-02-2009 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acsenray (Post 11098935)
[flashback]Hours and hours of my holiday being bored to tears by my cousin insisting we listen to Jane Siberry albums. Bleargh.[/flashback]

Ah, you were just too young and mainstream-brained to appreciate her brilliance. Your cousin, on the other hand, had excellent taste.


Edit to add, I'm hearing *crickets* from the direction of Starving Artist regarding Joe Wilson. Why am I not surprised?

Really Not All That Bright 05-02-2009 12:07 PM

Those are locusts. Run!

Acsenray 05-02-2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11099172)
Ah, you were just too young and mainstream-brained to appreciate her brilliance.

Heh. Hardly.

Quote:

Your cousin, on the other hand, had excellent taste.
But now when we tease her about it, she's appropriately shamed. :)

Equipoise 05-02-2009 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acsenray (Post 11099240)
Heh. Hardly.

Whether you know or realize it or not, Jane Siberry is a National Canadian Treasure. Celine, Ann, Bryan and other mainstream music makers get all the attention and the money, but Jane's music will be what musicians, musicologists and discerning music lovers will be praising (now and) in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acsenray (Post 11099240)
But now when we tease her about it, she's appropriately shamed. :)

That's too bad. She got mainstreamed. She was right in the first place.

Acsenray 05-02-2009 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11100403)
Whether you know or realize it or not, Jane Siberry is a National Canadian Treasure..

Bless your heart.

Quote:

That's too bad. She got mainstreamed.
I'm going to try to avoid responding any further, because I'm starting to get offended by the equation of "disliking Jane Siberry" with "bland mainstreamer."

Equipoise 05-08-2009 12:42 PM

Stupid Republican Attack of the Day
 
President Obama's being attacked for his choice of condiments. Condiments! I realize that Hannity is already a total loonball, but now he's being joined by other loonballs in a full-blown case of Dijon Derangement Syndrome.

Does the base really need to be propped up this badly? OMG SOCIALIST!! WHO LIKES FANCY-PANTS MUSTARD!!

They're a laughingstock.

MovieMogul 05-08-2009 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11120857)
President Obama's being attacked for his choice of condiments. Condiments! I realize that Hannity is already a total loonball, but now he's being joined by other loonballs in a full-blown case of Dijon Derangement Syndrome.

Does the base really need to be propped up this badly? OMG SOCIALIST!! WHO LIKES FANCY-PANTS MUSTARD!!

They're a laughingstock.

What's reallly funny is that "Real Men" actually prefer mustard and Grey Poupon is the most powerful brand. So when you're thinking of traditional conservative values (including financial success and an Horatio Alger-style vision), you gotta go with the G.P.!

Polycarp 05-08-2009 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish (Post 11099022)
1. Dead man has a box with files. One of the files relates to an ongoing case. Very impolitely, he does not tell anybody that he has this file.

2. Box is turned over to another person, who does not immediately insist that the dead man identify all files relating to investigation.

3. Files are locked away.

4. Someone goes through the files and finds the file.

Yes, very mysterious.

Well, given that most of the people who claim this do hear voices in their heads, it's not unreasonable of them to expect Vince Foster to alet people to that file! :)

What? :o

Diogenes the Cynic 05-08-2009 02:52 PM

Ironically, Obama told a story in The Audacity of Hope about his handlers freaking out on the campaign trail once when he asked for dijon mustard at a TGIF. They told the waitress he was just kidding and tried to shove a bottle of French's at him. The waitress said it was no problem to get dijon, and Obama said he still wanted it. I guess you can't ever ask for fancy mustard if you're a Democratic politician.

Hannity, by the way, is a guy who refuses to fly anywhere for a public appearance unless he's provided a private jet.

DaphneBlack 05-08-2009 03:42 PM

What the fuck? Dijon mustard is elitist? I don't fucking get it. It's not exactly a 400 dollar haircut.

jayjay 05-08-2009 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaphneBlack (Post 11121479)
What the fuck? Dijon mustard is elitist? I don't fucking get it. It's not exactly a 400 dollar haircut.

