Hulver's site || Which is better:

Which is better:

The Constitution	1 vote - 14 %
The seminal lesbian movie: Pink Velvet	6 votes - 85 %
Other - Right On!	0 votes - 0 %

7 Total Votes

The other white meat... | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Non-binding comment by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #1 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:34:48 AM EST

Well, the only choices the Dems have are a non-binding resolution, cutting off funding (a blunt instrument at best), or setting the precedent that a president can be impeached for incompetence. So they did the best they could.

Be careful with the Britney action. Remember, what goes around comes around, karma is a bitch, etc.

Overturning Roe V Wade, on the grounds that it's none of the Federal Govs business, might be a good thing in the long run. All those Republicans who've been calling for outlawing abortion (safe in the knowledge that they couldn't actually do it) would have to put up or shut up. That could give us a moderate Dem (or Rep, but still moderate) majority for quite some time.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}

Nothing was the best they could do???? by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #5 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:07:33 AM EST

A meaningless non-binding do-nothing resolution is the best they can do??? Many of those people are in office because they ran against the war, taking some sort of real action against it is expected. You can't tell me if the shoe was on the other foot the GOP'rs wouldn't have gone in there with all guns blazing. The neocons may be heinous but at least those guys have some stones.

Seriously - pull the plug on funding. Tell Bush he's funded through 08 and after that the plug is pulled. That will force the blockhead to work on some sort of exit strategy and give him time to try to save face.

RE: Roe v Wade. Yeah, overturning it wouldn't ill-legalize abortions, that's true, but that's what he's trying to imply (I'm down with making abortion illegal) by stating that. It's a ploy to kiss up to the religious right which is what I find distasteful and in the end removes him from my short list.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Dude - sepation of powers and all that by cam (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:24:25 AM EST

You cant shred the constitution because you don't like the politics going on. Firstly foreign policy is the domain of the executive, while not concretely constitutionally, by convention and legislation which props up the Department of State - it is. So the power of the purse isn't necessarily for making policy - it is for influencing executive policy. The non-binding resolution is communicating to the president through concrete numbers that the legislative is resolved over their opinion of present policy.

It is like when there was a howling over the 'do nothing congress' when the Republicans were on their way out as a majority in the last months. They did the right thing and acted as a caretaker legislative body and didnt enact any major bills as that was now the responsibility of the Democrat majority. They did the right thing.

If you want to see what happens when a caretaker convention goes bad, have a look at Bangladesh's problems at the moment.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Two Words: by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:30:58 AM EST

Viet Nam.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Meh that is not a good reply by cam (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:05:40 PM EST

I am aware congress used the purse to limit the executive's options in the latter stages of Vietnam, but the reality is they are stepping on the executive's toes. A non-binding resolution communicates to the executive that their policy will come under appropriations/bill/fiscal scrutiny in the future and now might be a good time to change that policy over the next two years.

There are separation of powers issues here and congress is doing it wisely and constitutionally.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Separation of Powers by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:22:33 PM EST

Right. The lack of separation of powers is partially how we got into this mess as the Congress under Bush for the first 6 years was merely a an extension of the WH.

Congress would be doing the will of the people by forcing the issue and cutting funding. The fore-fathers gave them the power of the purse in order to keep the executive branch in check which is what we need right now. It worked in VietNam and it would work today.

Also, I've yet to see an explanation of how the resolution will affect the WH as Bush et.al., doesn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks they should be doing. He's (I'M THE DECIDER) made that clear. As such I view the resolution as a political ploy designed to placate the unwashed masses. 100% total bullocks if you ask me.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Because Bush/Cheney by cam (2.00 / 0) #33 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:01:49 PM EST

have no care for separation of powers this means Congress doesn't have to care about them either? So you would trash a constitutional system so that actions matches your politics?

Congress publicly communicated with the Executive that they don't want to meddle in foreign policy, however the resolution proves there are the numbers in both houses to do so. It is as much testing who much support across party benches there is for this (ie certainty in future bills on this issue) as well communicating to the Administration that they numbers are there.

