A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Somehow, though, I bet the kind of Republican who could win in Montana (or, for that matter, lose in Montana) isn't real recognizable to the GOP governing class in Washington.

We have a Texan as President, and a Wyomite as VP. Montana voted for them something like 60% to 39%.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
We have a Texan as President, and a Wyomite as VP. Montana voted for them something like 60% to 39%.

Wyomite? That's confidence. I would have written "A guy from Wyoming."

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
We have a Texan as President, and a Wyomite as VP. Montana voted for them something like 60% to 39%.

Um, I think you and Hank are taking the side details of a mirrored post too literally.

But if you'd prefer to ignore the forest of "bi-partisan cooperation" to focus instead on the individual leaves of voting patterns for Prez in Montana, I can certainly understand that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Um, I think you and Hank are taking the side details of a mirrored post too literally.

But if you'd prefer to ignore the forest of "bi-partisan cooperation" to focus instead on the individual leaves of voting patterns for Prez in Montana, I can certainly understand that.

I'm sorry. To you the important part was the Dems promised to work together with Republicans? You may remember Bush did that in DC until the Dems realized it was time to run someone for President.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
But if you'd prefer to ignore the forest of "bi-partisan cooperation" to focus instead on the individual leaves of voting patterns for Prez in Montana, I can certainly understand that.

It takes a lot of leaves to get to 60% - almost enough for a forest by itself.

(Have you ever watched the parties in the Montana legislature and guv's office . . . umm . . . "cooperate"? This will either be funny, or groundbreaking.)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm sorry. To you the important part was the Dems promised to work together with Republicans?

I was working within the confines of your material, Hank. Try as I might, there was only so much I could do.

You may remember Bush did that in DC until the Dems realized it was time to run someone for President.

We've had this argument before on this board, and as I recall it seemed to revolve around Republican pride in the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind. I'll grant you, repeating and rinsing apparently leads to electoral success, but let's not confuse it with the topic at hand.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I care. I would think in a new country with the $$$ flowing through, that the potential for fraud would be pretty big. So I'm not surprised.

Ty posted the article as part of his ongoing "Boy is Iraq fucked Up" series. His point, near as I can tell, is the US has done a terrible job in Iraq and should have stayed out. I was merely pointing out that with regard to this one topic, the diversion of big $$$, we are at least better off in that it was exposed.

If "well, at least we caught him this time" is your first reaction to hearing that the guy who headed up Iraq's oil coupon sales during the heyday of the oil-for-food program is making large untraceable deposits of Iraqi food money, then Ty must really be getting under your skin. Especially with you being so incensed about the oil-for-food program, and all.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
It takes a lot of leaves to get to 60% - almost enough for a forest by itself.

Well, not in Montana*.











*with races that involve no more than 3,200 aggregate votes, that is.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Jabouri has a notable past with Chalabi, who fired him from his long-held (pre-war) oil post. Jabouri says it was because he refused to deal with oil companies which had helped SH avoid the sanctions

I don't get it. Chalabi supposedly fired someone because he didn't play ball with SH? I realize I don't trust Chalabi as far as I can throw him, so there was probably some other dynamic going on here besides his side of the story, but I don't see any benefit to Chalabi for settling SH's scores.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Wyomite? That's confidence. I would have written "A guy from Wyoming."

Yeah. I'd have gone with "A guy from Dallas."

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Nifty argument. Does this similarly mean that the publicity of the UN scandal constitutes a breath of fresh disenfectant, such that even the Slaves of the world will embrace it as the solution going forward?

The circle is indeed a vicious one.

Nice tie-in.

[bilmore]

Yesterday, I posted satire about the sea-gods being angry at SUV's and Kyoto, and sending the tsunami as punishment.

Today, the NYT runs a serious article about the sea-gods being angry at SUV's and Kyoto, and sending the tsunami as punishment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/op...pagewanted=all

The reality-based community. Uh huh.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Yesterday, I posted satire about the sea-gods being angry at SUV's and Kyoto, and sending the tsunami as punishment.

Today, the NYT runs a serious article about the sea-gods being angry at SUV's and Kyoto, and sending the tsunami as punishment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/op...pagewanted=all

The reality-based community. Uh huh.

You need to up the meds, my man. Or else that link's broke.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
You need to up the meds, my man. Or else that link's broke.

Naw, I just get a kick out of stuff like this:

"In recent decades, thanks largely to the controversial Gaia Theory developed by the British scientists James Lovelock, it has become ever more respectable to consider the planet as one immense and eternally interacting living system--the living planet, floating in space, every part of its great engine affecting every other, for good or for ill.

Mr. Lovelock's notion, which he named after the earth goddess of the Ancient Greeks, makes much of the delicacy of the balance that mankind's environmental carelessness increasingly threatens. But his theory also acknowledges the somber necessity of natural happenings, many of which seem in human terms so tragically unjust, as part of a vast system of checks and balances. The events that this week destroyed the shores of the Indian Ocean, and which leveled the city of Bam [Iran] a year ago, were of unmitigated horror: but they may also serve some deeper planetary purpose, one quite hidden to our own beliefs."

It helps that I see the global warming movement as being mostly Wiccan. I suppose.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I posted the Montana thing because of the obvious irony, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.