Not to mention that it's Grey Poupon, which is like the Cheetos of dijon mustards.

Merijeek 05-08-2009 03:47 PM

Wait, so am I better than other people because I eat Dijon, or do I just THINK I am better than other people because of it?

-Joe

BrightNShiny 05-08-2009 07:00 PM

I don't feel like starting a new thread, but apparently CBS golf analyst David Feherty decided to slur our military by claiming: "if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death." See here for Media Matters link.

Seriously, WTF? Why would anyone in the public eye think it is acceptable to accuse our military of being traitors?

Boyo Jim 05-08-2009 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny (Post 11122023)
I don't feel like starting a new thread, but apparently CBS golf analyst David Feherty decided to slur our military by claiming: "if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death." See here for Media Matters link.

Seriously, WTF? Why would anyone in the public eye think it is acceptable to accuse our military of being traitors?

I don't believe that was the intent. I believe the actual intent was something like, "Patriotic Americans want to kill Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the manner in whch they've protrayed the war and the military to the American people." Plus, "After bin Laden, they are America's two biggest enemies."

Equally disgusting, in a different way.

elucidator 05-08-2009 07:54 PM

Clearly, golf commentators have gone lamentably downhill ever since the dirty hippies took over golf.

BrightNShiny 05-08-2009 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 11122083)
I don't believe that was the intent. I believe the actual intent was something like, "Patriotic Americans want to kill Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the manner in whch they've protrayed the war and the military to the American people." Plus, "After bin Laden, they are America's two biggest enemies."

Equally disgusting, in a different way.

I think it's time we start calling things for what they are. Anyone who killed the heads of our two legislative bodies would be a traitor, not a patriot, and we need to point out what is the logical conclusion of the statement. He is claiming that our military would behave in a traitorous fashion.

Muffin 05-08-2009 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 10975828)
Why are Republicans so eager to look so fucking stupid?

I don't know if we'll ever have an answer to that 'nature or nurture' debate, but as a liberal, I think it important to support Republicans' rights to marry and raise families.

Boyo Jim 05-08-2009 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny (Post 11122107)
I think it's time we start calling things for what they are. Anyone who killed the heads of our two legislative bodies would be a traitor, not a patriot, and we need to point out what is the logical conclusion of the statement. He is claiming that our military would behave in a traitorous fashion.

I agree in absolute terms with what you say. But I don't think HE means that. I think Feherty thinks that Pelosi and Reid are the traitors, and real patriots want to kill them.

Which I believe is a traitorous sentiment, but not far off what what some wingnut suggested about Obama back during the campaign. Wasn't there somebody in Congress who said something of the lines of, "He better not come down here..."? I can't recall who or the details, but it was close to an implied death threat.

Jack Batty 05-08-2009 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny (Post 11122023)
I don't feel like starting a new thread, but apparently CBS golf analyst David Feherty decided to slur our military by claiming: "if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death." See here for Media Matters link.

Seriously, WTF? Why would anyone in the public eye think it is acceptable to accuse our military of being traitors?

I think what you've got hold of there is what is commonly referred to as "a joke". Admittedly, one in bad taste, but I don't think he was claiming that Sgt. Rock would literally pop a cap in Nancy Pelosi.

BrightNShiny 05-08-2009 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Batty (Post 11122127)
I think what you've got hold of there is what is commonly referred to as "a joke". Admittedly, one in bad taste, but I don't think he was claiming that Sgt. Rock would literally pop a cap in Nancy Pelosi.

Like how the conservatives were so quick to give a generous reading to Kerry's joke about Bush getting stuck in Iraq? I don't see any reason to give a generous reading to these statements.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

elucidator 05-08-2009 08:33 PM

Oh, its nothing more than a really, really bad and stupid joke. But I have to wonder if he really and truly believes that the average Iraqi-deployed grunt shares his contempt. That has to be the number one cherished myth of the rightarded.

Frostillicus 05-08-2009 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11120857)
President Obama's being attacked for his choice of condiments. Condiments! I realize that Hannity is already a total loonball, but now he's being joined by other loonballs in a full-blown case of Dijon Derangement Syndrome.