Sounds to me like you just want a speaker who is just like Bush except wearing a Democratic Party dinner jacket rather than a Republican one.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

you see.... by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #34 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:09:33 PM EST

Bob listens to NPR, and he's just trying to look witty and insightful.

you're really raining on his parade here.

[ Parent ]

: i like the evil stacky. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #53 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 06:15:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #39 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:41:57 PM EST

I don't see it as trashing the constitution. I see it as Congress serving the people. Congress rightfully asserting the power given to them.

Would you prefer they impeach Bush/Cheney?

Also - I heard about it on NPR so I know it's the right thing to do!

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

: Bush got elected two years ago by cam (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:29:25 PM EST

remember, he has as much a reason to serve the people as Congress does. Congress does not have a constitutional duty to do foreign policy. It is best for all concerned if the Executive and Legislative work this out without creating new precedents. The resolution does this. It is a communication, a warning, and a first step that the legislative will make policy in relation to iraq, that they have the numbers to do so, and the constitutional authority to affect that policy through fiscal restrictions.
It is wise on their part and shows greater constitutional awareness from the Democratic leadership than the Republican Executive and former-Legislative leadership.
Beccaria considers that punishment and criminality must be determined by the harm that is done to society as a whole. There is no more harm that can be done to society by an action other than unconstitutional behaviour from the executive/legislative. I am fully in favour of criminal proceedings and imprisonment being brought against any member of the executive/legislative who has done so. It is the most disgusting form of corruption and the most hateful of social criminal acts.
cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

Is that why he wants it overturned? by debacle (2.00 / 0) #45 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:23:06 PM EST

If that's the case, I might vote for the old corpse.

"I'm very responsive to certain stimuli, and pain is pretty much at the top of that list." - BadDoggie

[ Parent ]

"Seminal lesbians"? by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 2) #2 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:54:18 AM EST

What's a seminal lesbian? Is this just your way of saying "tranny" in terms that still allow you to protect your thin alibi of heterosexuality?

Perhaps more importantly, I'm shocked that "tranny" is not considered a valid word by Hulver's spellchecker.

To wit: by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #3 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 09:57:09 AM EST

Seminal: 3. Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development: a seminal idea in the creation of a new theory.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

That's odd. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 1) #6 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:07:59 AM EST

The primary definition from Websters is:

Seminal: 1 : of, relating to, or consisting of seed or semen.

Go fig.

[ Parent ]

: Aye by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:14:36 AM EST

It really is odd.
Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

Seminal: 4. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 4) #7 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:10:17 AM EST

A Florida State University sports team.

--
It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.
[ Parent ]

: 'Nole! by iGrrrl (4.00 / 1) #23 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:10:15 PM EST

'Nole, Damnit!
(says teh FSU grad)

"I don't have time for martial law, I have to get to the gym!" zarathus
[ Parent ]

Baby Jesus goes POW, I Got Illuminated! by Bevets Makes Baby Jesus Cry (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:03:54 AM EST

When I look at McCain's new gambit for irrelevance, I have two thoughts:

Even I am more in touch with the American people than this joker.
Or maybe not. Maybe he knows the sad truth: that we Americans really are a bunch of desperately savage, hopelessly ignorant, irredeemable rednecks.

Which, come to think of it, might explain our obsession with Britney. And her plan to revive past glory.

: Ook. Ook. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 02:31:26 PM EST

My mom watchs NASCAR, you insensitive clod!
She was actually explaining to me why the cheating scandal didn't matter as we were driving up to the hospital on Sunday.

--
It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.
[ Parent ]

Bob, Bob, Bob by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #9 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:19:02 AM EST

It's gonna take years for that scar to lighten. Think about it first.

