Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[LessinSF]

Kerry now at +130. Bush needs a good performance tomorrow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What guy are you talking about here? The guy with the hand up his ass?

He seems to be talking about the guy watching the puppet show.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
What guy are you talking about here? The guy with the hand up his ass?

This guy?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This guy?

That's up the ass? If that's up the ass, I think PJ and Not Me will consent to do anal with you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This guy?

Captions you missed the chance to use:

"Bush/Cheney '04: Because the nation needs a quarterback, not a long snapper."

"How can Kerry run the war on terror when he can't find his own ass?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I'm waiting for the NRA to offer to defend this woman:

• A woman [Yuolanda Taylor] who police say sold stones to rioters in a southwest Michigan city last year and used the money to pay her cable television bill has pleaded no contest to inciting a riot.
  
  Police said Taylor toted rocks through a riot-wracked neighborhood, selling small ones for $1 each and bigger ones for $5. Prosecutors said the rocks were thrown at police.
  
  Taylor told police she collected about $70 selling rocks, but quit when she got hit by one herself.

Or maybe Congress can retroactively give her immunity.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The White House wanted an impasse they could use to paint Dems as soft on terrorism.

Right, because there weren't legitimate concerns regarding the union status of the employees.

And can we agree that what the House is doing is, ipso facto, not bipartisan? If they wanted to take a bipartisan approach, they'd let the bill based on the (bipartisan) Commission's work come to a vote. But they won't. And this point, you're only bickering about whether they're principled wingnuts, as opposed to craven.

But why do you say this. You just agreed that there are legitimate things to quibble with in the commission's recommendations. Should each member ignore that and let it come to a vote anyway?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm waiting for the NRA to offer to defend this woman:

• A woman [Yuolanda Taylor] who police say sold stones to rioters in a southwest Michigan city last year and used the money to pay her cable television bill has pleaded no contest to inciting a riot.
  
  Police said Taylor toted rocks through a riot-wracked neighborhood, selling small ones for $1 each and bigger ones for $5. Prosecutors said the rocks were thrown at police.
  
  Taylor told police she collected about $70 selling rocks, but quit when she got hit by one herself.

Or maybe Congress can retroactively give her immunity.

[humorless tone]I don't get it. She wasn't charged with possessing or buying or selling rocks. She was charged with inciting a riot. The NRA doesn't defend murderers merely because they used a gun. NOW sometimes defends women despite the fact that they used one. What are you trying to say.[/humorless tone]

Ty, this community, which I am veeeery familiar with, has clearly suffered enough without you Al Sharpton type carpetbaggers coming in and stirring shit up.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But why do you say this. You just agreed that there are legitimate things to quibble with in the commission's recommendations. Should each member ignore that and let it come to a vote anyway?

This is Ty's argument with you, not mine, but have you read about the things that House Reps have added in?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I'm waiting for the NRA to offer to defend this woman:
[list]A woman [Yuolanda Taylor] who police say sold stones to rioters in a southwest Michigan city last year

Maybe the ACLU will defend her on First Amendment speech grounds.

Better yet, isn't stoning a religious practice in some parts of the world? Maybe she was proselytyzing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, because there weren't legitimate concerns regarding the union status of the employees.

I understand that the right wing wanted to undo federal employees' civil-service protections. But you are on crack if you think the White House was primarily motivated by that cause rather than the political hay it made by smearing Cleland and others as soft on terror.

But why do you say this. You just agreed that there are legitimate things to quibble with in the commission's recommendations. Should each member ignore that and let it come to a vote anyway?

Again, now you're just arguing the underlying merits of the proposals, while I'm talking about process. It's not a question of whether "each member" lets the thing come to a vote. The GOP leadership isn't letting the 9/11 Commission's proposal come to a vote, because it would win. They're trying to produce an outcome where just before the election, Congress is faced with an up-or-down vote on the leadership's particular proposal. If this happens, no one (at all in the House, and ultimately in the Senate) will be able to vote on the Commission's recommendation that authority be centralized in a new position over the DCI, because that isn't an option.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
[humorless tone]I don't get it. She wasn't charged with possessing or buying or selling rocks. She was charged with inciting a riot. The NRA doesn't defend murderers merely because they used a gun. NOW sometimes defends women despite the fact that they used one. What are you trying to say.[/humorless tone]

Ty, this community, which I am veeeery familiar with, has clearly suffered enough without you Al Sharpton type carpetbaggers coming in and stirring shit up.

If AG doesn't STP, he's going to ask whether San Francisco police can charge the gun manufacturers with inciting a riot.

If he does STP, he'll hit the same point, but with some learned religious references thrown in.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Maybe the ACLU will defend her on First Amendment speech grounds.

Better yet, isn't stoning a religious practice in some parts of the world? Maybe she was proselytyzing.

Jesus wasn't talking about her -- she wasn't actually casting the stones.

OK, what's AG left with now?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Jesus wasn't talking about her -- she wasn't actually casting the stones.

Did one of the cops say "Jehovah"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by dtb
So, apparently, Tuesdays is the day of the Republican caucus (or some such thing) in the Senate, where Mr. Burns -- uh, I mean VP Cheney -- meets with the Republicans to -- well, I don't know what they do, but I guess they go over their strategery.

Before the video was touched up:



Yale? Check.
Energy company CEO? Check.
Hmm . . . .