This is just the break the McCain campaign was waiting for.

Sailboat 05-08-2009 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11091315)
I haven't kept up with this thread, though goodness knows I could put something here every day, it's just that I've been lazy, but these really deserved a resurrection.

Stupid Republican Bigotry of the Day

Move over Michelle! There's a new batshit lady in town! (ok, she's been around forever and has been batshit forever, but she's not as young and pretty as Bachman and so doesn't get the coverage).

Virginia Foxx: Story of Matthew Shepard's Murder A "Hoax" (VIDEO)

Disgusting vermin.

Oh, and...





Elsewhere, Byron York doesn't think black people are people too.

York: Obama is “Actually” Not So Popular, Because Some People Who Like Him Are Black

I guess all the white people who supported white presidents get their popularity counted, but for some reason, black people who support a black president don't count at all.

Disgusting vermin. But I repeat myself.


Holy crap these people are insulting. They must have total contempt for the voters' intelligence to say such trollingly stupid and nakedly hateful things.

I would like to see a decent opposition party. Maybe we can find one among the Greens or the Libertarians.

Squink 05-08-2009 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise
Move over Michelle!

She has:
Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann Are BFFs
Ron Paul the GOP’s new pied piper? Michele Bachmann’s a believer

I'm sure this is a proud day for former Texans in Minnesota, and Minnesotans in general!

NinjaChick 05-08-2009 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11120857)
President Obama's being attacked for his choice of condiments. Condiments! I realize that Hannity is already a total loonball, but now he's being joined by other loonballs in a full-blown case of Dijon Derangement Syndrome.

Does the base really need to be propped up this badly? OMG SOCIALIST!! WHO LIKES FANCY-PANTS MUSTARD!!

They're a laughingstock.

What.

I don't like any mustard on my burgers, just ketchup. But I also only eat veggie burgers. So what does that make me?

EddyTeddyFreddy 05-08-2009 11:27 PM

Dijon mustard? Dijon?

Isn't that...... you know, French?

That's all you need to know.

dropzone 05-08-2009 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinjaChick (Post 11122586)
I don't like any mustard on my burgers, just ketchup. But I also only eat veggie burgers. So what does that make me?

If you were on an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Osama bin Laden, and a soldier with two bullets in his weapon, I'm guessing that makes you strangled. ;)

Fish 05-09-2009 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny (Post 11122023)
I don't feel like starting a new thread, but apparently CBS golf analyst David Feherty decided to slur our military by claiming: "if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Naturally. Party before country, after all.

gonzomax 05-09-2009 01:10 PM

The repubs are right. She should be impeached.

stolichnaya 05-09-2009 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropzone (Post 11122612)
If you were on an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Osama bin Laden, and a soldier with two bullets in his weapon, I'm guessing that makes you strangled. ;)

Since strangling is a very personal and difficult way to kill someone, I think Pelosi actually is the lesser of those evils. Right?

Pelosi is no hero of mine, don't get me wrong, and I don't find the joke offensive. But there's something broken in you if you find that genuinely funny. You're not a psycho or anything, you just don't understand what is funny about humor and why- if it has the rhythm and pattern of a joke, and the target is correct, you will laugh reflexively. That still doesn't make it funny.

Edit- I mean the "royal" you here, and not dropzone.

BrightNShiny 05-09-2009 04:16 PM

Well, I'm sure next time Der Trihs shares with us his views of the military, everyone defending Feherty will defend him as well.

ETA: I'm going to retract this comment. I have a wicked hangover. It was my birthday last night.

ElvisL1ves 05-09-2009 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddyTeddyFreddy (Post 11122594)
Dijon mustard? Dijon?

Isn't that...... you know, French?

Frencher than French's? How could that be?

dropzone 05-09-2009 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stolichnaya (Post 11123905)
Edit- I mean the "royal" you here, and not dropzone.

No prob; didn't even notice it. I'm not funny and realize it, though it doesn't stop me from trying.

dropzone 05-09-2009 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny (Post 11123928)
ETA: I'm going to retract this comment. I have a wicked hangover. It was my birthday last night.