General rules are: All skirts no lower then [sic] two inches below the knee (unless it's for Church) --Travis Frey

We don't have years at the rate she's going by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #10 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:30:34 AM EST

She going to hit the wall and hit it hard before she see's 30. Then it's going to be a major downward spiral from there. Cruise by your local trailer park if you want to see what that's like.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

: Maybe you can hit her on the upswing by debacle (2.00 / 0) #46 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:25:01 PM EST

Like Madonna with all of that plastic surgery.
"I'm very responsive to certain stimuli, and pain is pretty much at the top of that list." - BadDoggie

[ Parent ]

The c-section by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:01:51 PM EST

or those other scars on her wrists ?

[ Parent ]

Row vs Wade by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #11 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:35:23 AM EST

Maybe it would be funny living in a country with babies crawling around everywhere.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

But .... by Herring (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 10:52:54 AM EST

those who can afford it will travel to where abortion is legal. So really it's only banning abortion for poor people so that's OK.

Actually, even if RvW was overturned, would it not then be up to individual states to legislate?

When my grandfather became ill, my grandmother rubbed goose-fat into his back. He went downhill quite quickly after that. - Milton Jones
[ Parent ]

Yes, it would by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #13 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:08:13 AM EST

IIRC, close to half of them had already legalized abortion before Roe v Wade. That decision energized and politicized the right wing evangelicals. Leaving it up to the states arguably would have resulted in the US being a good deal less right wing, politically, over the past 30 years or so.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

: Leaving more things to the states by debacle (2.00 / 0) #47 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:26:28 PM EST

Would turn the US into a sane, normal state rather than the stupid polarized shit of whatever the hell it is now.
"I'm very responsive to certain stimuli, and pain is pretty much at the top of that list." - BadDoggie

[ Parent ]

feh by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:50:52 AM EST

abortion has been around as long as prostitution.

you think some silly little law is going to stop it?

[ Parent ]

It wont stop it by Herring (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:55:07 AM EST

Might stop the less well off getting it safely though. The stat I have heard is that 70,000 women die every year from botched back-street abortions. There seem to be some people who wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if they made that number higher.

When my grandfather became ill, my grandmother rubbed goose-fat into his back. He went downhill quite quickly after that. - Milton Jones
[ Parent ]

what i fear by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:27:41 PM EST

is criminalizing it.

do we really need to fill up our already-full jails with women whose only crime is abortion?!

[ Parent ]

MEAT IS MURDER!!!! by clock (2.00 / 0) #27 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:33:44 PM EST

no / steak

_{Clock is right. [nt] --vorheesleatherface}

[ Parent ]

I DON'T EAT MY FRIENDS! by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #29 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:35:20 PM EST

except that one time in college....

[ Parent ]

: oh stop it. by clock (2.00 / 0) #30 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:45:11 PM EST

no (more)/trysts

_{Clock is right. [nt] --vorheesleatherface}

[ Parent ]
: Mmmmm. Long Pork. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #32 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:56:59 PM EST

The other other other white meat.

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

well that's easy by alprazolam (4.00 / 1) #37 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:38:49 PM EST

we'll just create privatized prisons with no governmental oversight to house these deviant women and let the free market dictate how they're treated.

[ Parent ]

you want to pull a Jay and Silent Bob by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #38 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:41:02 PM EST

and go for the women having abortions because you know they put out!

[ Parent ]

HYPOCRITE by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #40 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:44:46 PM EST

didn't you just say you wanted to see Brittany in a porn movie ? Well, those private women's prisons, especially the ones run by authoritarian Russian hotties sure do have great security video hilights, or, ahem, at least, so I'm told..

[ Parent ]

: no by StackyMcRacky (2.00 / 0) #41 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 02:03:51 PM EST

i said that i read in another blog that people hope she starts moving towards porn.
:P

[ Parent ]

70,000? by debacle (2.00 / 0) #48 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:27:26 PM EST

I think that number is tainted with shit, because someone pulled it straight from their ass.

