Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and i should post the times he passed, and you cite blogs about how it didn't happen? no thanks. i have a life.

do you have Sandy B's cell number? ask him.

oh, and ps "they named a mountain after him?" was the funniest thing here in months, and all you do is spit this back. that doesn't sound like the open minded ty we were prominsed we'll start seeing.

Sometimes my Hank-to-English translator doesn't work so well.

And the business about Clinton not taking Sudan up on their offer to ship us Osama is a pile of crap, and you know it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no one said anything about the President. the question is an entity that seems to have believed he had some authority....

Neither you nor Congress know what the telcos believed, since the White House will not disclose what it is that they're receiving immunity for.

Don't let that stop you from making up whatever facts you need.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why would we want to go to war with Iran?

The UN and the Democrat party constantly reassure me that their nuclear enrichment programme is solely for benign, domestic purposes.

If you're going to make shit up about what Democrats say or think, at least get the name of the party right.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Chicago or NYC lawyers disrespect me because I work in Detroit. I never expected you to do the same.

For your post to have any meaning what so ever you would need to list what the bill was missing that caused him to veto, and what he was willing to let die. wouldn't you have to do that, or am i dumb?

I'm pretty sure none of the budget bill's provisions were people. That would make my response to your question "No."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
18 U.S.C. 2511, according to the smart folks at Overlawyered. Violations of it give rise to a private right of action with statutory damages (18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2)), which presumably is why the immunity provision was proposed.

oh. sorry, that would be "what law might have been broken." but you have answered Ty's initial question, or Ty's blog of the day's question, "why would bush insist on the immunity before he signs"........ and all you guys focus now "the extension the congress is apparently getting ready to pass." To not insist on the immunity would render the extension meaningless, no company would get involved.

Here all you guys are hatching hair brained theories about how many bad things the companies did, when you don't know fuck all about what they did.

And you are the reasonable ones. Imagine how many lawsuits the extreme libs at daily kos et al might bring.

Don't you see how that would frustrate Peloisi and Teddy K's desire to see the extension work?

Poll: do you think GGG cheers for his team when they foul off a good fastball, calls it a win?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm pretty sure none of the budget bill's provisions were people. That would make my response to your question "No."

so you don't think i'm dumb, and atticus thinks i've only been dumb one time.

HC 2-1

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If you're going to make shit up about what Democrats say or think, at least get the name of the party right.

It utterly baffles me that the term "Democrat party" gets you so incensed.

[SlaveNoMore]

From some blog:

---

The Washington Times reported on Karl Rove's speech yesterday on the political discourse on the Left:

Karl Rove teed off this afternoon on the liberal netroots, the coalition of far-left blogs and advocacy groups who are a new power bloc in the Democratic party.

"The Web has given angry and vitriolic people more of a voice in public discourse," said Mr. Rove, who served as one of President Bush's top strategists until he resigned this past summer, and is a noted technology nut.

"People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog," Mr. Rove said during a speech about politics and the Web at the Willard InterContinental, a hotel just blocks from his former place of employment.

"I'm a fan of many blogs. I visit them frequently and I learn a lot from them," Mr. Rove said. "But there also blogs written by angry kooks."

Mr. Rove cited the results of a study that found that writers and commenters on liberal blogs such as DailyKos.com cursed far more than writers and commenters on conservative Web sites such as FreeRepublic.com.

"My point is not that liberals swear publicly more often than conservatives. That may be true, but that's not my point," Mr. Rove said. "It is that the netroots often argue from anger rather than reason, and too often, their object is personal release, not political persuasion."

In response, Karl Rove got cussed out by the nutroots.

The commenters at Crooks and Liars and Atrios proved Rove right.

Here's a fine example:

"F*ck the f*cking f*ckers."

***

Say what you will, his point about nutty fringe soapbox is spot on.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Say what you will, his point about nutty fringe soapbox is spot on.

Agreed.

And the "Democrat Party" thing is usually intended to be deliberately insulting, so perhaps that's why it bothers Ty (and me) when you and Spanky use it here. From Wikipedia

• Republican leader Harold Stassen said in 1940, "I emphasized that the party controlled in large measure at that time by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly-Nash in Chicago should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat Party.'"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It utterly baffles me that the term "Democrat party" gets you so incensed.

I don't think he was so incensed. He just pointed out that you sounded stupid. Which you did.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From some blog:

---



In response, Karl Rove got cussed out by the nutroots.

The commenters at Crooks and Liars and Atrios proved Rove right.

Here's a fine example:

"F*ck the f*cking f*ckers."

***

Say what you will, his point about nutty fringe soapbox is spot on.

The people on Dailykos.com and Townhall.org are not nuts. They're tools. IRL, you'd never even look at those people. Nuts, OTOH, are sometimes worth engaging in real life. They can be amusing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Agreed.

And the "Democrat Party" thing is usually intended to be deliberately insulting, so perhaps that's why it bothers Ty (and me) when you and Spanky use it here. From Wikipedia

• Republican leader Harold Stassen said in 1940, "I emphasized that the party controlled in large measure at that time by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly-Nash in Chicago should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat Party.'"

Your party is a machine, and its controlled by people with a vested interest in keeping govt big. Try to shake the "Democrat Party" label all you like, but it fits. That's why it's lasted so long.

I'm not saying the GOP is any better. If you have a slur for purported free marketeers who are more than happy to subsidize their businesses at the govt trough and drain that trough knowing the result will be a Democrat Party big govt resurgence in their wake, I'm happy to use it. "Greedheaded Big Govt Profiteers" is too clumsy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From some blog:

---



In response, Karl Rove got cussed out by the nutroots.

The commenters at Crooks and Liars and Atrios proved Rove right.

Here's a fine example:

"F*ck the f*cking f*ckers."

***

Say what you will, his point about nutty fringe soapbox is spot on.

Karl Rove arguing in favor of raising discourse? Shirley you're kidding. I'm want to throw out a funny comparison, but try as I might, the word "Goebbels" keeps working its way into my thoughts.

He was scum, even among his kind.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The people on Dailykos.com and Townhall.org are not nuts. They're tools. IRL, you'd never even look at those people. Nuts, OTOH, are sometimes worth engaging in real life. They can be amusing.

shucks, thanks.:blush: :blush:

oh. and FWIW, I don't believe Ty is a tool.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your party is a machine, and its controlled by people with a vested interest in keeping govt big. Try to shake the "Democrat Party" label all you like, but it fits. That's why it's lasted so long.

Explaining why you think that the insult is accurate and sticky doesn't change the fact that it is an insult.

eta I don't mean to sound thin-skinned -- I was simply trying to answer Slave's question. Insult away, just be aware that it is an insult, that's all.