The "cure" is a hair from the dog that bit ya, bro. Have one on me.

Equipoise 05-10-2009 04:54 AM

Heads up on the possible next Stupid Republican Attack of the Day*: grumblings about President Obama's asking for a screening of the new Star Trek movie. So far (as far as I know) the whining has only appeared at RedState (which is a slightly more intelligent brand of stupid, which isn't saying much, because they're all a bunch of loonballs too, but compared to the freepers they're geniuses), and I'm not going to link to RedState, so I'll link to the post at DU that referenced it.

I realize that President Obama is the first president to ever screen movies at the White House (well, other than Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush) but really, it's not that big a deal. He is a Star Trek fan, and it's not like he can go down to the local multiplex to catch it without the Secret Service causing a big stir, which would get complained about too. Hey, I saw it, it's a fantastic movie. I can't blame President Obama for wanting to see it too.


*that is, if President Obama's funny and surprisingly pointed barbs made at the White House Correspondents Dinner don't cause a bunch of heads to explode first. By the time his jokes get hashed out and gnashed over (with some vitriol thrown Wanda Sykes' way too), the screening might be forgotten.

BrightNShiny 05-10-2009 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equipoise (Post 11125304)
Heads up on the possible next Stupid Republican Attack of the Day*: grumblings about President Obama's asking for a screening of the new Star Trek movie. So far (as far as I know) the whining has only appeared at RedState (which is a slightly more intelligent brand of stupid, which isn't saying much, because they're all a bunch of loonballs too, but compared to the freepers they're geniuses), and I'm not going to link to RedState, so I'll link to the post at DU that referenced it.

Prime Directive? Aliens working together? A Russian on the bridge? Interracial kisses? The episode where one guy is half-black and half-white and the other is half-white and half-black? Hippie-dippie shit if you ask me.

elucidator 05-10-2009 08:23 AM

I reach that, brother!

Merijeek 05-10-2009 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elucidator (Post 11125485)
I reach that, brother!

Obviously, a man who is a fan of this "Science Fictional Entertainment" can't be counted on to maintain his grip on reality. Next thing you know he'll be playing Dragons and Dungeons and summoning demons in the White House*.

-Joe

*Unless he IS actually from Hell, as some have speculated, in which case that would probably be redundant.

Equipoise 05-11-2009 08:41 PM

Stupid Republican Meme of the Day

(which others will probably pick up once they stop whining about Wanda Sykes)

Started by duly elected loonball Pete "We could learn a lot from the Taliban insurgency!" Sessions:

Quote:

Sessions told the Times that Obama's plan is to "diminish employment and diminish stock prices." By doing so, Obama "intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it" as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to consolidate power.
And now picked up by the Leader of the Republican Party himself, Rush Limbaugh:

Quote:

LIMBAUGH: As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps. But in the Oval Office of the White House none of this is a problem. This is the objective. The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. And the objective is to take the nation’s wealth and return to it to the nation’s quote, “rightful owners.” Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on.
So, it's all a Grand Plan by President Obama! Plunge the country into Darkness, give all the white people's money to the blacks, then Take Over (for life, I assume)! Brilliant!

Koo koo Koo koo Koo koo.

It's nice to know I was wrong about the Star Trek screening though. Damn, I bet RedState is mad they couldn't get that one going.

Gyrate 05-12-2009 09:29 AM

I for one welcome our Black Muslim Socialist Fascist Trekkie overlords.

Equipoise 05-12-2009 10:54 AM

Ditto!

stolichnaya 05-12-2009 12:18 PM

Were they always this crazy? Or was I just not paying attention?

Boyo Jim 05-12-2009 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stolichnaya (Post 11132542)
Were they always this crazy? Or was I just not paying attention?

The latter. In the past, though, they were more comfortable crazies, and generally spoke with well-modualted voices, giving the appearance of sanity. Now they're getting desperate and more shrill, and hence they sound crazier.

davidw 05-13-2009 09:17 AM

Has anyone mentioned the special RNC meeting to approve a resolution to rebrand the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party?" When even Michael Steele can see that your idea is stupid, it's really stupid.