"I'm very responsive to certain stimuli, and pain is pretty much at the top of that list." - BadDoggie

[ Parent ]

: That's worldwide by Herring (2.00 / 0) #49 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 02:30:12 AM EST

Story or just google.

When my grandfather became ill, my grandmother rubbed goose-fat into his back. He went downhill quite quickly after that. - Milton Jones
[ Parent ]

as i read in another blog comment by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #17 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:51:20 AM EST

the best hope for Brit now is that she really does hit rock-bottom, and move to porn.

: Soft porn isn't too far away by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:04:49 PM EST

She would have to lose her fortune before she would ever turn to hard-core porn, unless she gets strung out on smack or some other substance that alters your ability to cogitate very well.
That said - I imagine a soft-porn movie (or maybe a Paris Hilton "secret" movie) could fit in the picture in a few years in a vainglorious attempt to get some attention. I just hope she doesn't look too sloppy before that goes down, so to speak.
Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

nancy-boys eating their own by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:05:00 PM EST

From washpost, Rusty's money buddy and all around idiot that gets more air time than he deserves, Kos, rants about moderate dems. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001575.html

Cheeze, give a few morons a web page, and they are authoritative sources for all things political now. Reminds me of that monkeys/keyboard dealie. Left is going over a cliff, and prolly deserves it as much as the right winger rubes.

: As I said yesterday by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #28 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:34:04 PM EST

when I diarized about it:
Once again, the left is demonstrating how Dubya could get elected President. Twice. Kos and MoveOn are idiots. Yeah, this politician isn't perfect, so let's go all out to ensure that someone even less good, but running as a Republican, gets elected!

Earth First!
_{(We can strip mine the rest later.)}
[ Parent ]

a centrist? by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:30:29 PM EST

Well okay, I'll bite. Since you've shown the left side of your views, what is the radical right view, that pushes you back into the middle?

--
Click

Aye by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #36 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:32:57 PM EST

Don't confuse my serious distaste for the savagely incompetent Republican President et. al., as me being a pot-smoking tree-hugging Volvo driving hippie.

As I've stated before - I'm all for small governemt, for government staying out the the private lives of the citizens, for fiscal responsibility etc etc. You know, the stuff the right USED to stand for.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

: tell me by dev trash (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 06:15:52 PM EST

You'll be 35 by 2008 and we'll run as a team to take back America

--
Click
[ Parent ]

And, as a bonus, by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #31 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 12:54:45 PM EST

their "ethics reform" turns out to still allow the same kind of things that Delay was doing.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/02/20/PM200702205.html

--
It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.

: Aye by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #35 Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 01:26:57 PM EST

They had to make a few "compromises" to get it pushed through. These skeeving lechers are all the same for the most part, well, except for Kucinich.
Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

McCain by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #50 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 10:40:46 AM EST

McCain is a fucking sell out. In 2000 he was a centrist on the Straight Talk Express . In 2004 he took his seat on the BushCo Buslines. He sold out his base to get Bush's base with an endorsement in 2008. When Mr McCain endorsed Bush in 2004 and made cozey with the fucktards in the Administration it was obvious that it was for political advancement in 2008. I didn't expect him to endorse Kerry, but he certainly could have avoided the Bush endorsement and whole hearted cock sucking of 2007. "I'm voting for the Republican." God damn sell out. I'm glad he won't be available in 2012 since he's about to get his ass handed to him again in 2008.

Agree 100% by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #51 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:33:31 AM EST

The mystery to me is why anyone would want to hitch themselves to Bush's waggon given his abysmal approval ratings and the public showing of disapproval by voting largely for Democrats in the 06 elections. His chief advisers must have some wicked secret plan that isn't obvious to me.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob
[ Parent ]

: Poor political judgement by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #52 Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 12:37:33 PM EST

I think McCain was watching too much Fox TV and was thinking Bush was more popular than he is. Especially among non-warmonging hate mongers.

[ Parent ]

The other white meat... | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: