More Colbert
 

Weird because I was pretty sure that you said you liked his show on the FB several months back. I guess I don't have a paigowesque recall. Must be the x.


ETA: Uh, this was the post I was thinking of. So are you ready to admit that you know who Colbert is (though you never claimed to watch the show - that was my inference from your post, I guess)? "Ping pow!

More Colbert
 

Hmmm.

Better question (to me, I guess), is why I actually bothered to pretend in a post way back in May of 2006 that I knew the guy, when clearly I didn't.

More Colbert
 

I know who he is.

But I'm doing a spectacular job of wasting my life. So much so I'm often wasting time that should be more effectively wasted.

It's getting to the point where I sometimes think, "Nah, the hell with it... I'll get around to masturbating tomorrow."

More Colbert
 

He was part of Stewart's brilliant supporting cast, which apparently you knew.

liar, liar, pants on fire.

More Colbert
 

Well? Have you gotten back to yourself on this?

More Colbert
 

Yes, actually.

I think I had him confused at the time with Mo Rocca.

More Colbert
 

Mo Rocca's the Jimmy Fallon of the Daily Show alumnae.

Legacy of Ashes
 

Did anyone see when Colbert had O'Reilly on his show (well he was brought in through video)? At one point I was laughing so hard I couldn’t breathe.

He and Stewart are just not human. They are just too quick with the comeback. It’s like their minds just run faster or something.

I just read Tim Weiner's History of the CIA "Legacy of Ashes". It was an interesting read but man is Weiner an arrogant prick. There is not a single person in the book he doesn't make completely look incompetent except maybe George H.W. Bush.

He makes Carter and Clinton both look like total idiots. I don't think I agreed with one thing Carter did, and I disagreed with much of what Clinton did, but you can't call these two men stupid. He also tried to make Nixon and Kissinger sound like they knew nothing about foreign policy.

If he knows so much why doesn't he run the agency? It is just too easy to be an arm chair quarterback and second guess everything the team does.

I don't read the NYT but is he always this critical and arrogant? But if you can put up with his arrogant criticisms and condescending attitude the history part of it is pretty interesting. The guy definitely did his research and has a lot of information that has just recently come to light about all sorts of stuff like the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedy Assassination and Iran-Contra.

More Colbert
 

Beth Littleford is the show's Eva silverstein.

"Paulmentum."
 

So Ron Paul's got a splashy little profile in Time.

His electoral prospects may not be too bright:

• "His supporters are the equivalent of crabgrass," says GOP consultant Frank Luntz. "It's not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff. They just like him because he's the most anti-Establishment of all the candidates, the most likely to look at the camera during the debates and say, 'Hey, Washington, f____ you.'"

But, man -- look at his impact on popular culture!

• The libertarian's traction is most apparent on the Internet, where his presence far outstrips that of any candidate from either party. His name is the most searched, his YouTube videos the most watched, his campaign the topic of songs by at least 14 bands. "The last thing I would listen to is rap," Paul says. "But there's something going on when there's a rap song about the Fed." On Tuesday, both Paul and Tom Cruise were guests on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The actor went to Paul's dressing room to thank him for his work on a bill fighting the forced mental screening of grade-school kids. "Go. Go. Go. Go hard," Cruise said. Paul turned to an aide and asked, "What movies has he been in?"

I love this country.

Gattigap

"Paulmentum."
 

Hasn't this election happened by now? Surely to fuck they can't expect me to sustain an interest in this whole sad and sorry show for this long, can they?

"Paulmentum."
 

"Hey Luntz, f____ you. Hillary's the best GOP candidate right now."

Whiny little spoiled brats
 

Is it my imagination or is Bush's creepy little whining getting worse:

If I can have my AG, no one can have an AG

I generally object to dressing up pets for any purpose. But, you gotta admire the Vice President going with a familial theme when he dressed up his dogs for Halloween this year.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...15jpg-772v.jpg

I think that dog just told me to fuck off.

"Paulmentum."
 

2

At some point I will turn all earnest about it, but for now I am jaded.

caption, please
 

caption, please
 

" . . . and that's why I banned legal pads from the Oval Office back in oh-three. Now, go write me up some histry!"

Time to take a stand.
 

10 years from now, do you want to have to say that "when they came for the Pakistani lawyers, I did nothing"?

It's time for a Spanish Civil War-style intervention: led by private citizens of conscience, since our government has clearly shed any pretense of supporting democracy and the rule of law overseas.

Since Lincoln was a Republican I don't think it's entirely appropriate to use his name again this time, but "The Kunstler Brigade" has a nice ring to it. Maybe B'n'B will let us use her plane to get over there.

Democrats owning prosperity?
 

From Jonathan Rauch:

• Not many polling questions have been asked continuously for more than five decades, and fewer still remain as revealing today as they ever were. One such rarity is this question, which the Gallup Organization has asked in most (not all) years since 1951:
  
  "Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous?"
  
  This is the granddaddy of political polling questions not just because it is venerable but because it has earned its keep. If you had to pick only one political indicator as the most fundamental of all, this would be a good choice—because, to a first approximation, the party of prosperity is the default majority party.

Here's the chart.

http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/Imag...1026_rauch.gif

And AEI, Heritage, and the Club for Growth (and Spanky) wept.

Gattigap

Time to take a stand.
 

We're all right behind you.

"Paulmentum."
 

Its just a dog and pony show until Hillary gets sworn in and then dissapoints all the Democrats by keeping us in the war.

"Paulmentum."
 

Not all of us.

S_A_M

"Paulmentum."
 

There's a difference between ongoing rational engagement and this strange war that we have going on now. Basically, Bush is trying to find something he can win, while continuing to refuse to dirty himself with M.E. politics.

Right now, Turkey believes it has carte blanche and Bush won't move in to stop it, and Iran is pretty sure that Bush is a paper tiger who will not engage it militarily or politically. As a result, the two of them are going to have a nice change to screw up what's left of Iraq while Bush spends his time trying to sugar coat what he's gotten us into.

caption, please
 

Shit, fellas, just pretend I'm saying something worth writing down - the cameras are rolling.

Townsend has my Proxy
 

Meet the New Boss...

"Paulmentum."
 

Translation: Hillary will keep us in the war, but I'll be able to stand it more because she'll explain why a lot better. Oh, and I like her.

Even though she's bought and paid for by the same people who own the GOP, except in re: health care and oil interests.

I could see myself voting for Hllary given the pack of shitheads running right now. Why?

1. We're going to get national health care one way or another, and it isn't going to impact me radically, so why not just get it over with? If it helps some people, why not?

2. She'll be a fiscal moderate like her husband.

3. The markets will react positively.

4. Rudy's beginning to give me the creeps.

5. Her victory would force the GOP to regroup and probably drop the childish fundamentalist crap it has stuffed into its platform.

Either way, this election should be a plus. We get rid of an idiot and elect someone hailing from the Northeast for once.

Time to take a stand.
 

It's making me a bit uncomfortable, actually. Can you take a couple of steps back? Thanks.

But seriously, no one else finds the story of an independent Supreme Court asserting its constitutional powers in the face of an executive bent on subverting the law, with the members of the bar protesting non-violently in the streets in support the least bit compelling? To me it seems like a fascinating sort of alternative reality.

Time to take a stand.
 

People who believe if you kill non-believers you get 60 virgins are about to get a nuclear bomb, so that may color some people's feeling.

Have you studied Paki constitutional law? Are there any differences between it and our's WRT powers of the several branches? What law school did you go to?

Time to take a stand.
 

Of course it's compelling. But any assertion of judicial power is necessarily a power-grab by the intelligensia over the popular will, which is a good thing in Pakistan, but hits a little too close to home every time I read the 9th Circuit advance sheets.

"Paulmentum."
 

You keep saying this, but the Democrats are doing nothing in the public eye but shooting themselves in the foot.

See today's impeachment resolution by Dennis "UFO" Kucinich as Exhibit A.

Time to take a stand.
 

Racist fuck.

Time to take a stand.
 

Leaving aside whether the 9th Circuit constitutes anyone's idea of an intelligentsia, I would have thought all the FDR-haters around here would be a little more vocal about the disgraceful way Musharraf is trying to get around the constitution by packing the courts. But not a peep.

The Pakistani people want democracy - now that everything is going so well in Iraq and Afghanistan shouldn't we be sending in the Marines to make their dreams come true?

Time to take a stand.
 

There are two things I find particularly interesting about the Pakistani constitution. One is that it does indeed reflect a separation of powers concept - something quite rare in this world. The courts play a remarkably similar role to our own. The other is that it includes a concept of "Emergency Powers" (and, of course, we have such a concept, too, but it is unwritten and rarely invoked - cf. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law - and seems to limit but not supercede judicial authority). Musharif is invoking his own constitutional power, and the question here really is when is it appropriate to declare an emergency - in this case, it is pretty clear that the threat he is protecting himself from is not the Islamic militants, but rather the judicial system's review of his own electoral shenanigans.

But, tell me, what is the neo-conservative position on Iraq and bringing Democracy to the Middle East these days? Seems like events in Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan belie a bit of the theory that got us in this mess.

Time to take a stand.
 

Interesting. The place weed was discussing has those same people (well, different denominations, but close enough for the PB), and they already have a nuke or three.

And that one guy is living there, too, probably. What was his name again?

"Paulmentum."
 

Having discernable goals and understanding what can be achieved by military force and what requires political involvement goes a long way.

I am not yet sure I like her, but it doesn't matter. She would be vastly more competant than the current administration, and that matters.

Time to take a stand.
 

No, they want to use "democracy" to impose sharia, which isnt exactly the same thing - and the most important thing the neo-cons either didnt figure out or ignored.

Time to take a stand.
 

Rarely invoked?

Acording to the Kossacks, its been invoked on a daily basis since 9/12/01.

Time to take a stand.
 

The Sharia crowd in Pakistan is more focused in the tribal areas; they really want sufficient autonomy so they can impose it there.

If Musharif hands them Lahore and Karachi by splitting the military and the democratic elements, it's a bonus.

Time to take a stand.
 

If a political party announces that, if its representatives are elected, it will impose harsh punishments for certain crimes and undertake various policy measures designed to promote a specific religion, and they are elected in a free and fair election, and they impose those punishments and undertake those measures, am I not living in a democracy?

Time to take a stand.
 

Good to see you agreeing with the Kossacks.

And pointing out that my own left-wing views don't fit into your stereotype of the lefties.