Really Not All That Bright 05-13-2009 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidw (Post 11135781)
Has anyone mentioned the special RNC meeting to approve a resolution to rebrand the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party?" When even Michael Steele can see that your idea is stupid, it's really stupid.

That is the Stupid Republican Idea of the Century. Actually, it might just be the Stupid Idea of the Century.

I might write to the DNC and suggest that they pass a resolution redesignating the Republican Party as the Republican Douchebag Party.

Jack Batty 05-13-2009 09:29 AM

Wow. That's monumentally stupid. Why don't they just go ahead and rebrand the Democratic Party as the Democratic Socialist Nanny-Nanny Boo-Boo We Don't Like You You Big Poopy-Heads Party while they're at it.

Boyo Jim 05-13-2009 09:47 AM

This story has been floating around for a few weeks, so it doesn't really count as today's stupid idea. But it really is a primo stupid idea. Calling a special meeting for the specific purpose of trashing the other party, and apparently with nothing else on the agenda.

I must say this is one of my favorite ongoing threads. The Republicans are entertaining me every single day, and often exceeding their daily quota of one stupid idea.

ElvisL1ves 05-13-2009 09:50 AM

For historical reference, John Stuart Mill once labeled the Tories "The Stupid Party".

SteveG1 05-13-2009 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frostillicus (Post 11122423)
This is just the break the McCain campaign was waiting for.


Isn't Dijom from, like, France or something?

Cool. Slam the Democrats, the liberals AND the French. I'm not a joke writer, but there has to be something we can work with there. :D

Boyo Jim 05-13-2009 10:00 AM

Every day I think someday I will wake up and read about one of these numb-nuts heads actually exploding. They have so much rage built up, and restricting their homosexual practices to public restrooms can only make it worsse.

SteveG1 05-13-2009 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squink (Post 11098034)
Let's run it through 'a dynamic, forward-looking organization that will amplify the common-sense and wisdom of our fellow citizens through a grassroots dialogue with Republican leaders', and see what pops out the other end.
Surely the National Council for a New America will save us all.

Is it just me, or did their entire "platform" look like just a mountain of boilerplated jibberish?

Really Not All That Bright 05-13-2009 10:16 AM

Actually, it sounds like a precis of a Democratic campaign platform.

Access to healthcare for all Americans. Job creation. Equal opportunity for education and affordable secondary education.

It's a rhetorical towel toss.

Boyo Jim 05-13-2009 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright (Post 11136020)
Actually, it sounds like a precis of a Democratic campaign platform.

Access to healthcare for all Americans. Job creation. Equal opportunity for education and affordable secondary education.

It's a rhetorical towel toss.

You folks have missed the news. This is the group that started the "listening session" tour to get input from "normal Americans". Then Limbaugh trashed that idea, saying they need to do "teaching sessions" instead. Now Cantor has repudiated the "listening" idea -- interesting in that the whole thing was supposed to be non-partisan, but that was a sham from day one.

Since the Republicans have decided they don't need any more input, I'm pretty sure this organization is going to die a quiet death.

Jack Batty 05-13-2009 12:39 PM

I was thinking the "National Council for a New America" already existed; we just refer to it as "the last election".

Boyo Jim 05-13-2009 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Batty (Post 11136691)
I was thinking the "National Council for a New America" already existed; we just refer to it as "the last election".

Nope, brand new. From the link in post 183:

Quote:

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement upon releasing a letter announcing the formation of the National Council for a New America, a forward-looking, grassroots caucus intended to bring together Congressional leaders with a national panel of experts...

[From the letter]

...However, this is not a Republican-only forum. While we will be guided by our principles of freedom and security, we will seek to include more than just our ideas. This forum will include a wide open policy debate that every American can feel free to participate in. We do this not just to offer an alternative point of view or to be disagreeable.
Story was written on April 30.

IIRC about the corverage of the first "listening session", there were several subject areas that were declared off-limits in advance, such as abortion. So even before Rush brought them out to the woodshed, they were already not fulfilling the promises of their, er, founding document.

Jack Batty 05-13-2009 02:27 PM

I was being humorous. Or perhaps not.

Boyo Jim 05-13-2009 02:35 PM

:smack: I'm bad about recognizing any sarcasm but my own.

stolichnaya 05-13-2009 05:26 PM

sooo... that means you're good at it?

Am I doing this right?


/is this thing on?

SteveG1 05-13-2009 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 11136193)
You folks have missed the news. This is the group that started the "listening session" tour to get input from "normal Americans". Then Limbaugh trashed that idea, saying they need to do "teaching sessions" instead. Now Cantor has repudiated the "listening" idea -- interesting in that the whole thing was supposed to be non-partisan, but that was a sham from day one.

Since the Republicans have decided they don't need any more input, I'm pretty sure this organization is going to die a quiet death.

Maybe when they listened (that's a pretty good joke right there) they didn't like what they heard?

As far as teaching, meh. Limbaugh can't teach me anything. He'd have to know something first, and that would be a "first" for him. Really. What can he teach me?

Patriotism? I have my honorable discharge, he had a boil on his ass. I work in government, and worked "defense" in the private sector.

Clean living? I'm not the one strung out on pills.

Honesty? Ummm don't think so.

Loyalty to Fearless Leader? He used to preach that UNTIL his boy wan't in charge anymore so that's a wash too.

I don't feel like going through a huge giant list right now, so that's enough.

No, nothing to see there.

Voyager 05-13-2009 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim (Post 11136193)
You folks have missed the news. This is the group that started the "listening session" tour to get input from "normal Americans". Then Limbaugh trashed that idea, saying they need to do "teaching sessions" instead. Now Cantor has repudiated the "listening" idea -- interesting in that the whole thing was supposed to be non-partisan, but that was a sham from day one.

Can we take up a collection to hire a bodyguard for Rush? if anything happens to that guy, the Republicans might actually act on such radical ideas as listening to voters, and then where would we be?

Or maybe not. Remember last year when the Republicans were so upset about how the American public refused to listen to their insistence that everyone was doing well in the great Bush economy?

elucidator 05-13-2009 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voyager (Post 11138281)
Can we take up a collection to hire a bodyguard for Rush...

Not likely anybody will kill Rush before he does.

Fuzzy Dunlop 05-14-2009 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright (Post 11135826)
That is the Stupid Republican Idea of the Century. Actually, it might just be the Stupid Idea of the Century.

I might write to the DNC and suggest that they pass a resolution redesignating the Republican Party as the Republican Douchebag Party.

That's good, but I move that the DNC rename the Republicans to "Fucking Babies". I believe that MSNBC would technically be obliged to use the new name, and it might spread all over the mainstream media.

"Congressional Democrats today passed sweeping health care reform in spite of the Fucking Babies in congress voting nearly unanimously against the wildly popular bill, claiming that nobody had listened to their ideas."

Really Not All That Bright 05-14-2009 03:08 PM

"...Governor Charlie Crist (FB-FL) today signed into law the..."

Onomatopoeia 05-14-2009 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop (Post 11141137)
"Congressional Democrats today passed sweeping health care reform in spite of the Fucking Babies in congress voting nearly unanimously against the wildly popular bill, claiming that nobody had listened to their ideas."

Hah! I love it! :D

Gangster Octopus 05-14-2009 04:30 PM

I thought the Republican Party was rebranded the, "Sorry, Rush" party.

Really Not All That Bright 05-14-2009 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus (Post 11141512)
I thought the Republican Party was rebranded the, "Sorry, Rush" party.

Pending. Rush hasn't granted permission for them to use his name yet.

EddyTeddyFreddy 05-14-2009 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright (Post 11141516)
Pending. Rush hasn't granted permission for them to use his name yet.

Yeh, he's too busy sneering at John McCain's 97-year-old mother and telling her to get out of his Republican Party.

BrightNShiny 05-15-2009 12:40 AM

Looks like the traitors that make up the Republican Party succeeded in getting the DHS report on right wing extremism yanked. Here's a (urk) Washington Times link.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.