Politics As Usual

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Irrelevant. They're sent back on the bus.

Sure, with gas at $3 a gallon who can afford to drive their illegal aliens back to Oakland in an SUV (Hi Ty!)? If Bush can just get gas prices down, he'll have Marin County in the bag.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But the conservatives are working less. Your theory only works if there are more liberals than conservatives, which was Atticus's original point! Ha!

You're assuming the conservatives are actually watching that programming. They're not. It's like a loss leader.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're assuming the conservatives are actually watching that programming. They're not. It's like a loss leader.

Huh? Does that mean we're back on the "positive" loop, or "negative" loop now?

FWIW, I've completely lost the thread of what we're talking about here. Whether positive or negative, you guys should notice that said loop is accelerating and throwing off posters faster than a tilt-a-whirl run amok. Someone, please, hit the "kill" button on this ride.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're assuming the conservatives are actually watching that programming. They're not. It's like a loss leader.

Trying to buy up all the media outlets to keep opposing viewpoints off the air is a fairly paleolithic strategy now, no?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Trying to buy up all the media outlets to keep opposing viewpoints off the air is a fairly paleolithic strategy now, no?

Exxxxcelllennnt.
(spree: sound)

eta link -- T.S.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Exxxxcelllennnt.

"What are your interests?"

"Making nerds cry."

"Good, you can be our television critic."

It hasn't been the same since the Chicago Tribune poached Ralph Wiggum.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You'd think that, but in fact his days are dedicated to Kandi! and Kayla!

I'm surprised he didn't chime in on the FB's "Hints from Heloise" on pesky stripper glitter.

Goodness, I take a couple of weeks off for a sex tour in the Mid East (lemme tell you, those folks at Abu Ghraib know how to par-tay!! Ms. England missed her calling as an SF dominatrix!) and I come back to .....

well, to yet another post by Atticus that I don't understand. But usually those posts use incomprehensible words much longer than "Kandi!" and "Kayla!"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So if your only alternative is to starve to death, you should have to starve to death? That's not very libertarian. It is kind of refreshing to hear a libertarian explain that poor people should have fewer economic opportunities than the better off.

Still waiting to hear whether you would pay higher taxes to fund aid for these prostitutes.

Of course not. I am not blaming the poor women, I am blaming the men who obviously have food to give but are withholding it for sex. That is dispicable.

I would not pay higher taxes, but I woudl certainly advocate shutting down the NEA and having some of the savings go to feed them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am blaming the men who obviously have food to give but are withholding it for sex. That is dispicable.

I would not pay higher taxes....

Excellent post, sir. So the UN is to blame for not giving these refugees more food, but you would not pay more of your own money to make it happen. A conservative critique of the UN in a nutshell.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Excellent post, sir. So the UN is to blame for not giving these refugees more food, but you would not pay more of your own money to make it happen. A conservative critique of the UN in a nutshell.

You are really incredible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are really incredible.

I could say the same thing. You want the UN to be handing out more food to African refugees, but you don't want to pay for it. Unless the NEA is cut, which has exactly nothing to do with any of this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I could say the same thing. You want the UN to be handing out more food to African refugees, but you don't want to pay for it. Unless the NEA is cut, which has exactly nothing to do with any of this.

Your right tY, club is delusional. The UN didn't hand out food when it had the Iraq oil for food money. Why would it do it for no income.

Conf. to Ty; i bet you agreed with the double dribble call onChauncey

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Your right tY, club is delusional. The UN didn't hand out food when it had the Iraq oil for food money. Why would it do it for no income.

Now that Chalabi's fallen out with the neo-cons, have we heard the end of that scandal?

Conf. to Ty; i bet you agreed with the double dribble call on Chauncey

Didn't see it, but I'll say "no" in solidarity with you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I could say the same thing. You want the UN to be handing out more food to African refugees, but you don't want to pay for it. Unless the NEA is cut, which has exactly nothing to do with any of this.

1. I never blamed the UN. I blamed the individuals involved. I don't do group think or group blame.

2. It appears to me from the article that the UN has enough food to give out. It's just that the INDIVIDUALS were using it as sexual currency, rather than humanitarian aid.

3. Cutting the NEA is very relevant to the discussion. The conceptual point is that raising taxes is not necessary to provide foreign humanitarian aid. It is a matter of prioritizing the allocation of our resources. I could have just as easily chosen ethanol subsidies. Would that change your mind?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

In the hopes of distracting us from the spinning of the UN loop before Gatti vanishes into some time vortex, did anyone watch Bush's speech last night? There wasn't much new besides the proposal to bulldoze Abu Ghraib, so I kind of found myself watching Bush's mannerisms more than concentrating on the words he was saying.

I don't know if the strain is getting to him or the military audience wasn't applauding at the right times or what, but he seemed to be more off-balance than usual. For instance what we lefties usually deride as his smirk kind of morphed into an amiable half-smile, almost a "you guys believe me, right?" But the half-smile would come out at weird times, like when he was describing Brahimi's work. And it seemed like he kept leaning over the podium as if to make sure that there were people in the front row and they were paying attention. Did anyone else notice this?

This really isn't a rip-on-Bush's-speaking-style rant; I save those for DU and my repartee with the baggers at the whole foods coop. On the plus side for Bush, I will say that he certainly looks better giving a prepared speech than he does taking inpromptu questions, and his first look away from the teleprompters into the camera for the "we will not fail" line at the end was good theater too. I guess I'm just curious if someone who has watched him more often got the same impression I did.